Not an easy question to answer as it depends on how wide your digital camera is at the wide angle end. Most seem to be about 35mm equivalent at the wide end, so 350mm equivalent at the telephoto end. To get the same zoom range on an APS-C sized DSLR you need to divide those numbers by 1.6, so roughly a 22-220mm zoom. Sigma make an 18-200 zoom both with and without optical stabiliser and Tamron make an 18-250mm so it's possible to get nearly a 14x zoom range on the DSLR. On the other hand you'll find that the quality of the images is better if you use two or more smaller zoom range lenses (say for example a 17-70 and a 70-300) as the bigger the zoom range a lens has the more it's design must be compromised..

Bearly98 wrote:.

Zoom vs TelephotoReal simple questionIf I had a Digital camera that has a 10X zoom lens, if I need thesame zoom range from a DSLR what kind of lens would I need? I amconsidering buying a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and would need topurchase a lens with that capacity...

The tamron 18-250 seems to be the best of the affordable super-zooms and should do what you want: check out reviews onhttp://www.photozone.deMike..

Mike703 wrote:.

The tamron 18-250 seems to be the best of the affordable super-zoomsand should do what you want: check out reviews onhttp://www.photozone.deMike.

Indeed it should do what has been asked for. But it may not be the best lens to buy. With a DSLR you have the ability to change lenses to suit the requirement, and it may be better to cover this range with two or more separate zoom lenses, each covering part of the range.Regards,Peter..

This quite a complicated question; or rather, the answer is complicated..

I assume you mean comparing a P&S/compact/bridge camera with a dSLR? Now they have long zooms and at the tele end of the zoom range they have fairly small apertures. Meaning IS and high ISO become important, which may bring in other problems. Buy a run of the mill dSLR lens to cover the same tele end of the zoom and it won't give you a huge improvement over the ordinary x10 etc zoom. But spend a lot of money on a tele zoom and you'll make a large jump forward in quality and flexibility (mostly because the aperture will be so much bigger and the compromises in the design won't be as bad: they tend to show up at the end of the zoom range)..

A similar argument applies with kit lenses covering around the standard range and, again, to show a decent jump in quality etc you need to spend a lot of money. And then you might find that neither of these two expensive lenses have a macro setting; meaning a third lens to buy..

Once you've reached the three lenses and a large carrying case point you'll discover that changing the lenses is a real pita and will be looking for a second body (and a bigger case)..

Or you could stick to one of the middle of the range x10 or x12 or whatever cameras and have it all in one neat little bundle that will have one or two limitations, or irritations. But then so does the dSLR solution....

For example, I go to a lot of airshows and there you'll see a lot of people with dSLR's with huge and expensive tele zooms on them and - often - another similar camera to cover the 35 to 90 mm (in 35 mm terms) zoom range..

Another example, go for a walk in the woods and you'll met fellow sufferers carrying a dSLR with a macro lens on it for flowers, butterflies etc and another dSLR with a 200 mm plus zoom lens..

Just my 2d worth..

Regards, David..

David has just demonstrated that he's not particularly good at working out the trade-offs in play here..

If you use a small sensor format then you can make a camera with a big zoom range which is fairly small and light. The down side is that pixels will be tiny (fairly noisy, especialy at high ISO), you're pushing the limits of the lens makers art to get sharp images at this scale and the long zoom range tends to result in problems like purple fringing and curvature of the image..

If you use a DSLR then the camera will be larger and more expensive, but you get to chose what trade-offs you want to make with the lenses you use..

If you want a comparitively light camera for travel etc then you can fit a single long zoom like the Tamron 18-250..

If you want to shoot at an airshow then some relatively inexpensive lenses (for example the Sigma 135-400) will give you more reach than the longest zoom bridge camera on the market..

If you want to shoot macros then some mid range macro zooms will get you pretty close, but a dedicated macro prime lens will get you closer than just about anything..

If you want wide angles then a dedicated ultra-wide zoom will blow any bridge camera into the weeds (bridge cameras don't come any wider than 28mm effective, DSLR ultra wide zooms can get you down to 16mm effective, which is a bigger difference than it sounds)..

In all the above cases you will be using bigger, less noisy pixels that work well over a larger range of ISO settings..

