MM's and X zoom - part II.

Zoom Raider · June 1, 2005

As I wait here to go get ready for work, I thought I'd thread about what I was told yesterday that I hope isn't so, since I'm still hunting a high-powered SLR lens..... I was told that the 70-300mm lens I bought Friday was equivalent to a 6x. Now some are saying that it's just a 4.2x. That 300mm div. by 70mm = 4.2, 90mm div. by 28mm = 3.2 , 500mm div. by 200mm = 2.5x. Sorry, Windows doesn't have a "divided by" character. Have no idea why it doesn't.:rolleyes

So if there were such a lens...say a 500-2000mm, it's just gonna be a 4x? All that cash spent on a large lens just to get 4x...lol The way I see it, if 50mm is normal (1x), then 90mm is just under 2x, 300mm is 6x and 500mm is 10x. I've seen them go as high as 800mm that still has AF and the same features as my 2 lenses I have now. I think it was a 300-800mm, which would be a 2.6x with their method. Just under 15x with mine.:):

~ZR~

tlittleton · June 1, 2005

I my short experience, you have to watch zoom numbers that you hear. I had a Fuji S5100 that was marked as having a 10X optical zoom. According to fuji, the lens was the equivalent of a 37mm-370mm lens. I think they do the X number for consumers who really don't care or don't know about how many mm a lens is. They just know that if it's got a big number followed by an X, it's gotta be good right?

Does that make sense to anyone?

Steve Cavigliano · June 1, 2005

Zoom Raider wrote:

As I wait here to go get ready for work, I thought I'd thread about what I was told yesterday that I hope isn't so, since I'm still hunting a high-powered SLR lens..... I was told that the 70-300mm lens I bought Friday was equivalent to a 6x. Now some are saying that it's just a 4.2x. That 300mm div. by 70mm = 4.2, 90mm div. by 28mm = 3.2 , 500mm div. by 200mm = 2.5x. Sorry, Windows doesn't have a "divided by" character. Have no idea why it doesn't.

So if there were such a lens...say a 500-2000mm, it's just gonna be a 4x? All that cash spent on a large lens just to get 4x...lol The way I see it, if 50mm is normal (1x), then 90mm is just under 2x, 300mm is 6x and 500mm is 10x. I've seen them go as high as 800mm that still has AF and the same features as my 2 lenses I have now. I think it was a 300-800mm, which would be a 2.6x with their method. Just under 15x with mine.:):

~ZR~

ZR,
1X, 2X, 3X, 4X, etal.....really is pretty meaningless when comparing removable lenses. It is, however, a nice comparison to use for fixed lenses.

Your 70-300 is a 4.2X zoom, if you insist on looking at it that way. The same as, say, a 28mm-118mm lens would be. Both are 4.2X zooms, but they cover different focal lengths. With fixed lens cameras this number is a bit more meaningful because the wide end is usually somewhere around 30-40mm's on most of these cameras. So a 4X, or 8X rating can be used to compare them on a fairly equal basis.

With removable lenses the most important factors are how wide and how long. IOW, while it could be construed as a factor (like 4X) really you are looking at a range you need (or is available) versus a multiplying factor.

Steve

bkriete · June 1, 2005

...and a one billion millimeter prime lens would be a 1x lens. The "x" factor is just the ratio of minimum to maximum zoom length.

Zoom Raider · June 2, 2005

Okay, this dividing the upper end of mm's by the lower end makes sense now. Thanks! This is similar to the ratio of auto tires. Like a 245/60/15. The 15 is the wheel, so that doesn't count with this example. So the 245 is the width in mm's of the tread, the 60 is the profile width (sidewall), so it's 60% of 245mm's and that makes the profile width 147mm's. This is what I run on the front of my car, and I run 275/60s on the back. The profile width on the back tires is 165mm's.

But this means if I want over a 10x lens, I need to get a 18-200mm, and Tamron makes one. 18-200mm is 11.1x. It's still not what I want. I was hoping for something at least with a 40x equivalence. But this Tamron lens is the highest SLR lens I've found yet. Lemme know if you guys know of one more powerful...the higher, the better.

Thanks!:):

~ZR~

Chase · June 2, 2005

Zoom Raider wrote:

Okay, this dividing the upper end of mm's by the lower end makes sense now. Thanks! This is similar to the ratio of auto tires. Like a 245/60/15. The 15 is the wheel, so that doesn't count with this example. So the 245 is the width in mm's of the tread, the 60 is the profile width (sidewall), so it's 60% of 245mm's and that makes the profile width 147mm's. This is what I run on the front of my car, and I run 275/60s on the back. The profile width on the back tires is 165mm's.

