>> |
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.
|