File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Could this be the ultimate happy snapper one lens solution for DSLR's? I can't wait to see what the tests reveal.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/01/tamron-announces-15x-zoom-lens-for-nikon-canon-dslrs/
>> Anonymous
sounds awesome, at least
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
eww, more ultra zooms.
>> Anonymous
I hate that the "one lens solution" always has a token wide end and an enormous telephoto end.

I'd buy a 15x zoom lens if it had a 35mm image circle and went from 15mm to 225mm. The range I currently use on full-frame is from about 24mm to 200mm, so that would actually be a really good expansion of the range for me.

Oh, and it would have to be no slower than f/2.8 at the wide end and f/4 at the long.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>>253485
You do realize that such a lens would be fucking huge, soft as boobs wide open, and distorted like hell in the edges at all focal lengths.
>> Anonymous
>>253554

Yes which is why they haven't made it.

But I still want one.
>> Anonymous
>>253485The range I currently use on full-frame is from about 24mm to 200mm

you realize just about every company makes a 24-1xx and 24-2xx, yes?
>> Anonymous
>>253873
24-2xx? Where?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>253881
Don't think those exist. 28-300s are very common though.
>> Anonymous
fucking ultra zooms... with a tube extending that far, you'll have plenty of dust sucked into to body. never ever buy such a lens.
>> Anonymous
>>254381
not to mention f2.8 is kinda slow for a wide. no bokeh to speak of unless you are really really close.
>> Anonymous
>>254381with a tube extending that far, you'll have plenty of dust sucked into to body. never ever buy such a lens.

why would dust get sucked inside the BODY, the rear element is glued stuck, nothing gets inside the mirror box

dust inside the lens is another story
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>254444
>the rear element is glued stuck
Might want to check that assumption. Doesn't hold true for either of my Canon zooms.
>> Anonymous
>>254465

it's not my fault you're using shitty zooms with no internal focus
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>254491
>it's not my fault you're using shitty zooms with no internal focus
Well, first off, yes, I have shitty consumer zooms with no internal focus. One of them could charitably be called "mid-range", but the other is a kit lens. I am copping to this because I don't want to give you the out of saying I'm just butthurt and trying to salve my feelings when I explain to you exactly how much of a moron you are:

1. We're talking about zooming, not focusing, you moron. And even if internal focusing were the issue here, the rear element still counts as "internal" for the purposes of calling a lens internal focusing.
2. A moving rear element in a zoom lens is in no way in indicator of lens quality, you moron. Whether or not the front element turns when you focus, yes, but not movement of the rear element. In fact, it would make more sense for the higher-end zooms to actively channel any air that needs to get sucked in during zooming into the camera body. Which would you rather have, a few easily-cleaned specks of dust on the sensor of a camera that will be obsolete in two years anyway, or a few specks of dust inside your lens?
3. The whole discussion is about a 15x zoom from a third party manufacturer. Even if the above two elements made sense in the context, do you really think that this 15x zoom is going to be zomfghigh quality? You moron?
>> Anonymous
Aside from having a ridicuous zoom ratio, it's a cheapo Tamron. It even looks kinda crappy from their own marketing picture.

I'll take the Nikon 18-200.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>>254697
I'll take an 18-70 and a 70-200.
>> Anonymous
>>254693

jesus christ your butthurt is showing

>> We're talking about zooming, not focusing, you moron. And even if internal focusing were the issue here, the rear element still counts as "internal" for the purposes of calling a lens internal focusing.

you're a fucking idiot, if a lens has true internal focus, the rear element does not move. fairly obvious you've never used any higher end lenses

>> a moving rear element in a zoom lens is in no way in indicator of lens quality, you moron. Whether or not the front element turns when you focus, yes, but not movement of the rear element.

uh yes it is, it's a lot more complicated to design and build, it's higher end, it's better quality. they're not going to start making true internal focus lenses at $150

>> Which would you rather have, a few easily-cleaned specks of dust on the sensor of a camera that will be obsolete in two years anyway, or a few specks of dust inside your lens?

dust inside the lens is never an issue, dust on the mirror is

>> The whole discussion is about a 15x zoom from a third party manufacturer. Even if the above two elements made sense in the context, do you really think that this 15x zoom is going to be zomfghigh quality? You moron?

lol @ butthurt name calling

the Nikkor 18-200 VR has true internal focus and everything moves inside the lens body and it's $600 and okay quality

i don't care enough to check if the tamron has true IF
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>dust on the mirror is
moar like low pass filter amirite, lol
>> Anonymous
>>254744

that hardly works at all, except Olympus' implementation

and even then, dust doesn't appear until very small apertures and we all know /p/ is all about shooting wide open with their $80 50mm
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>254740
Quick counterexamples:

Canon 24-105L. L-quality lens. Rear element moves when zooming.

