30x zoom

Are you asking if there is a lens with a 30x zoom for DSLR's?

There isn't, because it would be very large, very heavy, very expensive and probably not have great image quality.
You see, compacts have a very small sensor, which effectively crops the image produced by the lens, so they can design lenses for compacts that project a small image circle which allows the lenses to be smaller than their DSLR equivalent which has to project a large circle.

The closest you can get to that kind of versatility on a DSLR is something like the tamron 18-270mm. Which is only a 15x zoom, but I think it's the most extreme zoom on the market.
 
I was asking what lens on a DSLR would be the equivelent to a 30x zoom lens on a compact but your answer makes sence thanks.
 
I was just curious as I have been playing around with a compact with a 30x zoom and I was wondering if a lens for a DSLR could have the same type of zoom but as I expected it would be very costly and large.
 
Having previously had super zooms with 24x zoom I can say I get better quality pics from my Sony a55 with a 70-300mm. The image quality at 30 x zoom is poor as the sensor is so small.
 
baldybrewer said:
I was asking what lens on a DSLR would be the equivelent to a 30x zoom lens on a compact but your answer makes sence thanks.
Click to expand...

I think the answer is that the term "zoom" is fundamentally different between compact/bridge and DSLRs.

Zoom on a non-DSLR is (IMO) a marketing tool to make it stand out from the rest, it's "effective zoom" due to the tiny sensor and the how good the IQ is at maximum zoom isn't taken into consideration.

In the DSLR World zoom isn't as relevant as a photographer will pick lenses that have a focal length or range that suits their style of photography.

For instance a sports photographer will use a 70-200 with x1.4/x2 converters or maybe a two bodies with different telephoto primes.
 
Last edited:
I was walking along the prom the other day with my 400mm f5.6 trying for flight shots of seagulls. Non photographers always think you're going to be able to see the colour of a gnat's eye 8 miles away across the bay.

A chap came up and said "B***** H*** what's the zoom on that"? I was about to say "it isn't a zoom, it's a prime" when I realized that really wasn't the question he was asking. After a quick calculation I said, "It's about 8X". He was quite satisfied.

Until that point I had honestly never really thought about what the magnification would be of my lenses.
 
Greywolf said:
I was walking along the prom the other day with my 400mm f5.6 trying for flight shots of seagulls. Non photographers always think you're going to be able to see the colour of a gnat's eye 8 miles away across the bay.

A chap came up and said "B***** H*** what's the zoom on that"? I was about to say "it isn't a zoom, it's a prime" when I realized that really wasn't the question he was asking. After a quick calculation I said, "It's about 8X". He was quite satisfied.

Until that point I had honestly never really thought about what the magnification would be of my lenses.
Click to expand...

:lol:

I'm guessing you based your calculation on an "standard" DSLR focal length of 50mm?

I suppose when you think about it a 15-85mm has more zoom capability than a 70-200 or 100-400 but trying to explain focal lengths to people who aren't really into photography it'll just be :bang::bonk::bang::bonk:
 
Why do you need something so extreme? As a photographer of some 34 years experience, I remember my tutor telling us to invest in a good pair of shoes rather than an expensive long lens ie walk closer to your subject!
 
khitomer said:
Why do you need something so extreme? As a photographer of some 34 years experience, I remember my tutor telling us to invest in a good pair of shoes rather than an expensive long lens ie walk closer to your subject!
Click to expand...

Who's that aimed at? :lol:

I agree to a point but there's a limit to how close you can get to wildlife, a cricket ball or 18st Rugby players ;)
 
Russ77 said:
I think the answer is that the term "zoom" is fundamentally different between compact/bridge and DSLRs.

Zoom on a non-DSLR is (IMO) a marketing tool to make it stand out from the rest, it's "effective zoom" due to the tiny sensor and the how good the IQ is at maximum zoom isn't taken into consideration.

In the DSLR World zoom isn't as relevant as a photographer will pick lenses that have a focal length or range that suits their style of photography.

For instance a sports photographer will use a 70-200 with x1.4/x2 converters or maybe a two bodies with different telephoto primes.
Click to expand...

I disagree. A zoom lens is one which a variable focal length, so can zoom into a subject. I agree with you in that the "30x" multiplication is marketing speak to help people who have no photographical knowledge understand that 200mm is a bigger magnification than 100mm.

And IQ is not taken into account in any lens length, regardless of whether it is on a compact or a DSLR.

IQ at long distances is always debatable, both on DSLR's and also on compacts or bridges. With regards to sensor size, there will always be a debate, but remembering that most DSLR's do not have a full frame sensor, does that make them inferior camera's? There are arguments for both sides.

And just because a Zoom lens is not appropriate for you, does not mean that it is not appropriate for other DSLR users, otherwise the DSLR world would be based on primes and primes alone.

I'm not picking a fight, but your answer does come across as a bit DSLR snobbish to me;).
 
Russ77 said:
Who's that aimed at? :lol:

I agree to a point but there's a limit to how close you can get to wildlife, a cricket ball or 18st Rugby players ;)
Click to expand...

:lol:Yes, I want a closer shot of that Sea Eagle, I'll just walk on water shall I?
 
neil_g said:
technically a prime is 0x ;)
Click to expand...

No, it can't be. The multiplication is used as an example of how much the lens magnifies an image. Now it is not a faultless system, wide angle lenses, fisheyes etc. don't fit into it, and how do you decide what lens has 0x magnification? But a magnifying lens has to have some kind of image magnification and the "x" system is just different to the truer representation in MM.
 
"Zoom" on a compact has never referred to magnification. I'm forever explaining this on non-togging forums.

