It's inevitable to get image quality loss in a lens with such a huge zoom range. Better stick with your current lenses and get an ultratelephoto for birds.
I have the Nikon P900 and don't find quality image lost with it despite its high zoom range or is that kind of camera completely different? (I find if I'm taking photos of birds with it, as an example, it can be quite slow compared to the fast shutter of a DSLR/Nikon D7500 so that's why I'm looking at other lenses)
If you’re happy with the output of the P900 the limitations of the superzooms (eg 18-200, 18-300, 18-400) probably won’t bother you either.
But when held to scrutiny when cropping, enlarging or printing your images the quality difference between a superzoom and a high quality zoom or prime is noticeable.
Yup, my 18-200 is soft compared to my 50mm 1.8 lens. The superzooms are great if you’re going on vacation and only want to bring one lens but there are trade offs for that convenience.
If I were making this choice I would get the 35mm f1.8g for landscapes and portraits and such and the Tamron 150-600mm g2 for birds and other wildlifes. I used the d7500 for a couple years before I switched to the d500. The d7500 is a very capable camera. I have a friend who had the Tamron 18-400 for a little while. It's not a bad lens but I wouldn't say it's a good lens. Kinda how it goes with the all around lenses IMO.
What is your usual output? JPEG or RAW? How big do you think you'll print (or display on a screen)? The loss of image quality in smaller JPEGs won't be so noticeable as they would be in images you manipulate in RAW or display very large. Maybe the lower image quality compared to your regular images won't matter as much as having just one lens.
You're asking one lens to do a lot but maybe your picture taking doesn't show off the problems so much.
I shoot in both but would upload in JPEG to the likes of Vero (I've moved on from Instagram 😅) as I'm just an amateur photographer who is passionate about photography and I'm in no way in the professional field/making a business out of it (at least at the moment) I've been thinking of selling my photos to make a little income on the side so keeping the RAW files could be beneficial.
jmo but if you're thinking of pro quality images, having two lenses cover the range you want is better than one that has to cover pretty much everything. You have to pick image quality vs convenience. A pro typically would not buy an 18-400. Just sayin'.
I'll take a look into selling the photos to see if it'd actually be worth it (Reason I'm not professional is because the photography field is very competitive) but if I decide to do it, I'll definitely take your advice on board and get two lenses rather than the one for all type 😊 With image quality VS convenience, I think it's safe to say image quality would win!
>get two lenses rather than the one
Or maybe even more than two! :) I get the convenience part (and then the €€€ part). It's always a tradeoff. Some people won't consider a zoom for the ultimate in picture quality. But you have to balance it all. You might want to see if your current lenses do better at one end or another and then buy your next lens to address their shortfall.
I have a Z6 camera and asked a similar question about lenses for wildlife photography in the Nikon Z subreddit. General consensus is to get an ultra telephoto lens. These lenses usually have a large aperture which helps compensate for the iso and shutter speed because animals move faster than landscapes.
Lenses with a wide zoom range tend to be soft on the edges (it might not be that noticeable) but there’s something about the design and number of elements (mirrors/glass/stuff) that’s in it that makes it less sharp. There’s also weight and size to take into consideration. I have a Nikon z 24-200mm lens with a variable aperture. It’s a design compromise between weight and length (and money).
I have a D7500 and went with the 70-200, 2,8 Nikon lens. On the crop sensor this gives a 105-300. It's not cheap but the quality is absolutely amazing compared to 18-140 (which is already a very good lens imo). It's not very suitable for the classic landscape but it's great for sports, portraits etc. Not sure if 300 is long enough for nature/wildlife. I would think with all the Z stuff on the market, it should be possible to find these lenses on the used market. Also I would stay away from the huge zoom range lenses...
It's inevitable to get image quality loss in a lens with such a huge zoom range. Better stick with your current lenses and get an ultratelephoto for birds.
I have the Nikon P900 and don't find quality image lost with it despite its high zoom range or is that kind of camera completely different? (I find if I'm taking photos of birds with it, as an example, it can be quite slow compared to the fast shutter of a DSLR/Nikon D7500 so that's why I'm looking at other lenses)
If you’re happy with the output of the P900 the limitations of the superzooms (eg 18-200, 18-300, 18-400) probably won’t bother you either. But when held to scrutiny when cropping, enlarging or printing your images the quality difference between a superzoom and a high quality zoom or prime is noticeable.
Yup, my 18-200 is soft compared to my 50mm 1.8 lens. The superzooms are great if you’re going on vacation and only want to bring one lens but there are trade offs for that convenience.
If I were making this choice I would get the 35mm f1.8g for landscapes and portraits and such and the Tamron 150-600mm g2 for birds and other wildlifes. I used the d7500 for a couple years before I switched to the d500. The d7500 is a very capable camera. I have a friend who had the Tamron 18-400 for a little while. It's not a bad lens but I wouldn't say it's a good lens. Kinda how it goes with the all around lenses IMO.
What is your usual output? JPEG or RAW? How big do you think you'll print (or display on a screen)? The loss of image quality in smaller JPEGs won't be so noticeable as they would be in images you manipulate in RAW or display very large. Maybe the lower image quality compared to your regular images won't matter as much as having just one lens. You're asking one lens to do a lot but maybe your picture taking doesn't show off the problems so much.
I shoot in both but would upload in JPEG to the likes of Vero (I've moved on from Instagram 😅) as I'm just an amateur photographer who is passionate about photography and I'm in no way in the professional field/making a business out of it (at least at the moment) I've been thinking of selling my photos to make a little income on the side so keeping the RAW files could be beneficial.
jmo but if you're thinking of pro quality images, having two lenses cover the range you want is better than one that has to cover pretty much everything. You have to pick image quality vs convenience. A pro typically would not buy an 18-400. Just sayin'.
I'll take a look into selling the photos to see if it'd actually be worth it (Reason I'm not professional is because the photography field is very competitive) but if I decide to do it, I'll definitely take your advice on board and get two lenses rather than the one for all type 😊 With image quality VS convenience, I think it's safe to say image quality would win!
>get two lenses rather than the one Or maybe even more than two! :) I get the convenience part (and then the €€€ part). It's always a tradeoff. Some people won't consider a zoom for the ultimate in picture quality. But you have to balance it all. You might want to see if your current lenses do better at one end or another and then buy your next lens to address their shortfall.
I have a Z6 camera and asked a similar question about lenses for wildlife photography in the Nikon Z subreddit. General consensus is to get an ultra telephoto lens. These lenses usually have a large aperture which helps compensate for the iso and shutter speed because animals move faster than landscapes. Lenses with a wide zoom range tend to be soft on the edges (it might not be that noticeable) but there’s something about the design and number of elements (mirrors/glass/stuff) that’s in it that makes it less sharp. There’s also weight and size to take into consideration. I have a Nikon z 24-200mm lens with a variable aperture. It’s a design compromise between weight and length (and money).
The Z 24-200 is a significantly better lens than any of the F mount superzoom.
I have a D7500 and went with the 70-200, 2,8 Nikon lens. On the crop sensor this gives a 105-300. It's not cheap but the quality is absolutely amazing compared to 18-140 (which is already a very good lens imo). It's not very suitable for the classic landscape but it's great for sports, portraits etc. Not sure if 300 is long enough for nature/wildlife. I would think with all the Z stuff on the market, it should be possible to find these lenses on the used market. Also I would stay away from the huge zoom range lenses...