Equipment 18-270 anyone?

Depends on the situation. Shooting events, sure two bodies with a wide and a tele work.

Shooting in the woods on 5 mile hikes is something different. The photographer wouldn't get very far...

 

I often hike 5+ miles with a full pack...which includes 3 lenses and two bodies, sometimes a tripod as well.

 

its not a bad lens, not a major fan of zooms myself, im still going after the nikkor 10.5mm prime fisheye, tis one sexy piece of glass, definately the next lens on my list...

the 18-270 doesnt really add anything new on tamrons existing line of lenses, seems a bit pointless...

 

Indeed. I'm hardly pro, but as my 400D hasn't sold yet I was dual-wielding at an event a little while back with the 70-200 on the 40D and my wide-angle on the 400D (kit lens at the time unfortunately). It's not so great on the neck and shoulders, but you get the whole focal range without compromising on image quality or only having one range available (not to mention not actually HAVING to swap lenses).

Painfully convenient, one might say. I was sore for about three days after the fact from carrying TWO bodies around (and that 70-200 isn't exactly light) for ten hours. Oh well, it was still fun.

 

Low weight, high reps solves that problem for you in 2 weeks. I recomend 5 pounds, sets of 50 or more to build back and shoulder muscles. You'll be amazed.

 

If event photography (or God help you sports photography) is what you are planning on doing for a living, you best get used to it. Also keep in mind, your kit is relatively light weight...imagine both bodies being gripped, one with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, one with a 16-35, one with a bracket and flash. Talk about weight.

 

I'd say the same... get used to it.

I've done 10+ miles with a 24-70 on an EOS1 (35mm beast+Grip), and a D60+Grip with a 170-500, and a Benbo Trekker (mk1) to hold it (500mm on a D60 is 800mm effective, handholding is way out).

You want the Focal range and conveinence, then it's like all things in Photography, there'a a trade-off to get it, in this case, weight.

 

ARGH... DoublePost... Hit Quote, not Edit... Carry on, nothing to see here.

 

You don't have to hit the "Submit Reply" button, though...

 

I'm special though, and only realised what Havoc would be wrought by Double Posting, after I'd done it...

Yes, am an idiot.

 

According to B&H it isn't. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=0&Go.y=0


Even the Sony version (different gearing, iris & coatings as well as cosmetics) isn't $100 dearer & that takes into account Sony's SURE scheme in the US where they can't advertise* below srp if they want to receive Sony marketing funds.


* my experience with similar schemes in the UK is that whilst they can't advertise below srp that doesn't mean that they can't sell below retail. I would be interested if someone in the USA could confirm if this is the case with Sony SURE.

 

Sorry, my posts became muddled. They were in relation to the original poster saying this lens is perfect for the BACKPACKER. Not on a camping/nature walk.

Two completely different things. When you have to live out of your pack that is on your back for extended periods of time (like 30 days), room and weight becomes very valuable and you have to pack smart. Would you rather pack a few more portions of food and water, or would you like your 2nd body with the 5 lb tele?

Oh, and I said 5 miles because that is darn far when you are backpacking and going through places without trails. You can totally do more than 10 miles on a trail, but if you're climbing up steep inclines or going through heavy brush, 5 miles is far considering you probably have a pack equivalent to half your weight on your back.

 

Fair enough mate.

I meant more like doing 10 miles with Photography as the sole intention for the day.

Last time I did this, I ended up on top of Snowdon (Highest "mountain" in Wales, I realise it's small in comparison, having lived in the US for several years, with the Cascade Mountains as a back yard), doing about 20 miles in all, with the aforementioned Kit.

When I saw Backpack, my brain computed it as Backpack to hold the kit (Which i really need to get, lol).

In that case, out for more than a weekend or so, then the weight would put most people off (Not me, but I know I'm mad - I'll do what I need to to get *that* shot, if that means adding more weight, then so be it), and justifiably so.

Wasn't having a dig at you, but I do get tired of people hyping up Superzooms as "OMGWTFBBQ Image Quality, sell your primes now!!!!11OneOne", and people being misled by it, having Never tried them back to back to see the actual difference in IQ. Doesn't happen in this Forum that I have seen though.

Ali

 

I just got back from Alaska, and 5 days of my trip was in-woods camping, including an 8.5 mile hike across a mountain range. I wish I had bought a superzoom for my camera because there were plenty of times when I would have liked to get a nice zoomed picture, but I didn't have a spare hand to change lenses (hell, I had trouble not falling off some places!). There was a great deal on a used PanaLeica 14-150mm lens (28-300mm for 4/3), and I should have sucked up the cost and bought it. There were so many opportunities to use it (mountain hike, lake hike, fishing, meandering around camp) that I would have certainly traded reduced image quality for actually getting the shot.
I think we've beaten to death the concept of "superzooms << kit zooms < normal zooms < pro zooms" with primes somewhere in between. I think it's a personal preference thing, and I have read good things about several superzooms. The real question is convenience versus image quality, and that's totally personal. I'd definitely buy the Leica if I was to go back to Alaska (barring buying into a different camera system), merely for convenience's sake, but I would still carry around better lenses some of the time. Just because I don't like switching lenses all the time, doesn't mean I don't want a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 24-70 f/2.8.
By the way (mini-hijack), Alaska was beautiful, such a cool place for photography.