Nikon doesn't have an equivalent of the L designation, and I'm not as familiar with the system, but I've heard very good things about the new 14-24 f/2.8, and its rear element moves when zooming as well. Also, Nikon claims it's internal focusing.

(This is just from google searching, so it's possible that the people who mentioned that those lenses have a moving rear element when zooming might be wrong. Anyone got an L or high-end Nikon with a moving rear element want to back me up here?)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>254751
The point he was making was that dust on the *mirror* doesn't affect a damn thing, since the mirror swings out of the way when you're taking the picture. Well, it might bug you to look at it through the viewfinder, but it doesn't affect image quality like dust in the lens or on the sensor's low-pass filter does.
>> Anonymous
>>254701
We're getting into very different territory there, though. This new Tamron and the 18-200VR are "all purpose" superzooms... Not that I'd turn down the 70-200 2.8.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>254740
Further counterexample: The Canon 17-40L (again, Canon's premium line of lenses) has a moving rear element. And this one I actually had a friend look at the back of his 17-40 for me.
>> Anonymous
I had a Tamron 18-250. Got rid of it after 2 days because a) soft as shit at any length, and b) horrible vignetting at the long end.
>> Anonymous
>>254875
Duh? It's a soccer mom lens for their D40s and Rebels.
>> Anonymous
>>254884
Yeah but I didn't realise quite how bad it would be until I got it home. On a practicality vs quality balance, the extra hassle of dual (or triple) lenses is worth it.
>> Anonymous
So is there something with maybe a bit less zoom but is better quality? I could deal with 12x or maybe even 10x if I was going this route. Lens swapping is still a pain if all you want to get are some snapshots that are a bit better than your average compact.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255050
The quality of this 15x zoom has yet to be determined.

Canon, Nikon, and Sigma all have 18-200 zooms (~11x). The quality of the Nikon is widely regarded as not so great. The Canon isn't available for purchase yet (far as I know, too lazy to google) and I've heard nothing about the Sigma (see above, re:google, too lazy to do it).

Also, keep in mind that most of the people saying that these superzooms are crap are people more interested in fapping to their expensive gear than actually taking pictures. So what they consider "Completely unusable" you might consider "Perfectly fine".
>> Anonymous
>>255068
£550 for the Canon 18-200 :(

http://www.canon.co.uk/About_Us/News/Consumer_Releases/2008_News/EFS_18-200mm_f3.5-5.6_IS_Lens.asp
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255592
Get the 18-55 and the 55-200 and learn to live with swapping lenses. Better quality for a fraction of the price.
>> Anonymous
>>255598
Which ones?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255615
EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS
EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS

(Meant 55-250, not 55-200)
>> Anonymous
>>255615
IS ones. Non-IS version of 18-55 is durr hurr worst kit lens evar.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255679
I used that as my primary telephoto for quite a while.

Shitsux, but it's better than not having a telephoto. Worth keeping.
>> Anonymous
>>255068
>The quality of the Nikon is widely regarded as not so great.

I don't have it myself, but I hear from nearly everyone that does have it that it never comes off their camera.
But, OP seems to be after Canon...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255686
Yeah, most of the people here who say it sucks probably are doing so primarily because Ken Rockwell says it's the bee's knees.
>> Anonymous
>>255686I don't have it myself, but I hear from nearly everyone that does have it that it never comes off their camera.

read what you just said and think long and hard about why that would be
>> Anonymous
>>255686
I'm not overly fussed. I am looking for something to upgrade my Canon S2 IS to. But I don't wish to pay a fortune for my first D-SLR. If there is something that matches the Canon 1000D (Or possibly 450D if I can save a little harder) in the same price range I would be interested to hear about them.
>> Anonymous
Am I late?

>RF
>Rear Focusing (RF)
>With Nikon’s Rear Focusing (RF) system, all the lens elements are divided into specific lens groups, with only the rear lens group moving for focusing. This makes autofocusing operation smoother and faster.

AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED
AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D
AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2D
AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D