Incense

by Bart Arondson

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

27

You are not required to purchase any lenses at all. It all depends on your photography needs and what you're willing to spend your money on. Regarding range, the superzoom 18-200 mm covers the same range as the other four lenses you mentioned. All of the other lenses focal ranges are parts of the large range of the 18-200 mm lens. The 18-200 can surely ...


24

The biggest reason for difference in the two lenses is aperture. The 80-200mm is a constant f/2.8 throughout the focal range and the 18-200mm varies from f/3.5 to f/5.6, so substantially slower, especially at the far end. All this really means is that the 80-200 can let in more light at the same focal length over the other. Also, generally, zooms with ...


17

Short answer: you can obtain some very good results, but only under certain conditions and absolutely not even close to what is shown in the linked video clip. My company, Amped Software, develops image and video processing software for forensic and intelligence applications, so basically we are the real world counterpart of the CSI software. With ...


16

Image quality. The wider the range of focal lengths on one lens, the more design compromises are made and the more correction must be applied deal with things like geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, and light fall off in the corners. Aperture. Even though the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 has the same maximum aperture of f/5.6 as the EF-S 55-250mm ...


14

Nobody is saying that you must choose an 80-200 over an 18-200. An 80-200 (f/2.8) has some severe drawbacks compared to an 18-200, price, size and weight being among them besides the obviously limited zoom range. On the other hand, an 80-200 is far better behaved optically; it will tend to focus faster and more accurately (on a given camera body, and ...


13

A smaller zoom range means fewer compromises in the optical design and usually better quality. It's better to have a boat and a car and use them where appropriate than to have some sort of boatcar that doesn't do either job as well.


12

Comparing feature-by-feature is meaningless, a DLSR (even entry level) and a superzoom point and shoot are systems that choose almost opposite tradeoffs at every important design decision. It's a bit like comparing a sports car and a mini van - while both are cars they are different systems designed for different purposes. If the words small, light or ...


12

Stop listening to him. You can compare anything you want. A DSLR and a superzoom? Sure. A DSLR and a cellphone? Yes. A camera and a fishing rod? Why not! You will see many people compare things which are quite different, even here on this site. Think about the questions when someone asks if they should get a new lens or a new camera. What they are doing is ...


11

The main reason we don't have "super zooms" with a large constant aperture is size/weight/costs. Roger at LensRentals recently blogged about this in the post: About That 25-300mm f/2.8 You Wanted About How Big is that? The lens is in a video housing, so that makes it a bit larger than an SLR designed lens of the same specifications would be. But ...


10

As a really, really broad generalization, it's easier to make a high-quality zoom lens with a smaller zoom range, rather than a larger one. Although it's really tempting to look for one zoom that'll cover your entire range of shooting (Tamron's 18-270 comes to mind), these lenses tend to be fairly ill-behaved over portions of their range (at least), and ...


10

You're comparing ultra-wide versus "simply-" wide. It's as if you'd compare a 200mm tele to a 600mm one. Those 8mm do in fact have a great significance, for example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brynolf/754640788/ I do think this illustration is a tad exaggerated, but you get the feeling.


9

You can't make something out of nothing, you have to have (or guess) some information in order to be able to enhance an image in any way. For example if you know the properties of the blurring function (and there is no image noise) then you can actually unblur a photo. However you rarely know the blur function and noise is always present so that severely ...


9

I believe F1.4 is the best you can do on a compact so far: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/7/18/Panasonic-announces-Lumix-DMC-LX7-with-F1-4-2-3-24-90mm-lens You know from 35mm format lenses that it is hard to find those that are sharp wide open. it is hard to get all those rays of light to hit a single small dot. On a compact sensor, those dots are even ...


8

Beyond the longer focal range, the 18-135 also features internal focusing, so filters don't rotate during auto-focus, which is very nice if you ever use a circular polarizer or graduated ND filter. The only real downsides compared with the 18-55 are the increased weight and the decreased maximum magnification, making this less usable for macro-style ...


