Range vs IQ: advice to make the move or not

Long time reader, first time poster in need of some advice here.
Long post, please bear with me.

First, I have to say I'm an amateur with a passion for photography since I was 14 (already 20 years ago), I don't earn money with photography but together with sim-racing, it is my only hobby in which I can/want/will invest vast amounts of time. (My wife should be in this list somewhere too I guess  )

I currently have a 60D and a Canon 18-200 that came with the camera. As a frequent traveller (avg 3/year) I was recommended this lens with the argument "not a good idea to change lenses in areas with volcanic dust", meaning Tenereife, a volcanic island where we go hiking every odd year. Now, for normal prints this combo is ok and I have no real issues with the quality of these prints. But some larger sized posterprints I made through the years are a bit more soft than I would like them to be. Also suffering from the pixel-peeping syndrome, I am constantly reminded that the 18-200 is and always will be a compromise lens (range vs IQ).

Because my "hotspots" in my shot images is at the wide end (landscapy shots and architectural) as well as around the tele end (details, motorsport and wildlife), I'm contemplating buying a Canon 15-85 paired with a Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS. This mainly because of the pixel-peeping syndrome and an oncoming 3week roadtrip through the US in august (I'm European so that's quite a big deal).

Bottomline is that I'm torn between learning to live with it or to invest in better glass.
So here's where I could use some advice.

Note: I do not mind carrying the extra weight and my backpack is suited for multiple lenses (2 large and 2 small + 1 body) so that is not an issue.

1. Are there other people out there that also have pixel-peeping syndrone in a similar situation as me ? Did you learn to live with the compromise or did you upgrade and never looked back ?

2. Now I'm a multi-lens-noob so to speak, I never really used a two-lens combo before (a 18-200 and a nifty-fifty in my case doesn't really count) so I'm wondering if changing lenses will become a hassle over time ? I mean, let's say, using the combo mentionned above, I'm shooting some landscape shots with the 15-85 when all of a sudden there's a gorgeous scene waiting to be shot at about 170mm but won't be there for more than 10 minutes. Switch lens, take the shot, 5 minutes later, you need to go wide again...

Do you guys perfect a lens-swap technique so you can do it with your eyes closed and you won't even mind swapping, or is it all about effectively making a decision lens-wise and sticking with it.

Many thanks in advance.

... Is a privilege... Pixel peeping is a disease. I would only question whether 15mm is wide enough, check out some images with the 10-22 and similar ultra wide lenses. The 70-200 is a very useful range, I don't know about that Sigma in particular but my Canon f4 non IS is great.

DerNos wrote:

But some larger sized posterprints I made through the years are a bit more soft than I would like them to be. Also suffering from the pixel-peeping syndrome, I am constantly reminded that the 18-200 is and always will be a compromise lens (range vs IQ).

Why are your poster prints soft? Is it the lens? Is it your technique? Do you use a solid tripod and tripod head? Do you use a remote release? Do you use mirror lock up? Do you know how to sharpen properly in processing? Do you shoot RAW? Do you use a cheap filter on the lens? Do you use a lens hood? These are just some of the things you need to consider before blaming the lens...

I'm relatively new to DSLRs, and like you take 2-3 nice trips each year.  This year it is Costa Rica and Italy.  As travel photos are my main interest, and having $$ constraints, I settled on a 3 lens set for my T3.  I have a Sigma 10-20 for landscape, a Sigma 17-70 Contemporary for general use, and a Canon 70-300 DO telephoto zoom for distance or wildlife.  I am quite happy with that combo.  Don't mind changing lenses for a good shot, and all 3 are reasonably light in my back pack.  Would like to upgrade body to 18mp though (60D/T4I ?).  IS on all but the wide angle is a must for me, as seldom have a trpod when travelling.  If hiking, sometimes use a monopod & ballhead that doubles as a walking stick.

Enoy your upcomng US tour.

@ photosen
I did consider an UW lens but budget-wise that would mean dropping the 15-85 for a 10-22, so I'm forced to keep using my current 18-200 for the hole in the 22-70 range.

At the moment I'm limited to 18mm at the wide end and when that is not wide enough I resort to panos which works quite well for me, hence the preference for the 15-85. That being said, I do concur with your statement so an UW is still on my wishlist for the future.

As for the swapping lenses being a privilege, can I interpret that as : put on the lens you need and swap if necessary, because you can ? So basically, you are recommending a multi-lens combo if I cannot get a cure for my pixel-peeping illness ?

@ biza43
I do use a tripod (with backpack hook on the center shaft for added weight/stability) for most landscape/archi pictures and sometimes in other cases. A remote release trigger is permanently attached to the tripod with the jack-end, leaving about 1.5meters of wire to the controlbox. Mirror lockup is used for all long exposure tripod images but rarely for fast shutter (1/80 or faster) images. I do shoot in RAW and I don't have any filters on my lens but do use the hood at all times.

The images lack some overall sharpness (when pixel-peeping) so the larger prints will lack sharpness too, something that is not all that visible on small prints. I can only sharpen them to a certain degree in PP before they become unnatural-looking if you know what I mean. Maybe this is a inability of me personally to do it right ?

I tested the sigma 70-200 in the shop with my body together with my 18-200 for reference. If I recall correctly, both tested at f8 (sweetspot of the 18-200), same focal length/iso etc and scene. Where my 18-200 had quite heavy CA in the corners and slight overall softness, the sigma clearly had a better IQ (lot less CA and much sharper across the board). So I really do think - at least part of - the softness is lens-related. I would love to show you the testshots for comparison but I seemed to only have copied them to a temp folder.

With this info, maybe you could share some more of your personal insight and maybe my errors in my thought-process about this move to a multi-lens combo ?

@ 2esetters
I think your tip about having a monopod that doubles as a walking stick is a very good idea. Something to think about as we regularly do day-hikes during our holidays. Thanks!

@ all: I thank the three of you for your unput.