Very basic question on lens

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

shakey - 22 Dec 2007 00:30 GMT

Disregarding all except magnification factor could someone compare a basic
3x optical zoom camera against these lens for a SLR camera:IE their
magnification factor.
14-22mm
40-150mm

Yes I do understand that much more enters into the picture but right now
just worried about the ability to shoot at a distance. thinking about a
Olympus E-510 Camera illiterate here but its not for me.

Thanks
Mel

Reply to this Message

Rob Morley - 22 Dec 2007 02:18 GMT

> Disregarding all except magnification factor could someone compare a basic
> 3x optical zoom camera against these lens for a SLR camera:IE their
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> just worried about the ability to shoot at a distance. thinking about a
> Olympus E-510 Camera illiterate here but its not for me.

Are you sure you don't mean 14-42? Apparently the image sensor in that
camera is 17.3mm x 13mm. A 'normal' lens for that, i.e. one that gives
the same view as the naked eye at the same distance, is 22mm, so 14-22
is a wide-angle zoom, 14-42 goes from wide angle to 1.9x magnification
and 40-150mm goes from 1.8x to 6.8x magnification.

Reply to this Message

shakey - 22 Dec 2007 19:29 GMT

>> Disregarding all except magnification factor could someone compare a
>> basic
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> is a wide-angle zoom, 14-42 goes from wide angle to 1.9x magnification
> and 40-150mm goes from 1.8x to 6.8x magnificatio

Thank you ALL. From what you have told me even concidering that I did not
clarify it was a DSLR camera "Olympus E-510" I am able to determine that the
max magnification is six based on the 35mm equivalent given in this portion
of specifications.

"Digital SLR image quality is primarily dependent on the quality of the
glass in front of the sensor. I had the two lens kit - an Olympus Zuiko
Digital f/3.5-f5.6/14-42mm (28mm- 84mm equivalent) ED zoom and an Olympus
Zuiko Digital f4.0-f5.6/40-150mm (80mm - 300mm equivalent) zoom. Both zooms
were designed specifically for the Olympus E-410/E-510. Both are quite good
optically, noticeably better than comparable "kit" lenses from most other
manufacturers. In addition, both lenses are lightweight and very compact -
although some users may be bothered by the polycarbonate lens mounts
featured on both optics."

Again thanks to all
Mel

Reply to this Message

Joel - 22 Dec 2007 20:51 GMT

> >> Disregarding all except magnification factor could someone compare a
> >> basic
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> Again thanks to all
> Mel

I don't own any Olympus DSLR nor film camera (I owned 5-6+ Olympus P&S
digital cameras) to know much about their lens system. But just by looking
at the ##'s you given above I am pretty sure none of them is
top_of_the_line_lens.

And just like all other camera systems the IQ usually depends on the
quality of the lens. Of course in some situation (or technique) you can be
able to get very shrap image with cheapie lens, but it often require special
setting.

Reply to this Message

Robert Coe - 28 Dec 2007 21:13 GMT

: I don't own any Olympus DSLR nor film camera (I owned 5-6+ Olympus P&S
: digital cameras) to know much about their lens system. But just by looking
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
: quality of the lens. Of course in some situation (or technique) you can be
: able to get very shrap

Interesting word, that. An amalgamation of "sharp" and "crap"? ;^)

: image with cheapie lens, but it often require special setting.

You know, Joel, there's no shame in using a spellchecker, especially when
English isn't your native language!

Bob

Reply to this Message

Joel - 29 Dec 2007 01:19 GMT

> : I don't own any Olympus DSLR nor film camera (I owned 5-6+ Olympus P&S
> : digital cameras) to know much about their lens system. But just by looking
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> You know, Joel, there's no shame in using a spellchecker, especially when
> English isn't your native language!

I agree! that is no shame to lets your brain do the thinking <bg>

> Bob

Reply to this Message

Ken Hart - 22 Dec 2007 15:37 GMT

> Disregarding all except magnification factor could someone compare a basic
> 3x optical zoom camera against these lens for a SLR camera:IE their
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Thanks
> Mel

Magnification factor can be determined by what is considered a 'normal' (or
1x) lens. For a 35mm camera, a 50mm lens is considered a 'normal' lens. For
other focal lengths, divide the focal length by 50. A 300mm lens on a 35mm
camera is 6x (300 divided by 50 equals 6). Your 40-150mm example is 0.8x to
3x..

Reply to this Message

Rob Morley - 22 Dec 2007 17:40 GMT

> > Disregarding all except magnification factor could someone compare a basic
> > 3x optical zoom camera against these lens for a SLR camera:IE their
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> camera is 6x (300 divided by 50 equals 6). Your 40-150mm example is 0.8x to
> 3x..

Except his camera has a small sensor, and there was no mention of
"equivalent focal length". That together with a shortest focal length
of 14mm, which is /extremely/ wide angle for a 35mm body and not likely
in a zoom lens, suggests to me that these are the actual focal lengths,
in which case the normal focal length will be SQRT(W^2 + H^2) of the
image sensor.

Reply to this Message