A x4 zoom could be 10-40mm, or 20-80mm or 1200x4800mm. On a compact it's purely used to describe the relationship between the ends of the focal length. It's one of the reasons it cause so much confusion. "Zoom" and "megapixels" fall into the "higher the better" school of marketing, when most people that are in the know would be a lot more conservative about which were the numbers to aim for.

A prime would be a x1 zoom using "compact speak".. no matter what magnification it was. It couldn't be zero, and if it was less than 1 it would be shorter at the long end than it was at the short end, and longer at the short end than it was at the long end. In other words, it would be up it's own aperture.

The highest "zoom" DSLR lenses I can think of are the Sigma 18-250 (x13.9 zoom), followed by the Canon 18-200 (x11.1), 28-300 (x10.7), and the Sigma 50-500 (x10). Anyone know of one higher?
 
Alastair said:
"Zoom" on a compact has never referred to magnification. I'm forever explaining this on non-togging forums.

A x4 zoom could be 10-40mm, or 20-80mm or 1200x4800mm. On a compact it's purely used to describe the relationship between the ends of the focal length. It's one of the reasons it cause so much confusion. "Zoom" and "megapixels" fall into the "higher the better" school of marketing, when most people that are in the know would be a lot more conservative about which were the numbers to aim for.

A prime would be a x1 zoom using "compact speak".. no matter what magnification it was. It couldn't be zero, and if it was less than 1 it would be shorter at the long end than it was at the short end, and longer at the short end than it was at the long end. In other words, it would be up it's own aperture.

The highest "zoom" DSLR lenses I can think of are the Sigma 18-250 (x13.9 zoom), followed by the Canon 18-200 (x11.1), 28-300 (x10.7), and the Sigma 50-500 (x10). Anyone know of one higher?
Click to expand...


Showoff! :razz:
 
lawrie29 said:
I disagree. A zoom lens is one which a variable focal length, so can zoom into a subject. I agree with you in that the "30x" multiplication is marketing speak to help people who have no photographical knowledge understand that 200mm is a bigger magnification than 100mm.

And IQ is not taken into account in any lens length, regardless of whether it is on a compact or a DSLR.

IQ at long distances is always debatable, both on DSLR's and also on compacts or bridges. With regards to sensor size, there will always be a debate, but remembering that most DSLR's do not have a full frame sensor, does that make them inferior camera's? There are arguments for both sides.

And just because a Zoom lens is not appropriate for you, does not mean that it is not appropriate for other DSLR users, otherwise the DSLR world would be based on primes and primes alone.

I'm not picking a fight, but your answer does come across as a bit DSLR snobbish to me;).
Click to expand...

No fight picking perceived :love:

And no, I didn't mean to sound DSLR snobbish :lol:

I didn't say/mean that you can't use the term zoom with regards to DSLR photography, it's the zoom factor that's different and you can't compare zoom on a compact/bridge to zoom on a DSLR as generally speaking, zoom where DSLR is concerned is a horses for courses thing.

For example, if you were going out to buy a bridge/compact and you had 2 cameras for about the same money with identical MP (obviously more means better) but one had a x20 zoom and the other a x30 zoom I reckon 99% of people buying in that market would go for the x30 zoom as it's obviously better.

When someone buys a DSLR they generally take a lot more/different factors into consideration regarding the body and then what lenses they need, someone wouldn't choose one DSLR over another because of the amount of zoom it offers (as of course the body itself doesn't offer zoom).

Even when buying a lens, the zoom factor is pretty much irrelevant as you would generally decide what focal length(s) you need rather than I want a lens with x?? zoom
 
Russ77 said:
For example, if you were going out to buy a bridge/compact and you had 2 cameras for about the same money with identical MP (obviously more means better)
Click to expand...

:cuckoo:

:lol:
 
Alastair said:
"Zoom" on a compact has never referred to magnification. I'm forever explaining this on non-togging forums.

A x4 zoom could be 10-40mm, or 20-80mm or 1200x4800mm. On a compact it's purely used to describe the relationship between the ends of the focal length. It's one of the reasons it cause so much confusion. "Zoom" and "megapixels" fall into the "higher the better" school of marketing, when most people that are in the know would be a lot more conservative about which were the numbers to aim for.

A prime would be a x1 zoom using "compact speak".. no matter what magnification it was. It couldn't be zero, and if it was less than 1 it would be shorter at the long end than it was at the short end, and longer at the short end than it was at the long end. In other words, it would be up it's own aperture.

The highest "zoom" DSLR lenses I can think of are the Sigma 18-250 (x13.9 zoom), followed by the Canon 18-200 (x11.1), 28-300 (x10.7), and the Sigma 50-500 (x10). Anyone know of one higher?
Click to expand...

didnt think of it like that.. multiply by zero and all that :bonk:
 
Alastair said:
"Zoom" on a compact has never referred to magnification. I'm forever explaining this on non-togging forums.

The highest "zoom" DSLR lenses I can think of are the Sigma 18-250 (x13.9 zoom), followed by the Canon 18-200 (x11.1), 28-300 (x10.7), and the Sigma 50-500 (x10). Anyone know of one higher?
Click to expand...


Don't tamron do an 18-270? theres probably something out there with more 'zoom' I expect that I've never heard of before.
 
I think that most "non-photographers" assume that "zoom" equals focal reach, therefore a camera with a 30x zoom will "zoom" closer than something with a 15x "zoom".

Before I started to get into photography I assumed that, and it's only afterwards that I realised that all the "x zoom" is another marketing ploy really.

Most people out there won't understand that it is the focal length that determines how close a subject appears.
 
Just to throw a bit more into the mix how much of the 30x zoom on a compact is optical and how much is software
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top