30x zoom lens question ??

chaparral

chaparral

chaparral

Caporegime
Joined
27 Nov 2005
Posts
25,391
Location
Guernsey
I see that the lastest compact cameras (HX60/ TZ60 etc) have a 30x zoom

Which DSLR lens would give you the same reach ?
and what kind of start off price would you be looking at paying for an DSLR camera & lens with this kind of zoom/reach ?
 
Last edited:
30x zoom is meaningless.

a 1200mm prime lens is a 1x zoom. A 14-24mm is 1.7x zoom. A 35mm prime is a 1x zoom. A 24-70mm is a 2.9x zoom.

It's basically the max focal length over the least. So 1200/1200 = 1.

A 30x zoom could be a 5mm (on a small sensor camera like a compact) to 150mm.

Or it could be a 10mm to to 300mm.

Or anything in between or more.

You really can't compare them. The aperture will be different, the QUALITY will be better on a DSLR and no DSLR lens as a 30x zoom, and THANK GOD for that ! lol

In short, it is a marketing ploy to make their lens more magnified than it really is. What is more important is the focal length numbers.
 
Last edited:
The range on those is equivalent to 24-720mm on a full frame DSLR.

A 400mm f4 + 1.4TC on a 1.5x crop APS-C will net you 840mm equivalent field of view. A Tamron 150-600 will get you to 900mm equivalent on the same body.

Or go all out on a Sigma 300-800 on your full frame DSLR of choice.

A 75-300 on a m43 body will get you to 600mm.
 
Last edited:
The reason they can fit the big pointless zooms in those cameras is because of the teeny sensor stuck behind them and the extremely narrow apertures that are used.

When zoomed fully in on cameras with small sensors and small apertures, diffraction kicks in and turns the image into a mushy clump of crap.

The closest you will get on a DSLR is a Nikon 18-300mm although Tamron are just about to release a 16-300mm but they also have an 18-270m. However they are far from pocketable, cost a fair chunk and have some hefty weight behind them.
 
Columbo said:
When zoomed fully in on cameras with small sensors and small apertures, diffraction kicks in and turns the image into a mushy clump of crap.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean as I been playing around with my old sony HX20v compact camera today that has a small sensor and 20x zoom ...

That was why I started this thread ....to try get an idea on what I lens I would need and at what kind of price/size to get much better pictures at long reach ;)

sony HX20v Zero zoom



sony HX20v x20 zoom


Sony RX100m2 zero zoom
 
Last edited:
I believe the new tamron 16-300 is the lens with the latest zoom range on an APS-C DSLR (24-450mm 35mm equivalent)
To be honest, as people have said, it's down to the sensor size, the larger the sensor, the larger the glass required for the equivalent lens ( in general).

Also, the larger the zoom range, generally, the poorer the quality, although most Superzooms are OK these days, they don't match prime or small zooms in general.
 
There are also environmental factors to considers, the further away the object the more the environment and between you and it will affect the view of that subject.

The most expensive setups available can't compensate for such things so a £200 camera with a 1200mm lens certainly won't.

If you do want a do it all though, A DSLR with one of the superzoom lenses will offer significantly better image quality than anything in the compact or bridge range, you just have to pay the size and weight price for it.

Keep the superzooms at f8-f11 at the anything above 100mm and you'll get decent results.

If you get into the used market, have a look at a Nikon D5100 and Tamron 18-270mm PZD and you should see change from £500.
 
The Tamron 18-270 isn't a bad lens in my opinion, well at least my copy isn't anyway. Sharpness and colour are both great, it's only when I pixel peep that there's any stark difference compared to my Canon 70-200 mkii. F3.5 is very usable at the wide end, and the IS is extremely effective. Distortion and fringing are the only real downsides, but both easily correctable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom