Bothered abouts lens etc

this might help,
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

I think the Tamron 18/250 would have been an excelent choice of lens for your requierments. I myself will be getting this lens at some point.
Ian

excellent read thanks for that has clarified a lot for me now,

ok then When I look through my view fider(eye peace) do I see the image that is full frame image(i.e. crop factor needs to be applied on it) or it will be the exact image that my DSLR sensor will imprint(i.e. a crop factor is already applied on it)” ?

The image through the viewfinder is what you will get on the sensor. It's actually a tiny weeny bit smaller, but that's for another reason. Othwerwise there is no cropping when using a lens designed for digital on your digital camera.

The image from a lens designed for film will be cropped by the viewfinder and sensor, but this is irrelevant to the field of view. You'll get the same view from a 28mm lens designed for film as you do from one designed for digital.

you see through the viewfinder how it would be on the sensor/film.
that's only half true though because you see 98%ofthe sensor, that is because if you want to have a 100% viewfinder it needs to be so precise that the price will be much more.

I'd like to correct you, but, unfortunately, there is nothing to correct.

The reason that "35mm equivalent" came about is probably because there was not just one format when digitasl cameras arrived, but a multitude of different CCD sizes. Only by giving a "35mm equivalent" could any sensible comparison between different cameras be made.

With film it was simpler because we knew that a 24mm was a standard on the Pentax 110 but an ulra-wide on a ME Super. Nobody was confused by that. But then again people were familiar with medium format as well, which is no longer quite as true.

If we are settling on APS-C then the "35mm equivalent" can fade away - it's causing more confusion than clarity now because so many new photographers have no idea what 35mm looked like anyway.

In the case of compacts it may still have a function. I have no idea what a 6.5mm lens on my compact might mean....

I’m not familiar enough with the older formats that Gartmore mentions. Is the introduction of digital the first time that the lenses have moved across formats, creating the need for equivalents? or were you able to use a 6x6 lens on a 6x45?

I find "35mm equivalent" values useful when I'm trying to decide what compact camera to buy. There are so many different compact sensor sizes that otherwise I wouldn't have a clue what the lens focal length does what on those things.

It's certainly proving terribly confusing for newcomers to dSLRs though when continually told about the "crop factor".

i have grassped it now thankd for all the help people

6x6, 645, 6x8, 6x9 are all medium formats using 120 roll film. A 6x6 lens could in theory be used on a 645 camera (the focal length would be slightly longer) because the image circle will be the same.

In the Days of Film photographers understood that different formats needed different focal lengths and it was never a problem. For example, the standard lens for Minox is 15mm, for 110 is 24mm, for 35mm is 50mm, for 645 is 75mm, for 6x6 is 75 or 80mm, etc.

You can use Pentax 67 and 645 lenses on your Pentax 35mm or DSLR too.

So if you do such a thing would there not be an equivelent focal length for the lens on the different formats? or is a 67-50mm still 50mm on a 645 etc.?

In addition to Anvh's link one more focal length comparison tools here,it is from canon