Lens question?

I have a canon rebel eos t3 dslr.

Recommendations for an all purpose lens for off the ship and won't have to switch it out?

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/18-300mm-f35-63-dc-macro-os-hsm-c

This is a good "walk-around lens". Gives you good reach.

I am happy with my Tamron 18 - 270 as a walk around lens.

Regardless of what lens you choose, when your cruise is over come back to post up some pictures.

Regardless of what lens you choose, when your cruise is over come back to post up some pictures.

Will do!

Heading to Aruba, Columbia, Panama canal and Costa Rica in April!

18-200+ is a real walk around

Every lens is a tradeoff in some way, and you get what you pay for. A Rebel T3 doesn't have good performance at higher ISOs, so you need to weigh whether you're better off with a "faster" lens that probably has less zoom range, or if a wider zoom range (most likely at the "expense" of less aperture) suits your fancy. Most of the 18-200s are reasonable; the 18-270s are likely best if you have good sunlight for the vast majority of your photos.

Every lens is a tradeoff in some way, and you get what you pay for. A Rebel T3 doesn't have good performance at higher ISOs, so you need to weigh whether you're better off with a "faster" lens that probably has less zoom range, or if a wider zoom range (most likely at the "expense" of less aperture) suits your fancy. Most of the 18-200s are reasonable; the 18-270s are likely best if you have good sunlight for the vast majority of your photos.

This.

The 18-200+ lenses make so many compromises, that you end up getting iPhone image quality. So it turns the dSLR into a big heavy iPhone but with a large zoom range.

This.

 

The 18-200+ lenses make so many compromises, that you end up getting iPhone image quality. So it turns the dSLR into a big heavy iPhone but with a large zoom range.

Interesting.

Have been using Nikkor 18-200mm and then the latest version of the 18-300mm for years with excellent results, to include several published images from a safari. The 18-300mm connected to the D7200 (use this instead of a 3-number body for weight considerations) provides 27-450mm equivalent. Prefect for getting the two orcas with heads out of the water eyeing a seal for dinner. Images from this combination easily blow up to 20-24inches and larger.

Interesting.

 

Have been using Nikkor 18-200mm and then the latest version of the 18-300mm for years with excellent results, to include several published images from a safari. The 18-300mm connected to the D7200 (use this instead of a 3-number body for weight considerations) provides 27-450mm equivalent. Prefect for getting the two orcas with heads out of the water eyeing a seal for dinner. Images from this combination easily blow up to 20-24inches and larger.

Yes, it is much much greater zoom range than you can get our of an iphone. But the image quality is similar (you can now get publishable results out of the newest iphones with good enough light. -- A magazine cover shot with an iphone: http://mashable.com/2017/02/16/billboard-magazine-cover-shot-with-iphone-7-plus-portrait-mode/#iDAYAWbLKqqT )

Any camera, and any lens, including any new smart phone, can take great images when you have enough light. Light is more important than everything else in the world combined. But the Nikon 18-300 lens has a maximum aperture of 5.6 or 6.3 at the long end (depending on which version) -- That is a horribly slow lens. Means if the light starts to get challenging..... and especially if you are trying to shoot fast action in challenging light, the lens will be useless.

Furthermore, such a lens design results in absolutely tremendous distortion -- the 18-300 has nearly 5% distortion on the wide end and 2% on the long end.

Finally, based on DXOMark testing, on the D7100/7200, it is really only resolving about 9mp of detail. So only resolving 9 out of 24 possible megapixels.. that is rather soft. Beyond 200mm, it is even worse.

You can get a sense of the resolution here:

http://www.lenstip.com/426.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_18-300_mm_f_3.5-6.3G_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html

As you can see, they define "decent" has over 37-39 lpmm (lines per millimeter)... The center of the image reaches that mark, but the edges aren't even close.

Yes, it is much much greater zoom range than you can get our of an iphone. But the image quality is similar (you can now get publishable results out of the newest iphones with good enough light. -- A magazine cover shot with an iphone:

The optical focal range though is a hugely important metric to consider for a traveler, and there's no possible way for a fixed-lens camera to come close to the ability to achieve good printable results of, say, a boat 20 feet away in a harbor, followed by a closeup of the statue atop a cathedral 200 feet away. Regardless of how much you may feel the zoom lens is a compromise to the 20-24MP DSLR's resolution capabilities, it far exceeds the compromise of a 12MP 1/3" smart phone sensor with a fixed lens trying to photograph an object several hundred feet away. Not to mention the additional advantages of continuous autofocus of a moving subject at 200mm or being able to photograph subjects while traveling ranging from several feet away to several hundred feet away.

Any camera, and any lens, including any new smart phone, can take great images when you have enough light. Light is more important than everything else in the world combined. But the Nikon 18-300 lens has a maximum aperture of 5.6 or 6.3 at the long end (depending on which version) -- That is a horribly slow lens. Means if the light starts to get challenging..... and especially if you are trying to shoot fast action in challenging light, the lens will be useless.