All of these things are a trade between off between a number of factors (size, weight, cost, angle of view, sharpness, low light performance etc). The photographers that Dave seems intent on ridiculing have chosen to make a different set of trade-offs to him based on a different set of priorities...

Lots of people have given you sound advice already, I'd add my voice to the "you don't really want to do that with a DSLR" crowd. I'd also add a couple of other things..

First, if range of zoom is the most important thing for you, consider a "bridge" camera like the Canon S5 or Panasonic DMC-FZ18..

Also consider the Olympus system, where there is a reasonably priced (330), compact superzoom in the range that covers effective range of 36-360mm (18 - 180) http://www.olympus.co.uk/...umer/dslr_ZUIKO_DIGITAL_ED_18-180mm_1_3_5-6_3.htmAlso, there are good deals to be had with a twin lens kit..

Consider then buying an E510 twin lens kit that goes from 28mm - 300 in two lenses and adding the superzoom to it, after trying the twin lens option. The big advantage there is that you will get an Image Stabilised body - very important if you want to use long zooms without wide apertures. With canon IS is currently only available in lenses that cost a very lot each..

Ham===http://londondailyphoto.blogspot.com..

Once you leave the fixed lens camera (P&S, prosumer, SLRlike, ...) world and you enter the DSLR world you no longer use the terms, 3x, 6x, 10x zoom, etc. Actually some people never use those terms, period, as they are just misleading and inaccurate and used for marketing purposes to explain focal length to the general public..

The 10x simply tells you the focal length ratio between the widest angle setting and the longest tele setting of a camera. For instance 36mm - 360mm. However since this is not standardized there are differences between camera models. A 18mm - 180mm lens is a much of a 10x zoom as a 50mm - 500mm..

The reason this term in not used in DLSRs is (besides that it is nonsense) because you have interchangeable lenses, so your zoom range varies depending on the lens you use from 1x (prime) to ???x depending on what combination of lenses you own..

So, for example, I own a 10-20mm wide angle zoom, which could be classified as a 2x zoom. Then on the other end I own a 70-200mm tele zoom, which is roughly 3x. To fill in the gap I also have a 24-70mm standard zoom, again almost a 3x zoom. Now, taken the overall range 10mm - 200m I would have a 20x zoom (spreed over three sets of lenses). If I owned lenses to cover everything to 500m or even 1000mm, I would have a 50x or a 100x zoom ....

But again, that classification doesn't make sense once you enter the DSLR world. It's the other way around, it's about what are your photo subjects and what are you interested in photographing? And then you decide on the focal length (mm range) that would be best suited for the task. And for virtually all situations you will find a suitable lens..

Cheersbecksi.

Bearly98 wrote:.

Zoom vs TelephotoReal simple questionIf I had a Digital camera that has a 10X zoom lens, if I need thesame zoom range from a DSLR what kind of lens would I need? I amconsidering buying a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and would need topurchase a lens with that capacity...

DSLRs can be bought with twin lens kits. These lenses normally cover the 35mm equivalent of 28-300mm, in two parts. The first lens, which is typically called an 18-55, is equivalent to 28-83 and the second to 83-300 ( usually called the 55-200 ). The numbers are approximate..

Now this covers a good range for most people is is the same as something like the Fuji S6500 bridge camera coverage..

With DSLRs it is always better to use lenses coverings a smaller range ( the 18-55 is a 3x lens = 55/18 and the 55-200 is about a 4x lens ). Building a reasonably good lens with that kind of magnification is less difficult than building one with a 10x lens, so to produce reasonable image quality ( by DSLR standards ) you use lenses covering a smaller range and switch them..

That is one of the main advantages of a DSLR..

A single 'super-zoom', like an 18-200 or a 18-250 has to make compromises to get that big magnification ( 200/18 = 11 ), and it means that image quality is not as good as two kit lenses covering the same range..

So to get your equivalent range the normal approach would be to buy a DSLR with the normal twin lens kit. This is usually quite cost effective as the lenses are effectively discounted in a kit..

Note that later you can add better ( and more expensive ) lenses to improve image quality, which you cannot do with a bridge camera..

Hope that helps..

