Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1

    Why no 22-810mm lens for D-SLR's?

    So, the Nikon P500 (below) has a fantastic built-in lens... equivalent to 22-810mm. And stabilized. And motorized zoom (good for video). The whole thing - camera with lens - is around $350.

    Anyone know of a technical reason they can't they make a larger version of a lens like this for a D-SLR? And not charge $10,000 for it? (not a price exaggeration. For zoom power like that, maybe $20,000+ would be more accurate.)

    Name:  nikonp500rfl800.jpg
Views: 247
Size:  20.2 KB
    Last edited by Dario D.; 11-08-2011 at 03:17 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,680
    Two Words...Crop Factor.

    In the Nikon P500 the Crop Factor is approx x 5.6 (I think). Making the lens the equivalent of a 145mm (not an 810mm).
    Last edited by Honest Gaza; 11-09-2011 at 02:16 PM.
    Canon 5D MKlll & Canon 50D
    Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM | Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro | Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM | Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 | Canon 430EX Flash | Lowepro Mini Trekker AW | Lowepro Toploader 65 AW | Lowepro Slingshot 200AW | Kata 3n1-10

    Panasonic Lumix FZ200
    Panasonic Lumix TZ7 (aka ZS3)
    Panasonic Lumix FT3 (aka TS3)

    Ali Baba.....the Thief of Bad Gags

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    4,173
    In order to make a lens that covers such a huge range and still fit in a reasonable sized package the sensor must be quite small. If you tried to make it for a much larger DSLR sensor the lens would be gigantic and heavy. It's also very hard to make a lens that covers a wide range and still has great image quality over the full range. The lens would produce lower quality images than lenses of a more reasonable range.

    The relatively poor image quality is OK if the whole package is small enough to carry around. Once you reduce image quality what's the point of spending a huge amount of money and breaking your back lugging the thing around?

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Honest Gaza View Post
    Two Words...Crop Factor.

    In the Nikon P500 the Crop Factor is approx x 5.6 (I think). Making the lens the equivalent of a 145mm (not an 810mm).
    Hmm, that doesn't sound right. How do they get 22mm equivalent out of the wide end? That would mean the lens actually starts at something like 4mm.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Metsky View Post
    In order to make a lens that covers such a huge range and still fit in a reasonable sized package the sensor must be quite small. If you tried to make it for a much larger DSLR sensor the lens would be gigantic and heavy. It's also very hard to make a lens that covers a wide range and still has great image quality over the full range. The lens would produce lower quality images than lenses of a more reasonable range.
    Why not uniformly increase the sensor and lens both by exactly 3x? (or some comfortable size) With that much wider aperture, you'd get a ton more light intake, and way fatter bokeh.

    Unless I'm missing something, where scaling up a lens requires a much larger size increase vs. the sensor than I realize.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Dario D. View Post
    Hmm, that doesn't sound right. How do they get 22mm equivalent out of the wide end? That would mean the lens actually starts at something like 4mm.
    Take a peak at the front of the lens.

    Canon makes a 28-300mm lens for FF cameras. It weighs 1670g. Tamron makes a 18-270mm lens for cropped sensors. Usually these types of lenses have lots of barrel distortion on wide end, they're soft on the long end and they have slow max apertures.
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWengler View Post
    Take a peak at the front of the lens.
    Oh, I see. It says 4-144mm. Honest Gaza is right about the crop factor.

    Name:  camera-front.jpg
Views: 212
Size:  130.0 KB

    I didn't know 4mm could sit on the same lens as 144mm. (Without the crop factor, that would be like this and this in one package.)

    Hmm, I wonder how hard it would be to put the 4mm in front of a larger sensor (D-SLR), and get a usable image. This P500 lens is already sharp enough in the center. It would be GREAT to have an all-in-one zoom lens that was 4-144mm. But, again, not for a $1 million. (My Nikon 18-200mm VR a couple years ago cost me $800.)
    Last edited by Dario D.; 11-10-2011 at 11:07 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Dario D. View Post
    Oh, I see. It says 4-144mm. Honest Gaza is right about the crop factor.
    Did you really think that Honest Gaza would lie to you ?
    Canon 5D MKlll & Canon 50D
    Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM | Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro | Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM | Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 | Canon 430EX Flash | Lowepro Mini Trekker AW | Lowepro Toploader 65 AW | Lowepro Slingshot 200AW | Kata 3n1-10

    Panasonic Lumix FZ200
    Panasonic Lumix TZ7 (aka ZS3)
    Panasonic Lumix FT3 (aka TS3)

    Ali Baba.....the Thief of Bad Gags

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Honest Gaza View Post
    Did you really think that Honest Gaza would lie to you ?
    Lol, I'm learning.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by Dario D. View Post
    So, the Nikon P500 (below) has a fantastic built-in lens... equivalent to 22-810mm. And stabilized. And motorized zoom (good for video). The whole thing - camera with lens - is around $350.

    Anyone know of a technical reason they can't they make a larger version of a lens like this for a D-SLR?

    Name:  nikonp500rfl800.jpg
Views: 247
Size:  20.2 KB
    Take a look at #4 in the link you've provided, the Canon 800mm f/5.6

    It is a prime lens that doesn't even have any "zoom", this is how it looks like:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sasporonty/4562718944/

    You'd need a car or something like that to move this proposed 22-810mm lens around
    Nikon D40|Nikon D5100|AF-S 50mm f/1.4|AF-S 18-105mm DX|SB 900|SB 400|AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX|AF-S 10-24mm DX

    Canon A610

    Flickr

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Screenclutter View Post
    You'd need a car or something like that to move this proposed 22-810mm lens around
    It's called a Telescope
    Canon 5D MKlll & Canon 50D
    Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM | Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro | Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM | Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 | Canon 430EX Flash | Lowepro Mini Trekker AW | Lowepro Toploader 65 AW | Lowepro Slingshot 200AW | Kata 3n1-10

    Panasonic Lumix FZ200
    Panasonic Lumix TZ7 (aka ZS3)
    Panasonic Lumix FT3 (aka TS3)

    Ali Baba.....the Thief of Bad Gags

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •