Novices use SLR to shoot stage figures. Which is better, 18-55+55-250 or 18-200?

Look at the landlord's first consideration is cost performance, low price and good quality. But I'm worried about the trouble of changing the lens. You can have your cake and eat it.

As far as imaging is concerned, 18-200 is even worse than 18-55 in some aperture and focal length, but it is basically the same with little difference. 55-250 imaging should be considered the worst. There is little difference between the three lenses, and the imaging can be ignored.

Workmanship 18-200, the aperture is similar.

If you are just an ordinary photographer, the quality of 55-250 is acceptable. But I believe you will soon put this lens at the bottom of the box, which is not practical. For the stage, the telephoto of 250 is not enough.

Moreover, changing the lens is really troublesome, especially in the focal section of these two lenses, and changing the lens is very frequent. Carrying is a problem, changing lenses is easy to get dusty, and contact lenses are often worn out.

If you only choose one of the above two, I recommend you 18-200!

If the budget is more, you can give up 55-250 and choose other anti-shake telephoto lenses. For example, 70-200, image work and so on are higher.