Superzooms as a holiday walkabout?

I've got 2 holidays coming up this year... 2 weeks in Egypt and a 4 day break in Budapest.
These are holidays with my girlfriend so while I can wander off on my own with all my gear to take sunrise or sunset pics etc, when we're walking around Budapest during the day I want to keep my gear as light and simple as possible.

I've not really paid much attention to superzooms as I assumed they'd be a bit of a compromise but I'm now seriousy considering either the sigma 18-200 f 3.5-5.6 DC OS or Canon EF-S 18-200 f 3.5-5.6 IS as a walk about for holidays.

What are peoples thoughts on these and would they be good enough to replace my 17-85mm IS USM permanently?

Looking at your gear, I'd take the 17-85 around personally. Its lightweight and not nearly as bulky as a superzoom can be. I would also consider the 10-20mm on a few of those days, just for some awesome UW sightseeing

If I am concerned about going to 200mm, but don't want the weight, I'd choose the 70-200 f4 IS to go along with a 17-xx lens. I would consider that a "portable" setup, but that's just me.

Not sure about the Canon EF-S 18-200mm lens but a mate has the Sigma and he is so disappointed with it being soft.

binliner wrote in post #7089853
I've got 2 holidays coming up this year... 2 weeks in Egypt and a 4 day break in Budapest.
These are holidays with my girlfriend so while I can wander off on my own with all my gear to take sunrise or sunset pics etc, when we're walking around Budapest during the day I want to keep my gear as light and simple as possible.

I've not really paid much attention to superzooms as I assumed they'd be a bit of a compromise but I'm now seriousy considering either the sigma 18-200 f 3.5-5.6 DC OS or Canon EF-S 18-200 f 3.5-5.6 IS as a walk about for holidays.

What are peoples thoughts on these and would they be good enough to replace my 17-85mm IS USM permanently?

How about adding something like the 28-135 to your lineup? Can travel with the 10-20, 17-85, and 28-135.

[QUOTE=binliner;708985​3]I've got 2 holidays coming up this year... 2 weeks in Egypt and a 4 day break in Budapest.
These are holidays with my girlfriend so while I can wander off on my own with all my gear to take sunrise or sunset pics etc, when we're walking around Budapest during the day I want to keep my gear as light and simple as possible.

I've not really paid much attention to superzooms as I assumed they'd be a bit of a compromise but I'm now seriousy considering either the sigma 18-200 f 3.5-5.6 DC OS or Canon EF-S 18-200 f 3.5-5.6 IS as a walk about for holidays.

What are peoples thoughts on these and would they be good enough to replace my 17-85mm IS USM permanently?[/quote]

if your expectations are based on your results from the 17-85 you might be okay with a superzoom.

if i wanted to travel light (one lens) i'd get the 17-55 IS. excellent IQ and IS for indoors and for low light landscapes without a tripod.

when i'm travelling and not doing wildlife i really can get by with a normal range zoom for everything.

sure you'll always want wider or longer but i'd rather get excellent shots in the normal range where i'll be shooting the majority of the time than compromise with a superzoom.

ed rader

The Tamron 18-270 gets good reviews for what it is. No 'superzoom' will be as good as a collection of smaller zoom range lenses but they serve a very useful purpose, like taking on holiday when you don't want to get bogged down with heavy gear.

I'm considering this myself or the Canon 18-200, but this is based purely on reviews and not personal experience.

You don't need lots of lenses to take great holiday pictures.

If you are going on a photographic holiday though the story is different...

If you are thinking about a super zoom, I'd say get a good P&S camera instead. Easy to carry around, less money to lose in case something happens.

gasrocks wrote in post #7090194
If you are thinking about a super zoom, I'd say get a good P&S camera instead. Easy to carry around, less money to lose in case something happens.

Really?

Definitely. They make some wonderful P&S cameras for not too much money. Less weight, easy to hide away (and not always look like a tourist.) I cannot go anywhere that I have not been to before with expensive equipment and relax. Many have a P&S camera just for travel or taking on the rafting trip or the wrong side of town.

I have the Tamron 18-270 VC and I like it a lot.
you can check out the Lens Sample Archive thread where I've posted probably over 50 pictures in the last 2 months that I took with my Tamron. The VC rocks, or actually just the opposite, it is very stable.

Oh, and OP, say hello to my fellow Hungarians in Budapest when you have the chance

gasrocks wrote in post #7090194
If you are thinking about a super zoom, I'd say get a good P&S camera instead. Easy to carry around, less money to lose in case something happens.

Agreed. Cheaper, easier to carry, less wanktastic.

You have a point., less hassle.
However, I know how dark churches and cathedrals and museums in Budapest are (I'm a certified Hungarian Tour Guide, even though I never worked as one )

P&S are good in good light but once you go indoor, they can't compare to a DSLR.

Now, the OP has to weigh the pro's and con's and decide whether it's ok to give up low light performance, DOF control, dynamic range etc. for portability.
I know that if and when I'm going to Budapest to visit next time, I'll definately take my 40D and Tamron 18-270 VC, even though I have a very decent P&S.

Thanks for all the replies. Lots of different opinions but 2 common ones...

1. Superzooms aren't very well regarded
2. I probably don't need 200mm

With that in mind I'm probably best off sticking with the 17-85mm, although I'd be interested to hear a few opinions from people who've got the lenses in question before I make a final decision

17-55 IS would be nice but I'm saving for a 100-400 at the moment so not an option, I was after a cheap and easy way to add a bit of extra reach which also rules out the tamron 18-270 tbh