File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Thicko here.

On lenses. I currently have a compact zoom camera (Canon S2 is). I noticed that there are now compacts with ultra zooms that can do a wide angle 28mm but also can do 504mm (18x equivalent) zoom with IS (Panasonic Lumix FZ18) all in the same compact camera. I was thinking about upgrading to a Canon EOS 400D body only. But is there an equivalent lens that can go from 28mm to 504mm (18x equivalent) with IS? If not. Why? From googling around and searching Ebay I can only find 50-500mm lenses etc. BTW is that why you see some pro's carrying two cameras (One for zoom and one for wide angle)? :)
>> Anonymous
>>117120
No.
>> Anonymous
If such a lens existed it would be fucking huge (bigger than an xbox). It would also have garbage ass image quality.

This is why bridge cameras exist - for people who are too stupid or don't care enough about picture quality to use a DSLR.
>> Anonymous
>>117126
I presume that was the answer to the two camera question. After looking around I see even those 50-500mm mirror lenses are expensive. Far too expensive for what I was thinking about. I think in which case I'd be better up getting an FZ18 if I want the best of both worlds. Granted I don't get the same quality and TTL of a dedicated DSLR but the difference in cost and features vs quality and TTL/lens options seems a no brainer to me.
>> Anonymous
>>117136

there are no 50-500mm mirror lenses for your slr
>> Anonymous
>>117138
OK. Anyhow it looks like I will have to stick with compacts for now anyhow. I just read a review on a few compacts and the Panasonic Lumix FZ18 did well. However it lacks a hotshoe which if I am upgrading is a must! If anyone can suggest an equivalent to the FZ18 that has a hotshoe please do tell. Thanks.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>BTW is that why you see some pro's carrying two cameras
One of the reasons, yeah. Others include:
One for speed, one for quality (e.g., a 1D and a 5D)
One for color, one for B&W (back in the film days)
One for film, one for digital (for those who like both)
One for low-light, one for zoom convenience (e.g., with a 50mm f/1.4 prime on one and a wide-to-tele zoom on the other)

And as others have said, there are no SLR lenses, at least for the Canon system, that give you a 28-500mm equivalent range. There's an 18-200 made by Sigma (which is 28-320mm equiv), but I doubt that the image quality is very good.

The reason is, like others have said, that it would be fucking huge, fucking expensive, and still not very good quality. Well, I guess you could get one that was good quality, if you double the size disadvantage and octuple the price disadvantage.

It's hard to make a lens that goes from really wide to really telephoto, especially one that fits on an SLR. It's easier with bridge cameras because
1. They have very small sensors, which means the lens has to project a much smaller image, which means a lot less glass is necessary
2. There's not as much of an expectation of quality. The crappy small sensor kills your image quality more than the lens does, anyway.
3. Since they don't have to accommodate the mirror box of an SLR, it's a lot easier to get the lens right up close to the focal plane, which makes it a lot easier to get the wide angle. On an SLR, they have to do some engineering tricks to get wide that make it harder to make the same lens get to the telephoto end.

It's still a good idea to upgrade to the EOS, though. It's a lot less convenient than your FZ18, but you'll get image quality that completely blows it away.
>> Anonymous
XBOX HUEG zoom range is a marketing ploy for noobs. Once you learn a bit about photography you find that almost nobody has any need for a 500mm lens. And the very small number of people who shoot subjects that warrant extremely long telephotos will also most likely require a fast maximum aperture, fast autofocus, top notch image quality, and very durable build- none of which you will find on an inexpensive ultra-range zoom.

