Or to put it another way....I guess I am just being self centered and thinking about what I want:) Personally I could care less about superzooms, I would like to see reviews for the pro line of lenses:) I guess maybe someone new to photography that doesn't know much and wants to spend their money wisely would like this review.

I'm glad that you are amused, unlike some others that have no sense of humor and get completely bent out of shape when confronted with brutal reality. Now if I could only find a lens that doesn't blur half the faces in my group shots..............

"brutal reality" LOL When I first began researching DSLRs years ago I'd read comments from "experts" such as yourself and just get confused. Should I listen to what this guy has to say, he's so dam critical of lenses/cameras that others think are pretty decent. I finally realized "reviews" such as yours are more about the reviewer than about the product being reviewed.

I do not agree with either of these points. People will want to know about these compromises, the Nikon 18-300 is already worlds apart, and pricing is far from proportional to performance. They put values in different things. What then, you ask ? Read the review !

OK, great to hear you won't be buying one and we're all just tickled pink that you let us know that. Thanks a bunch!

"the Nikon 18-300 is already worlds apart."

Sure is. It costs almost $600 more than this Sigma lens here, I believe.

You have mastered the internets, congratulations !

AP7 - Expensive lens does = better lens...usually...so yes you are right. My point was this....if I'm spending $2400 on a lens like the Zeiss 15mm ZE, I obviously have much higher demands than if I am buying a cheap zoom. If I want a cheap zoom I already know the compromises I am making, I just buy one, no review needed.

If I am buying a $2400 lens I read reviews to make sure I am buying the absolute best lens I can. Sorry you cannot comprehend this.

And I bet the next new f1.8 prime is a little soft wide open with a bit of CA and vignetting, but sharpens up like a razor by f2.8. So should they skip those reviews?

Plenty of f/1.8 are very sharp wide open. resolution is not the only thing or most serious thing wrong with super zooms. terrible bokeh distortion CA's and just and overall unpleasing look to the image (color/contrast). You really show your ingorance when you compare the IQ issues very fast lenses experince wide open to the complete junkiness that is a superzoom

Actually tkbslc makes a good point. Most lenses, even some high end professional models, exhibit this same resolution curve where they are softer wide open and sharpen up across the frame 2 stops from wide open. Should DPR stop testing all lenses.

I would also not call ALL superzooms "junk" as a some like the Nikon 18-200 are quite decent performers. I mainly use primes for the faster max aperture but it's a bit snobbish to say all such zooms are junk.

I agree. My "travel" lens is a 24-105 f4 L series Canon - which is the lens I use most of the time anyway.

That said, the quality of the Sigma seems pretty impressive - and I'm sure will find wide acceptance as a general purpose APS-C zoom - travel or otherwise.

Some people simply travel to see places, that should be good enough of a goal already. It'd be a shame if you get caught up in your gear so much that you only realize what you've actually seen when you're back home looking at your monitor. Then you might as well have googled the place.

I think noirdesir and M Jesper have a point: Knowing full well that most of the people surrounding me are more interested in capturing a moment away from home (a memory) than creating gorgeous photos (art - yeah, fine line, I know), I can understand the allure of the DSLR equivalent of the super zoom lens.

Another way of looking at it (and Kai at DigitalRev put it well): Who wants to lug a bunch of equipment around on vacation trying to get perfect photos when you're supposed to be enjoying yourself? Heck, a more technologically savvy co-worker just asked me what P&S camera he should buy before he goes on a cruise with his wife - and I know that man owns a D90 and some seriously expensive glass that he has put to good use for publication purposes. Sometimes, convenience trumps quality.

Lastly, and I say this will all due kindness (and I've said this before): If you can't justify the purchase in your head, it's not for you.

One isn't getting caught up in gear over looking at things. That's completely untrue. If anything, a photographer who is interested in a great image, is probably looking at things way more clearly and deeply than any non-photographer super zoom travel lens toting user might be.

If convenience really trumps IQ, good. So be it. Get a good compact camera and have done with it. There is nothing more convenient whatsoever is there?

I really think it's a matter of passion for photography and the love of seeing what's around you and creating images of what you see rather than going on some tour with 50 people on a bus. If that passion is gone. Ok. Just admit it. Don't try to pawn off something like this lens as a reasonable tool for good photography because you're not "lugging" around a lot of weight.

I think this whole Travel Lens nonsense is just that. If you really cared about image quality, then carry two small, high quality primes. You're in for a smaller overall size and weight.