8

A (simplified) Look at Camera Sensors The sensor on your camera is 14 megapixels and 6.17x4.55 mm in size. By comparison, a Nikon D3100 (an entry-level DSLR) has a sensor that is also 14 megapixels, but its physical size is 23.1 x 15.4 mm. Even more expensive DSLRs, known as "Full frame," have a sensor that is roughly the size of 35mm film (about 36 x 24 ...


8

There is no difference. There is only one SX40 and its official name is Canon Powershot SX40 HS. HS stands for High-Speed because it uses a CMOS sensor so it is capable of shooting at 10 FPS. Other manufacturers do not use the same naming scheme but this is quite common lately. Almost all cameras which can shoot video at 1080p use CMOS sensors and are ...


8

That is the price because that is how much enough customers are willing to pay for it. While they are complex lenses, they are not high quality ones (the Nikon is sharper with more distortions) and both are quite dim on the long end. The price is for convenience of changing lenses less often, or not all all. After all, comfort and convenience are very ...


7

A superzoom like that will be the jack of many trades, master of none. If you are used to the sharpness of the prime, you may be seriously disappointed with the softness of a superzoom. My experience is limited to the 18-200 style lenses, but beyond basic sharpness, consider: You are used to 50 mm f/1.8. You now want to have a starting aperture of f/3.5 ...


7

Things to consider 18-135mm: You dont need 135-250mm range. You dont like to change lens frequently. You want slightly better image quality within consumer grade. You want to carry only one lens with you. Things to consider 18-55mm and 55-250mm: You dont mind changing lens often. You want the 135-250mm focal range. You dont mind the slightly less ...


7

This kind of question comes up very often with different combination of subjects and, no matter how often it is asked, the answer is still NO. If needed such a range in a single, you should have bought an ultra-zoom instead of a DSLR. One of the beauties of a DSLR is the ability to change lens, so I suggest you make friends with it. Birds are extremely ...


6

If you are considering paying for the 18-200, I suggest you take a long hard look at the 70-200 f/4L instead. It is among the cheapest of the pro-level "L" Canon lenses, and is a very, very good piece of glass. The main drawback is the f/4 aperture; against this it is relatively small and light.


6

It is hard to make a zoom lens that is sharp and open enough the entire focal range without tunnel vision and lens distortion. So the larger the range span is the more difficult it is to keep the quality equal. That's why the fixed focal length lenses still exist. You can get amazing quality compared to your zoom lenses for a small price, at the cost of ...


6

The larger the maximum aperture, the larger the lens. Therefore fitting an ultra-bright lens works against making the camera small. The size also increases in proportion to the focal-length, so the more zoom you fit in, the harder it becomes to make an ultra-bright lens can keep it compact. There are a number of F/1.8 lenses in compact cameras but you will ...


6

Two points: On "On the other hand, camcorders routinely have f0.95-f1.2 lenses", I simply dispute this finding. Take a skim at PL lenses available, there aren't any lens close to f1 that's economically reachable, which brings me to point 2. I refer to Erwin Puts, lens expert. In his Leica Lens Compendium, he mentioned many technical difficulties in ...


6

In a word: no. The 18-200mm will suffice. And a single lens is very convenient. However, there may be advantages (mainly in picture quality) in purchasing some other lenses. But remember more lenses can be cumbersome. What you need really depends on what sort of thing you do. From experience I would offer this advice. Stick with your one zoom for now. ...


6

It is more about ratios than addition/subtraction. 70-200mm is less than 3x from the shortest to longest focal length. 18-135mm is 7.5x. The higher the ratio between the shortest and longest focal length, the greater the difference between the "effective aperture", more properly called entrance pupil, for the shortest and longest length at the constant ...


5

There are both similarities and differences in terms of the optics between binoculars and using the longer focal lengths of a Superzoom camera to view distant objects. First, let's look at the similarities: Focal Length. Both the binoculars and the camera use optics to enlarge distant objects. If a binocular has a magnification factor of 10x, that would ...


5

Some reasons to get lenses with overlapping focal ranges: Larger aperture (allows shorter exposure times in low light conditions, and shallower depth of field) Macro capability (focusing at shorter distance, thus allowing frame-filling shots of small subjects) Better image quality Faster autofocus Smaller size, lower weight



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible