Large zoom lenses

[MarceloRSC]

Except Cozumel, that is in Mexico (near Cancun), all the others are in Brazil. The average depth is 20m. What video do you mean specifically? (I can give more details about the place, wreck, conditions)

Most of them ware recorded using an Olympus C5060WZ, and an Olympus PT-020 Underwater housing. After I had the accident with this camera, the last video ("Queimada Grande") was recorded using a compact Sony DSC-W170.

If I start to dive more frequently, I'll consider a underwater case to my camcorder Sony HDR-SR12, to film in full HD... But until now I had fun using those photo cameras - that allow better undewater photos than a camcorder.

*That's why I'm looking for a new camera - I had water in the case in a simple and casual free dive (no scuba)...

[peripatetic]

As this has gone rather off-topic.

From your other thread you state:

Of course a super-zoom 18-250mm at f/3.5 on an APS-C will perform better in lo-light then a prosumer with 1/2.33" sensor, so this lens could solve everything - the 1 lens solution fits well.

I'm really not sure this is true at all. DSLR superzooms are optically horrible. Truly obscenly bad. If you really need that wide a zoom range in a single lens (you don't) then I would strongly recommend going with a P&S of some description, I am convinced that in decent light (which you will absolutely need for the big zoom lenses anyway they are very slow) the P&S will perform equally well.

In poor light, both will be poor.

Spend some time at one of the lens review sites:

http://slrgear.com for example. Explore the blur charts. Also take note of the size and weight of these things.

The possible exception is the new Nikon 18-200 VR2. If you really must have one then consider that one very seriously, at least it's sharp and has excellent VR.

I predict that if you do choose an APS-C camera and stick one of those 18-200/250/270 lenses on it you will be hugely disappointed in the quality of the pictures it produces.

Why do you think you need 28-450mm equivalent in a single lens? What type of photography do you do that can possibly need that big a range?

[TCav]

First, image stabilization is to prevent motion blur due to camera shake. If you shoot moving subjects, you need to use faster shutter speeds to avoid motion blur due to subject movement, and that will take care of the camera shake as well. Image stabilization gets more useful as the focal length gets longer, but if what you're shooting requires faster shutter speeds anyway, then you don't need to worry about it.

Second, no superzoom lens is as good as multiple lenses with less ambitious zoom ranges. The superzoom lenses all suffer from lack of sharpness, significant chromatic aberration, and high rectilinear distortion. The convenience of having a 'jack of all trades and master of none' lens comes at the expense of image quality. Convenience is temporary; image quality is permanent.

[MarceloRSC]

Hi, (back to topic)

I agree - never a super-zoom will be as better than a set of dedicated lenses or short zooms. This I know. The decision is to know HOW BAD it is. I'll check the reviews suggested to evaluate it.

You say mostly about quality and some distortions, right? Because LIGHT is the same in a Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5 and a Nikon 18-55 f/3.5, right?

As just (re-)starting with SLRs, I think I'll look for a set to "play" around. There are many situations that a huge tele is useful, special in landscapes. But in the past when using film SLR I played a lot with a 28-200mm, so certainly a 18-200 (28-300mm eq) will give more power - so Nikon lens may fit well. I don't know how often I would use zoom beyond this point (380 or 405mm eq.)

I'm sure that some time later I'll be considering other lenses - this is the fun with SLRs... What I can consider just now is to get the shortest "kit" lens, as the usual 18-55 that usually ships with D90 or D5000, IF IT REALLY MAKES REAL DIFFERENCE... Does it?

And in the futureAlso I'll look for a lighter prime (35mm f/1.4) and when I find some light wide-angle short zoom.

[shoturtle]

I would check out this thread and visit the link on post 22. They were taken with big zoom lenses by one of the members here. You can decided if it is acceptable.

