Best ONE lense for travel

I am going on a 2 month tour of SE asia pretty soon and I am thinking hard about my camera setup. I'm new to the SLR world (just 6 months) and would like some advice on what kind of lense would be best for my trip and beyond. I have a a200 and the kit lense (18-70) and a minlota 50mm 1.7.

I'm worried about size and weight and have it in my head that I would like to just bring one lense (comments?). I've been thinking about the sony 18-250 and the 16-105. 18-250 seems super versatile in total range but the 16-105 is wider and maybe sharper. Because I've never used a lense beyond 70mm I am unsure of when that would be useful, this makes it hard to quantify the advantages of the 18-250.

Possible relevant factors:

• I'm open to any advice in general but keep in mind that the budget will only allow for one lense purchase for now.
• I'm moving to British Colombia directly after my trip and will probably be taking quite a lot of mountain/scenery shots.

Thanks,
-rb

I'm pretty new to the SLR world (just 6 months) and I'm looking to buy a len

I think you'd be better served by the sharpness and larger aperture of, for instance, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 18-50/2.8, than the longer focal length of either the 18-250 or the 16-105.

.......like you I've been thinking about a walkabout lens for the 350 and thought on the 18-250 till I seen this post...
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=32088911

unless it is just an issue for 700 that is...so interested to see peoples experience and opinions on other walkabout lens options.
--
greg.
still somewhere on the learning curve..........but loving every minute !

albums
a350/a700 - http://hipflask.smugmug.com/
fz50 - http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/hipflaskorama

I have the 18-250 and the 16-80 and while the 16-80 is clearly the better lens, if I can really only take one lens on a longer trip, I would always take the 18-250. While the additional 2mm on the wide side are nice, I more often find myself wanting to close in on subjects, so I'd miss the longer tele way more.

I don't think you can do better than the Sony or Tamron 18-250 for an all-purpose, lightweight travel lens. I used my Sony 18-250 for about two-thirds of my shots when I toured Alaska last year. It's wide focal range is extremely handy, and you are bound to encounter something on your trip that will require a longer focal length than 105mm. It's also not bad for close-ups of flowers, etc. I also have the Tamron 17-50/2.8, and it's indeed a very good lens--but in my opinion too short for many purposes. Pick one up when you get to BC.

Do not leave your 50/1.7 at home! It's small and light and will not overburden you. You need to keep in mind that both the 18-250 and the 16-105 are fairly slow lenses. You'll want the speed of the 50/1.7 for low-light, evening and indoor shots, such as in museums. It's also much more compact on your camera than the 18-250 for times when you might want to appear less obtrusive with your equipment.

Don't know how much it rains in China, but I always travel with a package of Op/Tech Rainsleeves to protect my camera from rain, snow or dust. They are quite inexpensive and each package contains two rainsleeves.

Have a nice trip!

Andy

P.S. In more than a year of using the 18-250, I have never experienced anything like the "blue photo" problem mentioned in an above post.

Considering how many people own this lens and how few have actually experienced this issue - I really wouldn't worry about it.

The 18-250 is a tremendous range for a travel zoom and I would buy it in a heartbeat if I was going on a long trip where travelling light is essential.

I have the 16-105mm and Sigma 17-70mm and from an IQ and AF perspective they are better than the 18-250mm - at least from the comparisons I've seen.

However for a one lens solution on a trip - you really can't beat the 18-250mm.

So that's what I would get if I was you.
--
Never bite the Apple...

Ronni

http://www.pbase.com/ronnihansen

Get the 18 -250mm. You'll probably relish that range for some shots that you just can't get close enough for. Great solution for a one lense trip. But as mentioned in the post above; dont leave the 50mm at home.
--
Glenn

I'm kinda partial to video, but I'm hangin!

I would prefer to take a CZ 16-80 and the 70-300G .

But since your choices are between the 18-250 and the 16-105, I recommend the 18-250 as an all purpose lens. Just be aware that focusing on the A200 can be slow in less than bright conditions. Once I was on a riverboat ride in China and it was great being able to take wide angle pictures and without changing lenses, quickly zoom in on something I saw that was interesting to me.

ryan brown said:

I'm worried about size and weight and have it in my head that I would
like to just bring one lense (comments?). I've been thinking about
the sony 18-250 and the 16-105. 18-250 seems super versatile in total
range but the 16-105 is wider and maybe sharper. Because I've never
used a lense beyond 70mm I am unsure of when that would be useful,
this makes it hard to quantify the advantages of the 18-250.

Possible relevant factors:

• I'm open to any advice in general but keep in mind that the budget

will only allow for one lense purchase for now.

• I'm moving to British Colombia directly after my trip and will

probably be taking quite a lot of mountain/scenery shots.

Click to expand...

