Bad, bad, this lens

This lens is horrible, really in every respect.

Contrast, color, sharpness, distortion, chromatic aberration, light intensity

Everything a lens may need, this lens can not. All it has is focal length.

The 300mm are a joke, the whole picture will light nurnoch so before CAs that are virtually 0% usable, actually an impertinence!

And the most outrageous is the price! For the money I get a 17-50mm f / 2.8 and a 70-300 f / 4-5.6

One has then indeed two Obejktive but

1. Saves Money
2. To worlds better imaging performance

Is it really so horrible and so painful to change lenses? Why I buy an SLR when you do not want to change lenses?

I thought the Sigma 18-250mm would be bad, but that is a feast for the eyes to this "objective" here.

From the imaging performance wise, it is as if I a cheap 30mm for APS-C Buy and simple 4 teleconverter behind screw me, just a nounce brighter. Although

30mm f / 1.4 + 2x + 2x + 2x + 1.4x -> aperture 8, as much fainter is not at all: D

The 16mm are a joke, the lens recorded so strong that you have to crop as much that you end up at about 20mm or so.

This lens is used, not a 16-300mm lens. Physically on the focal length, so, purely by what is available, we end up with 20-200mm or something. And then even f / 3.5-6.3, because at maximum aperture is the part absolutely useless. At f / 6-9, we are more in the race.

And for 650? Pah ...