But this means if I want over a 10x lens, I need to get a 18-200mm, and Tamron makes one. 18-200mm is 11.1x. It's still not what I want. I was hoping for something at least with a 40x equivalence. But this Tamron lens is the highest SLR lens I've found yet. Lemme know if you guys know of one more powerful...the higher, the better.

Thanks!:):

~ZR~

what kind of car? I run 275/40/18s all around on my mustang GT vert.....

Zoom Raider · June 2, 2005

Chase wrote:

what kind of car? I run 275/40/18s all around on my mustang GT vert.....

It's a 1992 Camaro RS. It's fried right now. First something went wrong with the trans. Third gear was not getting the car to go anymore than about 20mph. So if it couldn't get up to at least 35-45mph, it would never see fourth.

I have been driving it within a 5 mile radius to go to near-by stores and other places. Friday, when I went to buy my 70-300mm, I couldn't get the key out `cos it wouldn't go into park. So I had to pound the shifter into park just to get my key out. Now, park and reverse is drive. I think neutral is, too.

Zoom Raider · June 2, 2005

And that is a pretty low profile you have...only a 110mm width.:):

tlittleton · June 2, 2005

What kind of camera do you have? How much do you want to spend on the lens? What do you want to shoot? You can probably find examples of what you're wanting to shoot here in the forums. If you find something similar to the look you want, ask what lens they used, or read the exif data if posted and that will tell you. It sounds like you're still hung up on the X number, when like Steve said, it doesn't really apply to interchangable lenses. I think it would help if you told what kind of pictures you wanted to get.

Zoom Raider wrote:

But this means if I want over a 10x lens, I need to get a 18-200mm, and Tamron makes one. 18-200mm is 11.1x. It's still not what I want. I was hoping for something at least with a 40x equivalence. But this Tamron lens is the highest SLR lens I've found yet. Lemme know if you guys know of one more powerful...the higher, the better.

Thanks!:):

~ZR~

Chase · June 2, 2005

Zoom Raider wrote:

And that is a pretty low profile you have...only a 110mm width.:):

I like the way it looks.

:

Zoom Raider · June 2, 2005

tlittleton wrote:

What kind of camera do you have? How much do you want to spend on the lens? What do you want to shoot? You can probably find examples of what you're wanting to shoot here in the forums. If you find something similar to the look you want, ask what lens they used, or read the exif data if posted and that will tell you. It sounds like you're still hung up on the X number, when like Steve said, it doesn't really apply to interchangable lenses. I think it would help if you told what kind of pictures you wanted to get.

I'm very interested in astronomy shots. I would like to take pics of the moon, sun and stars. I've seen many photos in magazines done by people with SLRs, some of them were in National Geographic. I also like to get shots of ships out at sea from the shores, planes in the far off skies, close ups of birds in trees that're a football field length or two away; etc.

The camera I have now is a Nikon N75. I almost bought the N80, but it didn't have an automatic flash, and the N80 body alone cost almost as much as my N75 with a 28-90mm lens. I'm happy with the shots I've taken. Very sharp and colorful, but it's all been macro and regular distant shots.

I saw someone get his pics developed today that was taken by his 6.1mp. His pics weren't as sharp as mine, and of course my camera is a MSLR. So yeah, I'm happy.:): Just want more zoom...lol But as far as what I wanna spend depends on what I can save up after all these dang bills...lol But I do expect to spend some green to get a lotta zoom. I've also seen people hook up spotting-scopes and telescopes to their SLRs, and even those tiny lenses on those digital pocket cameras. So I'm waiting to do that, too, someday.:):

Zoom Raider · June 2, 2005

Chase wrote:

I like the way it looks. :

Yeah, I bet it looks good. I want 21s for my Camaro someday, but that means it'll be sitting pretty low, so that means it will run as if though it's geared lower, so I'll have to put in a highway gear, like maybe a 2.84, but no higher than a 2.62.

ziggy53 · June 2, 2005

Zoom,

If I understand your original post, you mention two different things.

One is the telephoto magnification factor, which is the focal length of the lens in consideration, divided by the focal length of a "standard/normal" lens for the system under consideration.

For a 300mm lens on a 35mm film camera, this is 300/50, or about a 6x magnification.

The other thing, often also expressed as an "x" factor, is a zoom's range or ratio. This is the maximum focal length divided by the minimum focal length of the lens. Sometimes this is expressed as 3:1, as in a 70-210mm zoom lense.

(Usually the colon indicates the macro ratio for macroscopic lenses, but I have seen the other so be aware.)

