I'm a beginner photographer — mostly interested in travel photography.

Recently I've seen some posters advertising a Tamron 18-400mm lens, so I checked the reviews and it does not seem to be a bad lens or to have so many disadvantages.

Is this better for a travel photographer to use such a super zoom lens (like 18-400mm) instead of couple of lenses?

I'm interested in advantages and disadvantages of having a setup with multiple lenses.< I currently own one 35mm, one 17-50mm and one 70-300mm and I wonder if there are other benefits (or drawbacks) of switching to one super zoom lens (beside of course this that only one lens is much lighter)

  • 3
    You need to define "best" and "better." For one person it might be defined by optical image quality, for another person it might be defined by the overall user experience of not having to change lenses, for someone else it might be defined by budget compared to benefit...
    – Michael C
    Dec 8 '17 at 9:11
  • 1
  • Related: How do I choose a lens for my first DSLR to replicate the capabilities of my bridge camera? The accepted answer could almost have been written for this question as well.
    – Michael C
    Dec 8 '17 at 9:16
  • @MichaelClark Thanks for the comment. Maybe the question header itself is not perfectly formed, but later I specify that I'm asking about pros and cons (besides the weight).
    – lewiatan
    Dec 8 '17 at 9:24
  • 2
    Asking for "pros and cons" is a bit broad. Many pros and cons have been addressed by existing questions and answers here. For this to be a unique question, rather than being closed as a duplicate, you need to tell us what is most important for you.
    – Michael C
    Dec 8 '17 at 9:31

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.

  • 2
    They are not only APS-C, check Canon EF 28-300mm for example Dec 8 '17 at 14:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.