Is a superzoom lens better than carrying multiple lenses for travel photography?
Asked 12/8/2017
17 views
2 answers
0
I’m a beginner mainly interested in travel photography. I currently have a 35mm, a 17-50mm, and a 70-300mm. I’ve been looking at superzoom lenses such as an 18-400mm and wondering whether replacing multiple lenses with one all-in-one travel lens makes sense. What are the main advantages and disadvantages of using a superzoom for travel compared with carrying separate lenses?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
8y ago
2 Answers
3
No-one can decide for you, however, some factors to consider.
- Convenience. You can walk around all day with a single lens, no camera bag.
Which you have to weigh against...
These super zooms are slow & are not very good in low light. That f3.5 is really only there at short focal lengths; they quickly close down as you zoom.
They tend to be very soft at anything over half their zoom range, & some of them are reported to have noticeable colour aberration at the long end too.
They vignette at short lengths, though the camera [& photoshop etc] ought to be able to compensate to a reasonable degree.
They're APS-C only, so won't move with you up to full frame.
Taking all this into consideration, personally I went with the Nikon 18-300 instead; it purportedly has better image stabilisation & less colour aberration. It still has all the other down-sides mentioned above, but it was cheaper & honestly, it's not bad overall.
In good light the Nikon's AF is actually really snappy, far better then my Tamron 70-300 in similar conditions, though the Tamron is actually a good deal sharper at 150-300mm.
The convenience outweighs the other factors especially if you're on a family trip rather than a photographic expedition.
The limiting factor on a family trip is the other members' patience.
Originally by user57929. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user57929
8y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A superzoom can be a very practical travel choice, but it’s mainly a convenience trade-off rather than a pure upgrade.
Main advantage: you get a huge focal range in one lens, so you can walk around with less gear and avoid lens changes. That’s especially useful while traveling, when you want to stay light and react quickly.
Main drawbacks: superzooms are usually slower lenses, so low-light performance is weaker, especially as you zoom in. Image quality also tends to be more compromised than with shorter-range zooms or primes: softness often increases toward the long end, and some lenses can show more chromatic aberration and vignetting. Software or in-camera corrections can help with some issues, but not all.
Another consideration is format compatibility: some superzooms are APS-C only, so they may not carry over if you later move to full frame.
So, for travel, a superzoom is best if convenience and minimal gear matter most. Keeping multiple lenses is better if you care more about low-light ability and image quality across the range. There isn’t one right answer—it depends on whether you value portability or optical performance more.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI8y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Best lens setup for travel on a Canon 7D: one all-in-one zoom or multiple lenses?
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II vs 300mm f/2.8L IS II for weddings
Canon 70-300L or 100-400L for wildlife and landscape photography?
Which lenses should I pack for a New Zealand trip focused on landscapes and hiking?
Which lenses should I take to Mauritius: 18-55mm, 55-300mm, or 50mm f/1.8?