Is the 18-250 evil?

[bossel]

No!

But what I wanted to say is, I was getting lazy. Go out for a walk, slap on that 18-250. Last sunday I broke the vicious circle and took the 28-135 with me. It turned out I met a few sea gulls and took some nice BIF and some other keepers (will post later). The 18-250 with it's slow focus would have let me down.

Also, having less range forces you more to compose with your brain rather than by zooming. Challenge them little grey cells . Next time I might just take the beercan or the 10-20 and see what I end up with.

[Dusty]

Bossel, I think it's worse than evil, I think that it's possessed. Feel free to send it to me and I'll give a complete exercising, er... I mean exorcising. It'll take a few months, but I promise to get it back to you free of any demons.

Dusty

[alphaPDX]

It does seem to exude something sticky, it's hard to remove from my camera body. I have 3 Minoltas that cover much of the range, with a bit more speed (both aperture and focus) -- but they don't get the playtime with this lens getting in the way.

[KevinBarrett]

I might get one as a one-lens solution for extended backpacking, but most of the time I'm thinking, "If it's worth bringing the camera along, it's worth bringing all the lenses."

Actually, if I needed something light for backpacking, I'd get a Panasonic TZ7, which is wider, faster, and MUCH lighter.

[Greg Beetham]

If I didn't know you better Bossel 'ol buddy 'ol pal, I'd say you were having a bit of a chop.
Greg