Newer members often state that they think their question is too basic, or stupid, or whatever, to be posted. Nothing could be further further from the truth in any section at DSLRUsers.com, but especially here. Don't feel intimidated. The only stupid question is the one that remains unasked. We were all beginners at one stage, and even the most experienced amongst us will admit to learning new stuff on a daily basis. Ask away! Please also refer to the forum rules and the portal page
Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is. Please also check the portal page for more information on this.
by stubbsy on Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:51 pm
Thought I got this but I now know I don't
Here are some specs extracted from the Maxwell site for 3 lenses:
80-200 mm f/2.8 ED = 2.5x zoom
70-300 mm f/4 - 5.6 G = 4.3x zoom
24-120 mm f/3.5 - 5.6 VR = 5x zoom
I thought the larger the mm the bigger the zoom, but if that was the case the VR above would be just over half the zoom of the 200 but it's twice the zoom. And the 70-300 is a little less zoom than the 120 VR (and I'd have thought it was 2.5 times the zoom of the VR).
Is there a formula for working out the zoom ratio or do I need to look at specs for each lens (or am I focussing on the wrong thing - if you'll excuse the inadvertent pun)?
[as an aside I have the 70-300 and figured the 24-120 VR was of little use for zoom since the 70-300 covered it - needless to say, now I'm not so sure]
TIA
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=218.gif)
stubbsy
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
-
by sirhc55 on Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:57 pm
It’s a ratio:
200 divided by 80 is approx 2.5
300 divided by 70 is approx 4.3
120 divided by 24 is approx 5
Chris
Chris -------------------------------- I started my life with nothing and I’ve still got most of it left
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=60_1329820503.jpg)
sirhc55
- Key Member
-
- Posts: 12930
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: Port Macquarie - Olympus EM-10
by stubbsy on Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:12 pm
Chris
Thanks
Embarassingly simple when you know.
So the zoom figure is a ratio between the two ends of the camera's focus range and doesn't tell me how close I can get to a subject (how big a subject can occupy in the frame from the same distance using different lenses). In fact that's what I should be using the mm for.
Or am I wrong yet again?
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=218.gif)
stubbsy
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
-
by skippy on Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:24 pm
Kinda strange that Maxwell would post the 'zoom' figures, since I think this has come from the P&S world. The P&S cam-buyers like big numbers for the zoom, so the marketing depts oblige. My Fuji s5000 was proudly advertised as a 10x zoom, which was in actuality I think 5.7mm to 57mm. When you take into account the size of the sensor this became a 35mm equivalent of 37mm to 370mm.
When you move this to a real SLR camera it becomes pretty meaningless. As an example, two well known lenses on this forum are the 24-120VR and the 80-400VR. As a straight division they are both exactly 5x zoom. Equivalent lenses? Not even close. Ignore the 'zoom' number and go for the length you want.
Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=235.jpg)
skippy
- Member
-
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:57 pm
- Location: Berowra, Sydney
by stubbsy on Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:26 pm
skippy
Thanks that's what I was starting to think. So it's the length that really matters ![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=218.gif)
stubbsy
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
-
by skippy on Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:27 pm
Size, mate, size! The diameter also plays a part! ![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=235.jpg)
skippy
- Member
-
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:57 pm
- Location: Berowra, Sydney
by stubbsy on Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:29 pm
Maybe that's why there are so many men on this forum (sort of like having a red car!)
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=218.gif)
stubbsy
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
-
by christiand on Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:29 pm
don't believe in the new age lens philosophy,
EVERYTHING matters.
(size, diameter, weight, lettering, design, shape ..., ..., ...)
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=27_1217234877.jpg)
christiand
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 1989
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 1:36 pm
- Location: Tuggeranong, ACT - Canberra
by skippy on Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:33 pm
Ah, the holistic approach... ![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=235.jpg)
skippy
- Member
-
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:57 pm
- Location: Berowra, Sydney
by Deano on Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:42 am
And of course the beauty of a (D)SLR with interchangeable lenses is that it is the range of all of your lenses (assuming overlap) which defines your "X" zoom. I have 12-24, 24-120 and 70-300 so I get a 25x zoom
Cheers
Dean
I intend to live forever. So far, so good.