That's a bit exaggerated too - while the lens won't be great due to the slow aperture, the large sensor of a DSLR can overcome the slow aperture quite a bit by still producing decent results at ISO6400, even 12800 on modern sensors - essentially neutralizing the tiny sensor phone with the faster lens spec. Not saying it will be better, or that the DSLR wouldn't be tremendously more useful in low light with a fast lens attached, but to say that the lens becomes useless in low light any moreso than a phone camera would be is a little misleading.

Finally, based on DXOMark testing, on the D7100/7200, it is really only resolving about 9mp of detail. So only resolving 9 out of 24 possible megapixels.. that is rather soft. Beyond 200mm, it is even worse.

Without even getting into the absolutely obtuse and undecipherable 'Perceptual M-pix' score that DXO created to try to simplify MTF charts of lens/camera combinations, which I think has caused more confusion and bad arguments on camera forums than achieving anything useful, it wouldn't be fair to use this P-Mpx score with regards to a DSLR and a superzoom lens without also considering what the 'P-mpx' score would be on an iPhone 7. Of course, DXO doesn't calculate this score for phones, but given how much they drop the score of a lens when going from a full-frame sensor to an APS-C sensor alone, what do you think would be the effect of comparing a 24MP APS-C sensor to a 16MP 1/3" phone sensor? And then calculating in a 3.5mm to 4mm focal length lens with a 6cm diameter to that roughly 6x crop factor? Using the same DXO measurements, the 'P-mpix' measurement would barely be measurable...maybe 2...1?

And taking an overall lens score isn't telling the whole story on the usability of the lens - since not all, and in fact very few, photos people take require edge-to-edge sharpness...on center sharpness is often much more crucial, so a poorly rated lens based on having soft corners wide open doesn't mean it's a poor lens to travel with as it will often be used stopped down, not always used at its widest or longest focal reach, and often not require the ability to render detail in corners.

Just trying to be fair here - what may work for one person may not for another. Clearly, we know you are an avid DSLR shooter, and mirrorless shooter, so I have no reason to worry that you don't understand their worth - but at the same time, you are a strong proponent for using camera phones, sometimes to the degree of dismissing any advantage at all for a crop sensor camera or less than perfect prime lens. While I love my DSLRs and mirrorless, and my fast primes, and great wildlife lenses, and fully accept that a person with a phone or P&S camera can take a lovely shot with barely any discernible difference in good light and average focal reach and distances...I also keep an 18-250mm superzoom lens handy for travel specifically because of that great flexible OPTICAL focal length that lets me take advantage of the good APS-C sensor to shoot subjects both very near and very far without having to carry a bag of lenses, yet with much more usefulness and convenience, and better results, than I could get from a short zoom P&S or a fixed lens camera phone, when it comes to more distant subjects.

The optical focal range though is a hugely important metric to consider for a traveler, and there's no possible way for a fixed-lens camera to come close to the ability to achieve good printable results of, say, a boat 20 feet away in a harbor, followed by a closeup of the statue atop a cathedral 200 feet away. Regardless of how much you may feel the zoom lens is a compromise to the 20-24MP DSLR's resolution capabilities, it far exceeds the compromise of a 12MP 1/3" smart phone sensor with a fixed lens trying to photograph an object several hundred feet away. Not to mention the additional advantages of continuous autofocus of a moving subject at 200mm or being able to photograph subjects while traveling ranging from several feet away to several hundred feet away.

Of course ---- I'm not saying one would be better off using an iphone. In a circumstance like that, there is no replacement for optical zoom. But I am saying, this type of lens is a major compromise, where ultimately your image quality won't be any better than a smart phone. Yes, you will get images that you wouldn't be able to get with a smart phone. But if you are carrying a bit camera, don't you want more than just zoom range, don't you also want better image quality?

That's a bit exaggerated too - while the lens won't be great due to the slow aperture, the large sensor of a DSLR can overcome the slow aperture quite a bit by still producing decent results at ISO6400, even 12800 on modern sensors - essentially neutralizing the tiny sensor phone with the faster lens spec.

Even shooting at the same shutter speed, with the iphone 7... and the faster aperture of it, the image that will require ISO 6400 on the 18-300, you can get with around ISO 800 or lower on the smart phone. Yes, the sensor is much smaller... but the ability to shoot much lower ISO, will end up approximately equating the images. Throw in the tremendous stabilization now in iphones, I can often shoot at ISO 100, where an APS-C dSLR would require ISO 3200-6400. So a modern APS-C sensor may indeed still be decent at ISO 6400 - But still not as good as an iPhone at ISO 100.

