Gold Enthusiast
|
To over simplify matters, a zoom lens described as being 5x means that the range of the zoom is five times greater from the smallest aperture to the widest: i.e. 28mm to 140mm for example. Compact cameras like your new acquisition have a built-in lens covering the standard rage, which is designed around 50mm (50mm basically being the size you see with the naked eye). On an SLR camera things get different, because the lens (you can also buy the SLR camera body on its own) is detachable. So when you buy another lens, “5x” is pretty meaningless. Why? Well, some lenses are for people who want to shoot dead insects, say, which they want to mount as a collection, and so they want close-ups (small focal lengths, 28mm or lower) while others want to shoot the gargoyles on Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris for instance (large focal lengths = big zoom capability required – 200mm, 300mm). That’s why lenses off the camera are talked about in terms of their range. A big zoom of 200mm-500mm is still a 2.5x zoom, but so too is a lens of 30mm-75mm. “2.5” in these cases just doesn’t tell the prospective lens buyer everything he or she needs to know.
|
| |
|
Gold Enthusiast
|
quote: it would seem that cameras $200-300 more than mine would have bigger zooms, no?
PS To answer this part of your question, yes, bigger zoom lenses are more expensive than shorter ones, but a more expensive SLR doesn't necessarily imply a longer zoom. Cameras alone (with no lens supplied) can cost a fortune and they can differ so much in terms of quality components, workmanship, and so on. The length of the lens is only one issue.
|
| |
|