By the way, a 'zoom lens' is any lens with a variable focal length ( like an 18-55 ). A 'telephoto' is actually a lens with a long focal length ( like 200mm, say ), but need not be a zoom. A non-zoom is a prime lens, which has a single focal lenght you cannot change. These generally have better image quality than zooms, but, of course, are not as convenient as a zoom. A 'super-zoom' is a zoom covering a large range ( like an 18-200 )..

StephenG.

Pentax K100DFuji S5200Fuji E900PCLinuxOS..

Spt_gb wrote:.

David has just demonstrated that he's not particularly good atworking out the trade-offs in play here..

No need to be rude to refute things..

If you use a small sensor format then you can make a camera with abig zoom range which is fairly small and light. The down side is thatpixels will be tiny (fairly noisy, especialy at high ISO), you'repushing the limits of the lens makers art to get sharp images at thisscale and the long zoom range tends to result in problems like purplefringing and curvature of the image..

Depends on the maker and designer..

If you use a DSLR then the camera will be larger and more expensive,but you get to chose what trade-offs you want to make with the lensesyou use..

Just what I said..

If you want a comparitively light camera for travel etc then you canfit a single long zoom like the Tamron 18-250..

The problems with travel are nothing to do with optics but are about the realities of tourism. A lot of P&S's are the ideal for travel/tourist, and there's the Leica Digilux 2 or the D-Lux 3, which defy classification..

If you want to shoot at an airshow then some relatively inexpensivelenses (for example the Sigma 135-400) will give you more reach thanthe longest zoom bridge camera on the market..

I do a lot of airshows (I'm one of those people with two cameras) and as my pictures are still being published (and stolen regardless of my copyright), I might just know what I'm talking about. Long zooms are not much use IMO because the problem at airshows is that things are moving fast and get bigger in the viewfinder frame as they get nearer. So a zoom going out to about 200mm (in 35 mm terms) works quite well. Go to to 300 (ditto) and the 'plane may go outside the frame at the perfect moment. Stick to 200mm and all you'll have to do is trim a bit of sky off, now and then. I use an f/2.4 for flexibility..

If you want to shoot macros then some mid range macro zooms will getyou pretty close, but a dedicated macro prime lens will get youcloser than just about anything..

I couldn't agree more - again I'm one of those fools with two cameras but I often think how nice it would be to just carry a P&S that covered it all..

If you want wide angles then a dedicated ultra-wide zoom will blowany bridge camera into the weeds (bridge cameras don't come any widerthan 28mm effective, DSLR ultra wide zooms can get you down to 16mmeffective, which is a bigger difference than it sounds)..

I couldn't agree more and if I had a few thousand pounds to spare I'd get one of those nice Olympus "FourThirds" 8mm or the 7-14 mm (after buying a trolley to carry it all on)..

In all the above cases you will be using bigger, less noisy pixelsthat work well over a larger range of ISO settings..

Agreed..

All of these things are a trade between off between a number offactors (size, weight, cost, angle of view, sharpness, low lightperformance etc). The photographers that Dave seems intent onridiculing have chosen to make a different set of trade-offs to himbased on a different set of priorities..

What does he mean?.

The real problem is weight and money. I could afford MF when it was film. Even the baby MF's (645) weren't that dear or heavy but add a digital back and you either crop things to about 45 by 32 mm (CCD size from memory) and you crop thousands from the bank balance. MF digital backs were about US $12,000 or so last time I looked (this year) and when I looked 10 years ago we were talking about UK 35,000 or so. Unless you can borrow one from the IoA or NASA..

So you do a bit of research and decide on the trade-offs and what you can afford (or explain to the wife)..

Regards, David..

David Hughes wrote:....

You're pushing the limits of the lens makers art to get sharp images at thisscale and the long zoom range tends to result in problems like purplefringing and curvature of the image..

Depends on the maker and designer..

Show me one manufacturer of super zooms who is free from the problems inherent in such designs. Even Panasonic, who use Leica designed lenses, have visible issues and need to use custom CPUs to digitaly reduce fringing..

If you use a DSLR then the camera will be larger and more expensive,but you get to chose what trade-offs you want to make with the lensesyou use..

Just what I said..

Nup, you said that they were larger and more expensive. You did not recognise that the issue becomes that of finding the right compromise in the choice of lens or lenses..