In fact once the novelty of being able to zoom in on somebody's eye from a half mile away wears off, most people are more interested in the wide end of a lens.
>> Anonymous
>>117143
I'd have to disagree with that. I can't count the amount of times I have found I could not get in close enough to the subject matter. One example was a ride around in my friends car at a wildlife park with a shitty 3x zoom compact before I got the S2. I was very disappointed! I find I use zoom the most. Especially in situations where your subject is either 1. too far away or 2. likely to respond to your presence (Like candid photos of people). But having a zoom lens stuck on you are then restricted to it. You can't just swap the lens over if you see something that may be gone in less than a minute. Thus my two camera question. Anyhow I would settle for a 12x compact that has a hotshoe. The Canon S5 IS has one but the reviews were not that great. I want the hotshoe so I can fit a macro flash as I do a lot of macro work. The S5 has good macro when close to the lens. Basically I want to have my cake and eat it :)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>117147
>1. too far away
Pro tip: Legs

>2. likely to respond to your presence
Pro tip: Don't be a creepy voyeur. Accept that you will occasionally have to interact with your subject. You can take candids with a 50mm, especially if it's a 50mm on a crop sensor. I do it all the time.
>> Anonymous
>>117143
I find it hilarious what most people do with 400+mm lenses. Go check out http://photography-on-the.net/forum/ and see what most of those douches do with their $5,000 lenses. Thousands of fucking retarded photos of squirrels on branches and seagulls on posts.

I've never used a lens longer than 200mm and probably never will unless I really need the compression of depth they provide for some creative purpose.
>> Anonymous
This is a car crash of a thread. I really hope that this is a good troll. Not for our sakes, but so that some poor soul isn't wasting their money on a DSLR or lenses and refusing to accept the advice they are being given.
>> Anonymous
>>117181
You're missing the point.

Long telephoto lens are for specialized applications: either when the photographer is physically barred from getting close to something or when he wants the flat look of a telephoto lens.

For everything else, most photographers stay almost always between ~28mm and ~135mm if we're talking for 35mm film. Many only use one lens in what's called "normal" focal lengths, those that look "normal," as in, like how human eyes usually see. These are between ~40-~60mm in terms of 35mm film.

Go to mangumphotos.com, and look up the work on an Henri Cartier-Bresson. 99% of the photographs you'll see will have been taken with a 50mm lens. Look up the work of David Alan Harvey. Most of what you'll see will have been taken with a 35mm lens, sometimes a 28mm or 50mm, and some of them with a 20mm lens on a crop DSLR, working out to 30mm. These are two great photographers with diverse portfolios, and one of them only really ever used one lens, the other, four and one of them almost exclusively.

Something like the Pentax K100D with the Sigma 28/1.8 (which a macro lens) and the kit lens thrown in would do you for almost any sort of photography you want. People with special requirements or preferences or are looking for a specific result need other equipment.
>> Anonymous
>>117186
What is the advice? I want a hotshoe, RAW and wide angle. Some have said I got DSLR to get this. But in order to go that route I WANT (Notice I did not say need) a lens that has a similar range to what I already have. I don't mind losing a little distance as long as I get a wider angle than my current camera has. Not trolling just confused and a little dense on how DSLR's compare to P&S ultra zoom cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>117190
In general, they compare like this:

Point and shoots are good for discreet photography in daylight or otherwise well-lit areas.

DSLRs are good for general photography.

That's pretty much the case for 99% of situations.
>> Anonymous
>>117190
Do you want fucking wide angle or do you want telephoto. You keep telling us you want wide angle then you go say you need some silly 13x zoom bullshit.

Here's a hint: wide angle =/= P&S. The widest any P&S cameras go is 28mm equivalent which is only grazing the wideness you can get with an SLR.
>> Anonymous
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4110/lens-test-tamron-18-250mm-f35-63-di-ii-macro.html

Looking at that review of the Tamron 18mm-250mm it looks like a good buy. I think I will go with a Canon EOS 400D and that lens. I will probably be more than happy with it for the meantime. The wide angle distortion can also be corrected to a degree anyhow and the 250mm range looks pretty good. Although it would have helped if they had used the full res images. Thanks for your help guys (Especially to the person who pointed out the Tamron).
>> Anonymous
>>117204
Get a sigma 10-20mm too. wide lens is wiiiide, plus you'll be covered from 10 - 250mm aka 25x zoom ;)
>> Anonymous
>>117184
You still misunderstand. A 25-75mm lens is a 3x zoom. A 100-300mm lens is also a 3x zoom. Yet they have completely different fields of view.

The whatever x zoom number only tells you how versatile the zoom range is, not how large of an angle of view it gives.