Please advice!!!


No... He's referring to the focal length coverage of the lenses you have now... "Hmm, I think I just use 10-22, 18-55 and 55-250 for now."

That's why I was thinking how much would such a lens cost if there is really one around. :p
 

That's why I was thinking how much would such a lens cost if there is really one around. :p

Probably, it will cost $0. It is not the focal range in a zoom lens that counts. It is the quality of the lens. To make a lens of the range 10 to 250mm is a waste of time, first, unless the lens is massively huge, with huge number of elements in it, it is basically not possible, and if there are huge number of elements, taking that with each elements there will be some IQ degrading, then you will be seeing quite a bit of IQ quality lost... not really desirable for camera lens.

Plus what about the aperture, will it be variable or fix aperture, with that type of range, I doubt it is any easier to have a fix aperture, so if it is variable aperture, again you would look at how wide it can go... and so on and so for.

So... to make such a lens is not really worth the effort and that is one reason, why up till now, no one had attempt to do it.
 

Probably, it will cost $0. It is not the focal range in a zoom lens that counts. It is the quality of the lens. To make a lens of the range 10 to 250mm is a waste of time, first, unless the lens is massively huge, with huge number of elements in it, it is basically not possible, and if there are huge number of elements, taking that with each elements there will be some IQ degrading, then you will be seeing quite a bit of IQ quality lost... not really desirable for camera lens.

Plus what about the aperture, will it be variable or fix aperture, with that type of range, I doubt it is any easier to have a fix aperture, so if it is variable aperture, again you would look at how wide it can go... and so on and so for.

So... to make such a lens is not really worth the effort and that is one reason, why up till now, no one had attempt to do it.


Hahaha why you every time also so serious? Hahaha I will scared one leh. :bsmilie: Yeah I agree to what you said. Maybe next time someone will be able to make such lens. :D
 

Hahaha why you every time also so serious? Hahaha I will scared one leh. :bsmilie: Yeah I agree to what you said. Maybe next time someone will be able to make such lens. :D

Even if have, I doubt many will have both money and strength for it..
 

Even if have, I doubt many will have both money and strength for it..

Hahah maybe you will start to see body builders learning photography.. Hmmm...
 

Hahah maybe you will start to see body builders learning photography.. Hmmm...

I'm pretty sure there will be more realistic ones that will just bring more lens out at the fraction of the cost/weight. Just need to swap the lens...why the hassle to spend more time building muscles when you can spend more time building your photo collections.
 

I'm pretty sure there will be more realistic ones that will just bring more lens out at the fraction of the cost/weight. Just need to swap the lens...why the hassle to spend more time building muscles when you can spend more time building your photo collections.

Hahaha just make good use of what you have :D
 

Sry, I didn't state clearly. But yeah, 3 lenses cover 10-250mm are good enough to cover lots of different shooting environments.
 

Sry, I didn't state clearly. But yeah, 3 lenses cover 10-250mm are good enough to cover lots of different shooting environments.

Don't worry, we figured it out some posts ago :)
 

My reason why I want to buy a new lens is becuase I don't want to bring so many lens when I am going oversea.

Yet, you are considering the 24-70. You are also considering to replace the 55-250 with a 70-200/2.8

You want to travel light... the 24-70 + 70-200/2.8 is already about 3kgs in weight. Makes no sense.

You should just get the 18-200 or the tamron 18-270. One lens settle all.
 

HazeMaze said:
10-250, u had covered every inch with minor overlapping. Mayb u can pratice carry any 2 lens for shooting. By thinking ahead what's ur environment and ur subjects can save u some troubles.

You can cover this range with just 2 lenses instead 3.
Sigma 18-250 and your 10-22
 

Last edited:
rhino123 said:
Plus what about the aperture, will it be variable or fix aperture, with that type of range, I doubt it is any easier to have a fix aperture, so if it is variable aperture, again you would look at how wide it can go... and so on and so for.

Since you are talking about lens construction, the aperture size isn't really fixed but rather the f-stop is fixed.
 

Since you are talking about lens construction, the aperture size isn't really fixed but rather the f-stop is fixed.

Sorry, my mistake. Yeah you are right, f-stop is fix, not aperture size.
 

Since you are talking about lens construction, the aperture size isn't really fixed but rather the f-stop is fixed.

probably you can help me out on this.
we usually use f-stop or stops as a quantitative number to know how much light is reaching the sensor.
f-stop is the expression of focal length over aperture size.
Can I say that adding an extension tube is much like increasing the focal length and hence a larger f-stop number? Therefore, simply put it, adding extension tube decrease the amount of light reaching the sensor?
TIA :)
 

probably you can help me out on this.
we usually use f-stop or stops as a quantitative number to know how much light is reaching the sensor.
f-stop is the expression of focal length over aperture size.
Can I say that adding an extension tube is much like increasing the focal length and hence a larger f-stop number? Therefore, simply put it, adding extension tube decrease the amount of light reaching the sensor?
TIA :)

Adding ext tube does reduce the amount of light, but I do not have the exact calculation.

The amount of light loss, I suspect, is more related to the magnification achieved. Don't quote me on this as I do not have ext tube to play with to verify this. ;)
 

Back
Top