....

The problems with travel are nothing to do with optics but are aboutthe realities of tourism. A lot of P&S's are the ideal fortravel/tourist, and there's the Leica Digilux 2 or the D-Lux 3, whichdefy classification..

You're going to have to explain the logic of that statement. The realities of tourism are that you need a system that is small and light enough to carry around all day while being flexible enough to work in a large variety of situations. Personaly I'm happy to carry a 5D, a mid range zoom and a 35mm prime for this kind of work, a setup small enough to fit into a shoulder bag and leaving space for optional lenses when I know that there's a specific need..

....

I do a lot of airshows (I'm one of those people with two cameras) andas my pictures are still being published (and stolen regardless of mycopyright), I might just know what I'm talking about. Long zooms arenot much use IMO because the problem at airshows is that things aremoving fast and get bigger in the viewfinder frame as they getnearer. So a zoom going out to about 200mm (in 35 mm terms) worksquite well. Go to to 300 (ditto) and the 'plane may go outside theframe at the perfect moment. Stick to 200mm and all you'll have to dois trim a bit of sky off, now and then. I use an f/2.4 forflexibility..

I've shot at an airshow or two in the past myself. The reason I mentioned the Sigma 135-400 is that I know from experience that it's a favourite budget airshow lens, both with digital and film shooters. The kind of zoom mechanism that these lenses have allows you to zoom and track at the same time where as most long zoom digicams have purely electrical zoom that does not permit the fine control required for this. Generaly I find an effective 640mm to be just about acceptable for some of the smaller aircraft depending on how far they are from the flight line..

If you want to shoot macros then some mid range macro zooms will getyou pretty close, but a dedicated macro prime lens will get youcloser than just about anything..

I couldn't agree more - again I'm one of those fools with two camerasbut I often think how nice it would be to just carry a P&S thatcovered it all..

Something has to give. Small, cheap, big zoom range, very wide angles, very long telephoto, ultra-close macro. You can't have it all as the laws of physics get in your way. Once you've figured that out then it's down to working out which factors are most important to you..

If you want wide angles then a dedicated ultra-wide zoom will blowany bridge camera into the weeds (bridge cameras don't come any widerthan 28mm effective, DSLR ultra wide zooms can get you down to 16mmeffective, which is a bigger difference than it sounds)..

I couldn't agree more and if I had a few thousand pounds to spare I'dget one of those nice Olympus "FourThirds" 8mm or the 7-14 mm (afterbuying a trolley to carry it all on)..

The 7-14 is one of the most expensive ways possible of getting an ultra-wide angle shot. For about 1/4 of the price Sigma will sell you a 10-20mm zoom for 1.5 or 1.6 crop systems and Tokina do a very nice 12-24mm lens. You don't need to spend vast sums of money, you need to work out the trade-offs that you're prepared to make. Non of these lenses (including the Olympus) are particularly large and heavy either, so you're vastly over stating your case when talking about needing a trolly (we're talking something about the size and weight of a can of coke).....

All of these things are a trade between off between a number offactors (size, weight, cost, angle of view, sharpness, low lightperformance etc). The photographers that Dave seems intent onridiculing have chosen to make a different set of trade-offs to himbased on a different set of priorities..

What does he mean?.

Just because you regard something to be large, heavy and/or expensive doesn't mean that everyone does. Likewise you seem to regard the difference in quality as trivial and you seemed quite happy to dwell over the foolishness of those people who bought two SLR systems to cover a given range rather than a single long zoom bridge camera..

The real problem is weight and money. I could afford MF when it wasfilm. Even the baby MF's (645) weren't that dear or heavy but add adigital back and you either crop things to about 45 by 32 mm (CCDsize from memory) and you crop thousands from the bank balance. MFdigital backs were about US $12,000 or so last time I looked (thisyear) and when I looked 10 years ago we were talking about UK 35,000or so. Unless you can borrow one from the IoA or NASA..

And for some people a digital MF system isn't large or excessively expensive. I came across a chap the other day who was retired like yourself. He was on holiday and out shooting snapshots with a Hassleblad H3D-39, a 20K MF digital camera. It always comes down to a personal choice over which factors are more important to you...

THIS is why people want a long lens on a DSLR at an airshow.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..