Without even getting into the absolutely obtuse and undecipherable 'Perceptual M-pix' score that DXO created to try to simplify MTF charts of lens/camera combinations, which I think has caused more confusion and bad arguments on camera forums than achieving anything useful, it wouldn't be fair to use this P-Mpx score with regards to a DSLR and a superzoom lens without also considering what the 'P-mpx' score would be on an iPhone 7. Of course, DXO doesn't calculate this score for phones, but given how much they drop the score of a lens when going from a full-frame sensor to an APS-C sensor alone, what do you think would be the effect of comparing a 24MP APS-C sensor to a 16MP 1/3" phone sensor? And then calculating in a 3.5mm to 4mm focal length lens with a 6cm diameter to that roughly 6x crop factor? Using the same DXO measurements, the 'P-mpix' measurement would barely be measurable...maybe 2...1?

I suspect the P-mix would be comparable. A smaller sensor has nothing to do with how much of its potential it can achieve. It's the quality of the lens. I don't know precisely how dxo would measure the P-mix of an iphone 7.

But I do know how much potential of the D7200 is being wasted by a super zoom lens. I know that most modern Nikon zooms can achieve 10-15 p-mpix on the D7200, and primes can usually fall in the 13-19p-mpix range. So of course, you are making a sacrifice when you go from a prime down to a zoom, but you are making an even bigger sacrifice when you then go to the super-zoom.

And taking an overall lens score isn't telling the whole story on the usability of the lens - since not all, and in fact very few, photos people take require edge-to-edge sharpness...on center sharpness is often much more crucial, so a poorly rated lens based on having soft corners wide open doesn't mean it's a poor lens to travel with as it will often be used stopped down, not always used at its widest or longest focal reach, and often not require the ability to render detail in corners.

Agreed.. but it is in these other areas where super zoom lenses fall down even more. Poor distortion, unnecessarily heavy, etc.

Just trying to be fair here - what may work for one person may not for another. Clearly, we know you are an avid DSLR shooter, and mirrorless shooter, so I have no reason to worry that you don't understand their worth - but at the same time, you are a strong proponent for using camera phones, sometimes to the degree of dismissing any advantage at all for a crop sensor camera or less than perfect prime lens. While I love my DSLRs and mirrorless, and my fast primes, and great wildlife lenses, and fully accept that a person with a phone or P&S camera can take a lovely shot with barely any discernible difference in good light and average focal reach and distances...I also keep an 18-250mm superzoom lens handy for travel specifically because of that great flexible OPTICAL focal length that lets me take advantage of the good APS-C sensor to shoot subjects both very near and very far without having to carry a bag of lenses, yet with much more usefulness and convenience, and better results, than I could get from a short zoom P&S or a fixed lens camera phone, when it comes to more distant subjects.

I don't disagree with anything you said. I'm not suggesting that nobody should ever buy a superzoom. I just encourage people to make such choice with their eyes wide open. Many consumers think the only difference between lenses is really focal length... so they think a 18-300 (a 16x zoom!) must be better than other lenses.... they think by "investing" in that one lens, they have replaced any need for any other lenses.

I'm just encouraging a prospective buyer to recognize the advantages and disadvantages of such a lens:

Advantages -- Convenient that you can go from wide to telephoto without changing lenses.

Disadvantages -- You're carrying an awful lot of weight, instead of sometimes just using a smaller lens, and you are losing a great deal of the potential image quality of your camera -- In the end, you will be getting far more focal length range than a phone or point and shoot, but your quality may not be any better.

Wow!

Have been "taking pictures" all my adult life, now over 50 years, and fully understand the theoretical differences between professional very high end lenses and bodies and those in most use today by travelers. Have also professionally used cameras in support of intelligence work and went through similar discussions in the early 1990s between high-end professional ASA100 B&W film, color film and the then new digital cameras. Best lens I ever used professionally was a Nikkor 200mm.

Interestingly, the ship's photographer used a what looked like a 27-85mm for the bulk of her photography and a longer zoom for nature shots. Probably the best deal was her DVD of her best images for $40 at the end of the cruise. The idea that modern zoom lenses are not useful has been long dismissed by professional photographers.

I do note that the iPhone and many point-and-shoot imaging devices rely electronic zoom vice optical. A world of difference.

Wow!

 

Have been "taking pictures" all my adult life, now over 50 years, and fully understand the theoretical differences between professional very high end lenses and bodies and those in most use today by travelers. Have also professionally used cameras in support of intelligence work and went through similar discussions in the early 1990s between high-end professional ASA100 B&W film, color film and the then new digital cameras. Best lens I ever used professionally was a Nikkor 200mm.

 

Interestingly, the ship's photographer used a what looked like a 27-85mm for the bulk of her photography and a longer zoom for nature shots. Probably the best deal was her DVD of her best images for $40 at the end of the cruise. The idea that modern zoom lenses are not useful has been long dismissed by professional photographers.

 

I do note that the iPhone and many point-and-shoot imaging devices rely electronic zoom vice optical. A world of difference.

It's not that such basic gear can't produce high image quality --- It's that smart phone have caught up and can produce the same or better quality, minus significant optical zoom. But the vast majority of images don't require optical zoom.

Yes -- wildlife requires significant zoom. Point is, when using a superzoom lens -- you're getting iPhone quality plus zoom. Now that may be good enough for many many shooters, in which case it's a great option.