*laughs* No, the 50mm is the f1.4, the "monster" (a Sigma 70-200mm) is a constant f2.8 which gets a bit too heavy to hold still at long exposures. 1/60 is probably the slowest I can hold with it and that only if I'm lucky. It's also not *that* big, the lens hood adds another three inches or so. ;o)
I'm not sure what the 12x zoom would be equivalent on a SLR so can't comment on that. You can get "super zooms" (something like 30-300mm) but they have small apertures, maybe f5.6-f8 and aren't that sharp. Is that 12x optical? That would be quite impressive.
The Underworld isn't too bad, I've taken photos there before (http://ozzy.gigs.fotopic.net) but they have a tendency to use red lights which screws up faces. It's a better (and higher) stage as well.
no subject
No, the 50mm is the f1.4, the "monster" (a Sigma 70-200mm) is a constant f2.8 which gets a bit too heavy to hold still at long exposures. 1/60 is probably the slowest I can hold with it and that only if I'm lucky. It's also not *that* big, the lens hood adds another three inches or so. ;o)
I'm not sure what the 12x zoom would be equivalent on a SLR so can't comment on that. You can get "super zooms" (something like 30-300mm) but they have small apertures, maybe f5.6-f8 and aren't that sharp.
Is that 12x optical? That would be quite impressive.
The Underworld isn't too bad, I've taken photos there before (http://ozzy.gigs.fotopic.net) but they have a tendency to use red lights which screws up faces. It's a better (and higher) stage as well.