In 1.5/1.6 format digital cameras, the Canon 10D/20D/DRebel/DRebelXT and the Nikon D50/D70/D100 etc., the "normal/standard" lense is around 30-35mm.

In 1.3 format cameras, Canon 1D and 1D MkII, it's about 34-39mm.

In 35mm film and full frame digital cameras, normal is 43-50mm. (Most folks call normal anything from 45-55mm.)

In Medium format film cameras it's in the 70-80mm range. (Although medium format includes: 4.5x6cm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm and 6x8cm as typical frame sizes, so the normal will vary a bit with the frame diagonal.)

The whole reason I went through the above is to address your comment of the "40x equivalence" and being able to photograph "close ups of birds in trees that're a football field length or two away."

I don't want to burst your bubble but those are pretty extreme requirements, and I think you need more than 40x in any format to photograph birds at that distance. Remember that any camera/lens movement, wind, ground vibration (trucks and trains etc.) is exagerated by the power of the lens, so you also need to invest in tripods and heads capable of taming your system.

I suggest you research this much more and beg/borrow equipment or even go along with a nature photographer to get some real experience, before you purchase anything.

Astronomical photography is another extreme application, best accomplished with very specialized (expensive) equipment. Photography of the Sun itself is a unique challenge; one that can cause blindness and destroy a camera's shutter and imager.

ziggy53

Zoom Raider · June 2, 2005

ziggy53 wrote:

Zoom,

If I understand your original post, you mention two different things.

One is the telephoto magnification factor, which is the focal length of the lens in consideration, divided by the focal length of a "standard/normal" lens for the system under consideration.

For a 300mm lens on a 35mm film camera, this is 300/50, or about a 6x magnification.

The other thing, often also expressed as an "x" factor, is a zoom's range or ratio. This is the maximum focal length divided by the minimum focal length of the lens. Sometimes this is expressed as 3:1, as in a 70-210mm zoom lense.

(Usually the colon indicates the macro ratio for macroscopic lenses, but I have seen the other so be aware.)

In 1.5/1.6 format digital cameras, the Canon 10D/20D/DRebel/DRebelXT and the Nikon D50/D70/D100 etc., the "normal/standard" lense is around 30-35mm.

In 1.3 format cameras, Canon 1D and 1D MkII, it's about 34-39mm.

In 35mm film and full frame digital cameras, normal is 43-50mm. (Most folks call normal anything from 45-55mm.)

In Medium format film cameras it's in the 70-80mm range. (Although medium format includes: 4.5x6cm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm and 6x8cm as typical frame sizes, so the normal will vary a bit with the frame diagonal.)

The whole reason I went through the above is to address your comment of the "40x equivalence" and being able to photograph "close ups of birds in trees that're a football field length or two away."

I don't want to burst your bubble but those are pretty extreme requirements, and I think you need more than 40x in any format to photograph birds at that distance. Remember that any camera/lens movement, wind, ground vibration (trucks and trains etc.) is exagerated by the power of the lens, so you also need to invest in tripods and heads capable of taming your system.

I suggest you research this much more and beg/borrow equipment or even go along with a nature photographer to get some real experience, before you purchase anything.

Astronomical photography is another extreme application, best accomplished with very specialized (expensive) equipment. Photography of the Sun itself is a unique challenge; one that can cause blindness and destroy a camera's shutter and imager.

ziggy53

Thanks, Ziggy and everyone! I'm just not all that smart when it comes to cameras. This is my first year of my entire life in owning one. I know more about hi-fi home audio and even computers than I do cameras, but someday, I'll know as much as I need to about them.

I think I understand it now.....4.2x is the amount of zoom difference from 70 to 300? But all in all, 300 is 6x, whether I have a fixed 300mm lens or a zoom lens and zoom it all the way in to 300? Am I correct in my understanding? lol Anyway, it sure doesn't look like the objects are zoomed in by just only 4.2x, it looks more like 6 or 7x.:):

As of now, I'm still waiting on my new set of film to be devoloped. This is day three and they don't have them yet. I think they've lost them or something. Can't wait`til I get a high dpi film scanner and develope my own.

~ZR~

Steve Cavigliano · June 2, 2005

Zoom Raider wrote:

.

But this means if I want over a 10x lens, I need to get a 18-200mm, and Tamron makes one. 18-200mm is 11.1x. It's still not what I want. I was hoping for something at least with a 40x equivalence. But this Tamron lens is the highest SLR lens I've found yet. Lemme know if you guys know of one more powerful...the higher, the better.