This review was very useful. It confirmed al my prejudices. please test more blooperzooms, so I won't be tempted to buy them.

It isn't a question of those who buy them but those who are thinking about buying them. They're better than they used to be. Some day they might be "good enough."

If I super zoom is as good as a kit 18-55mm and 55-250mm. I could see many people buying one and selling the two kit lenses.

There are a huge number of photographers who not only struggle to carry their camera gear along with everything else they need, but also struggle to even feed their families and pay their bills. Why should these people not get quality information about lenses like this that expand their possibilities while allowing them to do what they love? Just because your wallet is fatter they should be excluded? Give me a break.

Try www.reidreviews.com, and maybe leave this site to us plebs?

If they're truly struggling to feed their families, maybe a $150 P & S with a long zoom range instead of $600 for a dSLR and another $550 for a superzoom would be a wiser investment, no?

@ meanwhile
If you are that hard up, why are you even buying a DSLR and lenses. Get an all in one P&S camera with fixed superzoom. Much cheaper.

"Meanwhile", me thinks you're making up a bunch of silly poorly thought out nonsense. If you have made the tradeout for convenience over quality images, just admit it. These super ratio zooms generally cost well more than a twin lens solution. It has nothing to do with poverty. You've been given a break. Think it over and try again.

@meanwhile Your comment has helped me discover a personal failing. It seems I am incapable of rolling my eyes sufficiently far back to express what nonsense I think your comment is. Frankly the absurdity of dragging class politics and sensitivity for the handicapped into a discussion about what camera lens should or should not be reviewed boggles the mind.

I want to point some things out.

1. I said nothing when the virst lens deamed wothy of a review was a superzoom. I waited for it to be the first two lenses to be reviewed.

2. Superzooms are expensive. Unless you buy that a lenses appropriateness for different photographs is only determined focal length therefore a superzoom is for all types of photography, then a super zoom is $$$ lens that is good for a very limited type of photography. 50mm primes are cheaper and also more versatile.
3. there really isnt that much difference between one SZ and another and that is why i find the 2 first reviews being of them annoying

Oh, I guess it was the "struggle to carry their camera gear" part. More along the lines of - kids to wrangle, suitcase to carry, nappy bag to take already, etc - as well as carrying their camera gear.

Maybe struggling to feed their family was hyperbolic. How about "doesn't make six figures", or "doesn't have a huge amount left after their bills are paid". It's not rocket science.

Thank you Guidenet for the benefit of the doubt.

Can I, can I?! =) Please Olympus 60mm macro, 17/1.8 and 75/1.8
Also Fuji 18-55mm if you can, Sir =)

I think the Nikon superzoom review was useful to establish a baseline, but I kind of agree that I'd like to see a more "serious" lens reviewed next. I mean, people either already know that superzooms are mediocre (at best) performers or they just don't care.

Seems to me there have been some great, or at least very intriguing, lenses released in the last 2-3 years. Nikon alone has released some great primes, and I'm not a Canon man but they've refreshed their line-up as well. Or even a review of the inexpensive Samyang line-up would be very helpful.

How about a group review of all the 50mm F1.4's?

Barney, DPR's reviews are great and you guys do a good job, but like others, super ratio zooms for APS-C cameras are not really important to many people here. There are some novice photographers who shoot this type lens and even some more seasoned people who will give up IQ for convenience, but most people who love photography websites are a bit more passionate about image quality.

I agree that any zoom is somewhat of a compromise, but I think most of use would prefer to stick to 2x, 3x and maybe even to 5x ratios at the most to preserve as much quality as we can.

I'm certain I'm in the minority also because I'd like to see reviews of some prime lenses. Maybe a good roundup of 85 f/1.4 glass or primes between 24mm and 35mm would be fun. How about APS-C 35 f/1.8 to f/2.8 under $250 glass.

I'd also like to see how well Nikon's 16-35 stacks up against others of similar length.

Just a thought and you did ask. :-)

Thanks for the excellent review. Superzooms have their place. Sometimes just "getting the shot" is the priority over perfect technical quality. No apologies from me for using a SZ when appropriate.

The 18-55mm F2.8-4 on the Fuji X-E1 would be most interesting !

Barney, I think a review of a mirror-less cam lens would be great and my suggestion would be any one of the Samsung NX primes, especially since you haven't tested any Samsung lenses yet.