18-270 vs 70-300 (or 200)

[ragdoll]

I know that the comparison in the title could sound stupid, but here is my situation.
I'm owning a Nikon D3000 since threee months now and only have the 18-55 kit lens. I've taken pictures at some party and on 2 trips and I found out that, while I often used the 18mm focal length, for landscapes, pictures in small places or close-ups of big objects (e.g., skyscrapers), I also often missed a longer tele. I often tried to catch some strange and quickly evolving thing or event in the distance, so I did not have the time to move and reach that to make it full my frame. Sometimes it wasn't even possible to reach it.
Sooner or later I will be extending my rig and I'm considering what the market offers. First of all, I would not have much money to invest. Second, at the time I will have to buy a lens, I will not yet be so expert to tell if I need a prime lens, nor what focal lenght for that prime lens.
I reduced the possible candidates to two (with variants) kind of lenses: 70-300 (or 200) and 18-250 (or 270).
I know that probably an all purpose lens cannot be compared to a typical tele from many point of views, but I read very good reviews about Tamron and Sigma all-purpose lenses. Given the requirements above (typical use and little budget) and the fact that I will most frequently be shooting in situations where changing lenses is not a good idea, at the moment I'm more interested in the Tamron 18-270.
What is your advice?

[OsmosisStudios]

I always recommend separate lenses. either the 55-200 or the 70-300, both VR.

[nicholasleezt]

I have a D3000+ kit lens like you....

I realised that the Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Zoom is actually good.
Its cheap and the quality is still there.
The focus is abit slow but worth it...


I dont know about other countries..but back here in Malaysia
It's CHEAP