There's a reason no one makes a 24-200mm FF lens. Several, in fact. - The main one is that not many photographers who know what they are doing would ever consider buying such a lens for a 20MP FF camera such as your EOS 6D. - To get anywhere approaching a constant, usable aperture the lens would be very heavy and large. - Such a lens would be very expensive to produce at any level of decent image quality. - Lenses with smaller zoom ratios can be smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, and produce higher image quality than a larger, heavier, more expensive, slower lens with inferior image quality. **The entire point of an *interchangeable lens system* camera is to allow you to use different lenses that are better or even great at one thing but unsuitable for other things.** Fixed lens cameras force you to use a single lens that is mediocre or worse at a lot of things but better at nothing. Insisting on using a single lens for everything on an interchangeable lens camera is not much different than using a fixed lens camera. [In some cases the fixed lens camera may meet your needs better than an ILC with only one lens.][1] The best lenses are all *prime* lenses. That means a single focal length. No.Zoom.At.All. They're really good when they provide the field of view and other characteristics you need. This is because they can be optimized to do one thing at one focal length. A good flat field 100mm macro lens is different from a good 85mm, 105mm, or 135mm portrait lens. But they are not very flexible, so you need a lot of them for various different things. Some are pretty good for not much money (e.g. EF 50mm f/1.8 STM @ $120). Others are incredibly good for a boatload of cash (e.g. EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II @ $10K). Most fall somewhere in between. Compared to their zoom lens counterparts, in addition to equal or better optical quality at a lower price prime lenses can also be smaller/lighter, have wider maximum apertures, and often still be much cheaper. Short ratio zoom lenses, that is zoom lenses with a less than 3X difference between their longest and shortest focal length, can also be very good. But the best ones cost a lot. When you move outside of the 3x limit is when image quality really starts to noticeably go down. Some 4-5X zoom lenses that fall entirely in the telephoto range can be pretty good. But when you start trying to design a lens that goes from wide angle to telephoto and covers a 5X-10X or more zoom range, that is when it really starts getting difficult to keep it affordable and manageable with regard to size and weight and still provide excellent image quality. [You'll usually get better image quality and spend less buying something like an 18-55mm and a 55-250mm pair of zoom lenses than you would get with an 18-200mm 'all-in-one'.][2] From [the question][3]: > I'd like something that performs excellent from around 100mm to 200mm, and can take crappy photos from 30mm to 100mm if I need to). And from a comment by the OP: > Everything I've found is either a normal telephoto lens, or has a high range and "okay" quality throughout the entire range. I'm trying to see if there's anything with great quality at the upper end (like 200mm), but can also shoot at like 30mm with not-terrible quality That's not the way lens designers think. It's also not the way corporate managers plan products. The goal of most zoom lens design projects is to give a lens the same level of *acceptable* image quality, whatever *acceptable* is defined as for that particular lens, over as much of the lens' zoom range as possible. It's not the way lens design works out, either. Most zoom lenses, particularly wide angle zooms, are, in fact, [better at the short end than at the longest focal length][4]. [1]: http://[2]:%20https://photo.stackexchange.com/q/38741/15871 [2]: https://photo.stackexchange.com/q/38741/15871 [3]: https://photo.stackexchange.com/q/98672/15871 [4]: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/03/rogers-law-of-wide-zoom-relativity/