D2x | Nikkor 24-120vr & 50/1.8 | Sigma 12-24 & 24-70/2.8 & 70-200/2.8 | SB800 | Velbon 640CF Tripod w/ Markins M10 & RRS plates. And then there's my Bag Collection... Sweeet....;-)
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=148.jpg)
Deano
- Member
-
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:57 pm
- Location: Canberra, Australia
-
by stubbsy on Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:46 am
Dean
I have 12-24, 24-120 and 70-300 so I get a 25x zoom
Yep that's where I'm at now. I have kit (18-70) + 70-300 and am lusting after 12-24 to achieve a simiular result now I have "the knowledge"
Cheers
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=218.gif)
stubbsy
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
-
by Greg B on Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:42 pm
stubbsy wrote:...............So the zoom figure is a ratio between the two ends of the camera's focus range.........
Not meaning to be pedantic stubbsy, but in the interests of getting it clear, it is focal length, not focus, in this context.
So, the zoom ratio is the ratio between the shortest and longest focal length of the lens.
(There will also be a minimum focus range, but that is another matter)
cheers
Greg - - - - D200 etc
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=44_1257463339.jpg)
Greg B
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 5938
- Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:14 pm
- Location: Surrey Hills, Melbourne
-
by stubbsy on Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:35 pm
Greg. Nothing wrong with being pedantic. Clarity is important. Thanks
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=218.gif)
stubbsy
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
-
by Glen on Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:12 pm
Stubbsy, I think it important that people realise a high zoom factor is not necassarily a good thing, in fact I personally would call it a bad thing (watch me get proven wrong in the next few years!). A few years back, Nikon pro zoom lenses had 2-3x xoom. eg 80-200 2.8 (2.5x), 35-70 2.8 (2x), etc. With increases in technology that has increased, but still absolute top line zooms, such as 200- 400, 70-200,28-70 2.8, 17-35 2.8 tend not to be high zoom factors. The reason for this is all lenses are a compromises and one lens cannot do everything well. There are now some great, what I would call maybe prosumer (not a perfect word, but trying to differentiate between a 200-400 versus 80-400) lenses such as the 80-400 which work extremely well (look at Gary's results!) which have higher zoom ratio's and are good. This is new technology at work. Then there are some really high zoom ratio lenses like the Tamron 28-300 (10.7 X) which in comparison to the lenses named above are POS. Then again everything is a compromise, and a station wagon isn't the best to be speeding up a tight winding road and a Ferrari isn't the best to bring home a dresser and king size bed in.
Hope this makes sense, but the gist of it is high zoom factors aren't always a good thing, because the higher the zoom the more compromises were made at one end or the other (or both).
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=7.jpg)
Glen
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 11819
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
- Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon
-
by stubbsy on Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:45 pm
Glen
Excellent analysis - makes perfect sense. Guess I'm showing how the marketing guys have conned this ex P & S person (don't get me started on megapixels ![Mad :x](./images/smilies/icon_mad.gif) )
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=218.gif)
stubbsy
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
- Location: Newcastle NSW - D700
-
by Glen on Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:14 am
Stubbsy, I too have been told the story about 8mp sensors looking through a lens smaller than a 1 cent piece and what unbelievable quality they are! Feel the megapixels. Glad you saw through it too!
Mate plenty of the guys here have forgotten more than I will ever learn about photography, I always like to bounce ideas or purchases off these wise heads. Look forward to meeting you on Saturday and your Christmas fruitcake ![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
-
![User avatar](./download/file.php?avatar=7.jpg)
Glen
- Moderator
-
- Posts: 11819
- Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
- Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon
-
Return to Absolute Beginners Questions
|