I bought this lens with my A300, and never used the kit lens. I keep the 18-250 on the camera probably 75% of the time, and on trips, closer to 90% of the time. There simply is no comparison for convenience, range, and size, and the image quality ranges from quite good to excellent in a wide variety of situations. I've shot long exposure night shots, landscapes, portraits, wildlife shots, closeups and macros, high ISO low light, stage, and flash with it, and though it may not be the best lens available for each situation, the fact that it can cover that type of range and diversity with solid and reliable results is what sells the lens.

I've gone on 2 cruises, and 6 Disney trips with my 18-250, and have shot over 10,000 frames in a year and a few months...it hasn't let me down.

I'd agree you might consider bringing the 50 F1.7 too, since it is so small and easy to travel with - the ability to shoot in very low light will likely prove useful. When I travel, I use the 18-250 primarily, and had the 50mm F1.7 to back it up for special situations (now replaced with the Sigma 30 F1.4 for that purpose).

My Tamron 200-500 is for wildlife and birding, so usually doesn't come out on vacation trips very often...especially where weight and size are concerned, because it's a big one!

--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

Don't think twice... get the 18-250mm

The issues here are really related to those that got discussed in my recent post on the Olympus Pen. Given the size/weight of an APS-C or FF camera, taking them when travelling, especially on planes, is now a significant issue. If you need a one lens solution, they are still a pretty hefty package and of course the bigger range you cram into that one lens, the bigger the package. And those all in one lenses become compromises that start to take you away from the advantages you gained in getting a large size dslr in the first place.

It all depends on what you photograph. For my needs. I'm likely to be happy to just blow up the centre of the frame to get the tele end. For low light I can increase ISO or shutter time. Because of the way I like to shot, WA is likely to be more useful and unless the lens can get the shot, there is no way around this. ie, you can overcome tele and low light situations with some compromises in quality, but there is no way to overcome lack of WA. (Actually there is, I sometimes stitch shots, but it depends in the subject matter as to whether this is possible). I also like small details and so my one lens solution will have good macro capabilities. This combination leads me to choosing between Sony 16-105, CZ 16-80 or Sigma 17-70. The macro capability of the Sigma decides the issue for me, but your needs might be different. If wildlife photography is your thing when travelling, then a longer focal length is logical.

But ultimately, I want a smaller format interchangeable lens system for travelling. In the past I always had second film cameras like Olympus Pen ft; Olympus XA-!; Rollei 35S to cover this need and often carried a couple of these, one loaded B&W and one colour.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

it's the ultimate travel lens. The range is phenomenal, IQ is very similar to the 17-70, 16-105, and even the 16-80. Focus speed is not the greatest, but once within range, it keeps up just fine. Close focus distance is also excellent. If you can squeeze a 50mm 1.7 into your kit, you're set for pretty much anything.

--
Keith
http://keithinsp.smugmug.com/
http://www.pbase.com/themitty/
http://www.picasaweb.google.com/themitty

--
A700 & A100 w/ SAL 18-250 / KM 28-75 2.8 / KM 50mm 1.7, 3600HS / HVL-F58AM
828 / 717 / u20 / canon s45 / canon sd10 / nikon 2500

Tamron (or Sony) 18-250mm.

--

Gotta go 18-250 if most of your shots will be outside or in good light. It has a pretty good reputation for a lens of its type and can do a credible with a wide variety of subjects.

I have a Sigma 18-125mm/3.5-5.6 which a really like.
If I am to only bring one lens, this is the one.

I have many other lenses, including several f/2.8 lenses, and I have owned a lot of lenses during the years. But this is actually one that keeps amazing me

It is actually pretty good, way better than the kit lens and offers a good range.

I like it so much that I have suggested it for a couple of my colleagues, they bought it, and also adores this lens.

However I must admit I have never tried the 18-250mm
--
http://www.gustavjensen.com

... there'll be a lot of pictures you can't take, or they won't be as good as you'd want them.

If you only bring one lens, why bother with an SLR? Why not get a hyperzoom bridge or compact instead? A Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX1A seems to me to be more practical. At the wide end it is equal to the 18-250 mm, and at the tele end it's at least twice as "long". A Canon PowerShot SX1 IS or a Nikon Coolpix P90 could be an alternative, and they all have stabilisation.

I totally agree that going with a one lense solution defeats the purpose of the DSLR system. The ability of good lenses for different purposes and interchangebility makes DSLR the preferred choice over the prosumer superzooms.

For travel purpose, I feel you need 3 basic lenses.

A low light lenses like the 17-50mm F2.8. You will be taking indoor pictures at dinners and occasions, in museums, caves, events, etc. You may not need the reach but the lowlight capability helps.

A general purpose superzoom like the 18-250mm when switching lenses is not so practical or convenient(rapidly changing need for different range, or in bad environment like rain or dust or on excursions like whale watching, hiking, etc).

A high quality longer reach lense like 70-300G for capturing special interest images.

Most photographers travelling can manage with a body, 3 lenses and a flash unit without too much problem.

The Nikon Coolpix P90 is made by the same Chinese company that manufactures almost identical versions sold as Kodak EasyShare Z980 and Pentax X70.