Thanks!:):

~ZR~

ZR,
Why do you want a "40X" lens? You do realize that the more "X" a lens has the worse the problems? At wide and tele ends, there will be more distortion (barreling and pin cushioning) than a lens with less coverage. Also, with most removable lenses, the more "X" the worse the overall performance. No zoom can compare to a prime. The more "X" the zoom lens has, the worse it will compare to a smaller "X" zoom lens.

That's why very few people have just one lens. Even if there was one available that covered 28mm-1120mm (40X). Image quaility would be poor at both ends and probably not all that decent in between. Have you considered breaking up your 40X, into more than one lens? Like a wide angle zoom, a mid-range zoom and either a super tele prime or zoom? Yes, that's 3 lenses, but any of those 3 (even cheapo versions) would probably kick the snot out of a 40X zoom, even if there were such a thing.

Besides, 40X doesn't mean that you are magnifying your subject 40X lifesize. If you are into the world of removable lenses, you need to get away from the fixed lens mentality. As I wrote earlier, the X factor means nothing when talking about removable lenses.

Sorry, if I have confused you even more

I'll try not to post to this thread again....

Steve

Chase · June 2, 2005

Instead of thinking in terms of x times zoom, go down to a cmaera store and take some looks at different sized lenses in different mm ranges and get a feel for what they do for you before you decide what you want....

Zoom Raider · June 4, 2005

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

ZR,
Why do you want a "40X" lens? You do realize that the more "X" a lens has the worse the problems? At wide and tele ends, there will be more distortion (barreling and pin cushioning) than a lens with less coverage. Also, with most removable lenses, the more "X" the worse the overall performance. No zoom can compare to a prime. The more "X" the zoom lens has, the worse it will compare to a smaller "X" zoom lens.

That's why very few people have just one lens. Even if there was one available that covered 28mm-1120mm (40X). Image quaility would be poor at both ends and probably not all that decent in between. Have you considered breaking up your 40X, into more than one lens? Like a wide angle zoom, a mid-range zoom and either a super tele prime or zoom? Yes, that's 3 lenses, but any of those 3 (even cheapo versions) would probably kick the snot out of a 40X zoom, even if there were such a thing.

Besides, 40X doesn't mean that you are magnifying your subject 40X lifesize. If you are into the world of removable lenses, you need to get away from the fixed lens mentality. As I wrote earlier, the X factor means nothing when talking about removable lenses.

Sorry, if I have confused you even more I'll try not to post to this thread again....

Steve

I'm sorry for all the debate, (or whatever the word is I'm looking for), that I may have caused about all these zoom topics...lol Why do I want so much zoom?`Cos as a kid, I've had binoculars, some powerful, some normal, and I've also had a 200x telescope. Ever since then, I've been into zooming objects from far away. Now I wanna do it with my SLR.

I have seen pictures of SLR users, (whether it's film or digital), that took shots of the moon, stars and far off land objects using high zoom lenses and connecting them to spotting-scopes and telescopes, and they got sharp pictures from it. I've also seen where others as well have connected their tiny digital pocket cameras to SS's and TS's and came out with sharp pictures.

So this is why I ask about high-zoom lenses and SS's and TS's that can be hooked up to my Nikon. I don't mid if my pictures aren't gonna be all that sharp like a low-zoom lens can produce. I know with some editing, it can be made to become sharper. So, so far, the highest non-fixed lense I have seen is a 300-800mm. The highest fixed lens I've seen is a 1000mm, and of course there's those 1.4 and 2.0x converters. If they were to come out with a 4.0 or 5.0x, that would be quite enuff zoom for me if it were connected to that 300-800mm, then edit the shots the best I can.

But for now, I have the lenses you all hate...lol A pair of Q-Rays, (28-90 & 70-300mm). I don't hate them yet. Maybe`cos I'm not a pro yet and don't notice a difference. For some reason, the Sigma 70-300mm didn't work any better than my Q-Ray 70-300mm, so I ended up getting the Q-Ray and saved some cash. It's funny how Wolf swears it's not their lens, that it's made by Sigma for Wolf and they will tell ya to call Sigma or something like that if we don't believe it...lol

I'm guessing Q-Ray is just a company by themselves and they make lenses only for Wolf, and Ritz. I do not see anywhere on the boxes that says, "Quantaray by Sigma" or even "Quantaray by Wolf/Ritz Camera". Anyway, I got my photos finally. All pretty sharp...I moved just'a lil' with some of them.

I'll post one or two of them on the photo area. These are just beginner's shots now.:):

Well, I hope I've explained why I want high-zoom. It's just me, I guess. I know most of you all may just do regular shots and macros. I like macros, too, but my pictures weren't as close as I thought they'd be, and I used my 28-90mm.

Thanks!

~ZR~

MM's and X zoom - part II.

Comments