Tamron with VC 18-270mm or 28-300mm

[TCav]

You can always buy the dSLR you want, and rent the superzoom lenses you're considering. Lens Rentals has a good selection, and they are reasonably priced. If you go that route, shoot some architectural stuff and you'll see the rectilinear distortion, and shoot some high contrast stuff and you'll see the chromatic aberration. The people that sing the praises of superzoom lenses either avoid those situations or haven't bumped into them yet.

And, btw, an 18-55 lens gets to f/5.6 a lot faster than a superzoom, which will usually stay at f/5.0 until about 135mm. So a superzoom will be a little bit faster than a typical kit lens. But not by much.

[shoturtle]

Off topic again.

I have dived Cozumel, it is not bad. I was considering diving one day in Brazil. I have dived in Central American in Honduras and Panama and Belize in South America. How is the diving the Brazil?

Originally Posted by MarceloRSC

Except Cozumel, that is in Mexico (near Cancun), all the others are in Brazil. The average depth is 20m. What video do you mean specifically? (I can give more details about the place, wreck, conditions)

Most of them ware recorded using an Olympus C5060WZ, and an Olympus PT-020 Underwater housing. After I had the accident with this camera, the last video ("Queimada Grande") was recorded using a compact Sony DSC-W170.

If I start to dive more frequently, I'll consider a underwater case to my camcorder Sony HDR-SR12, to film in full HD... But until now I had fun using those photo cameras - that allow better undewater photos than a camcorder.

*That's why I'm looking for a new camera - I had water in the case in a simple and casual free dive (no scuba)...

[MarceloRSC]

Hi shoturtle,

There are many good dive spots, like Arraial do Cabo (180km from Rio de Janeiro) and Northeast area (many wrecks). Also some islands like Laje de Santos, near Sao Paulo. Most with good dive structure, good sea life, but the water is not much clear.

But by far the best in Brazil is Fernando de Noronha, certainly one of the best in the world.

[MarceloRSC]

BTW, where are you from? (your profile says NYC/Frankfurt)

[MarceloRSC]

Originally Posted by TCav

You can always buy the dSLR you want, and rent the superzoom lenses you're considering. Lens Rentals has a good selection, and they are reasonably priced. If you go that route, shoot some architectural stuff and you'll see the rectilinear distortion, and shoot some high contrast stuff and you'll see the chromatic aberration. The people that sing the praises of superzoom lenses either avoid those situations or haven't bumped into them yet.

And, btw, an 18-55 lens gets to f/5.6 a lot faster than a superzoom, which will usually stay at f/5.0 until about 135mm. So a superzoom will be a little bit faster than a typical kit lens. But not by much.

Yes, I know technically it is not the best solution, but the point that usually matters to whom choose such lenses is that it will be a lens that will be ready when you need it. Go walk around and have to switch lenses on each situations may lead us to miss shots... Besides the problem related to risks for the mirror and the lenses being manipulated every time.

I guess the conclusion is: for a pro or experienced user, of course the minimal details will count, so every improvement in performance must be considered. So a few shortzooms and a set of primes should be used, beside cameras with higher specs.

But for casual photographers, that want fun, and is comming from Prosumer Fixed Lens cameras, with their also super-zoom lenses, go to a dSLR with a super-zoom will certainly be an upgrade...

I think that we are considering an entry point. In the beginning of this debate I started deciding between Prosumer and dSLR, because I was considering dSLRs too big and not so pratical - so even I was already convinced to go to dSLR, going to a 2 lenses solution probably will be too much.

It's very possible that I can regret in the future if I do not listen to these advises... And that in about some months later I can be looking for other lens (then I'll remember Shoturtle advise about more expensive lenses for D5000...).

An option is to get a shorter 18-55 (kit lens) to use when quality is more important. Do you think it will be better in quality to justify to buy it BESIDES a 18-200/250 super-zoom?

Can a Nikon 18-200 be so better than Sigma/Tamron 18-250/270 to justify a lower zoom and higher price?

I saw some reviews showing numbers, but are there some samples that allow us to realize how bad they can be?