Why does this shorter zoom have a longer reach?
May 10, 2012 02:07:37 #
I've been trying to figure this one out but I can't come up with a solution. I searched the FAQ section but didnt find any related info. If I missed it, please point me in the right direction.
Here's the problem : Both of these images of a picture frame with a canvas mat were taken on a Nikon D200, tripod mounted. The only thing changed was the lens. A Tamron 18-270 3.5-6.3 Di ll VC was used at 270mm for Image A and a Nikon AF-S 55-200 1:4-5.6 G ED VR (kit lens) was used at 200mm for Image B. Why then, do I get a closer view with the Nikon? I would think the Tamron would give me the more magnified image since it has "70mm more reach"...but apparently it's not so. Can someone on the forum help explain this? Thanks in advance
Here's the problem : Both of these images of a picture frame with a canvas mat were taken on a Nikon D200, tripod mounted. The only thing changed was the lens. A Tamron 18-270 3.5-6.3 Di ll VC was used at 270mm for Image A and a Nikon AF-S 55-200 1:4-5.6 G ED VR (kit lens) was used at 200mm for Image B. Why then, do I get a closer view with the Nikon? I would think the Tamron would give me the more magnified image since it has "70mm more reach"...but apparently it's not so. Can someone on the forum help explain this? Thanks in advance
Image A: Tamron 18-270 @ 270mm
Image B: Nikon 55-200 @ 200mm
May 10, 2012 04:33:28 #
Caranx wrote:
I've been trying to figure this one out but I can'... (show quote)
Caranx, I would not have an explanation for you and I read your post twice! I am certainly not doubting your integrety BUT I would take a good look at your meta-data and make sure you are looking at it correctly and do make sure you don't have the photos swapped around. I don't imagine you have a multiplier on the 200? 270 is definitely more reach than 200. Do report your findings. Good luck.
May 10, 2012 04:39:57 #
Caranx wrote:
I've been trying to figure this one out but I can'... (show quote)
this is what Adorama has to say about the Nikon lens:
Versatile and compact 3.6x Zoom-Nikkor approximates the picture angle characteristics of an 82-300mm lens in the 35mm format.
IF the other one is "actual format" and just shows 18-270....then that's it I guess.
May 10, 2012 05:04:20 #
egnblack
Loc: San Jose, Ca.
Caranx wrote:
I've been trying to figure this one out but I can'... (show quote)
I agree with SharpShooter. Either the pictures are swapped or you cropped the picture with the Nikon lens.
May 10, 2012 05:15:32 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Best way to confirm: re-post both photos, but this time check the boxes labeled (store original). I would take a good look at your meta-data and make sure you are looking at it correctly and do make sure you don't have the photos swapped around.
May 10, 2012 07:20:47 #
Thank you for your responses and I assure you that no image manipulation, swapping or lens attachments, etc has been done (I have too much respect for you and myself plus I wouldn't waste your time or risk being banned for tomfoolery!) It is because it doesn't make sense why I am asking for your input. I've been pulling what little hair I have left trying to figure it out or have this explained properly. I'll re-post them with "store original" so you can look at the metadata. Thanks again for all your help.
Image A
Image B
May 10, 2012 07:27:57 #
The first shot's exif data says "focal length" of 270mm.
The second shot's exif data says "focal length in 35mm 300mm"
So there is something going on between a cropped lens and a standard lens.
If that's the effect of 270 vs 300 for the second one...that's exactly what you'd expect...
The second shot's exif data says "focal length in 35mm 300mm"
So there is something going on between a cropped lens and a standard lens.
If that's the effect of 270 vs 300 for the second one...that's exactly what you'd expect...
May 10, 2012 07:54:40 #
Yes, but Image A's EXIF says "35mm focal length 405 mm"! So I am back at square one...it should be a closer view
May 10, 2012 08:51:05 #
I downloaded both images and enlarged on screen to 4x
The first image is nice and sharp, the second image is very blurred (out of focus)
Would this have any bearing on the dilemma?
The first image is nice and sharp, the second image is very blurred (out of focus)
Would this have any bearing on the dilemma?
May 10, 2012 09:18:38 #
What is the PHYSICAL length of these 2 lenses at their full extension? Is the Nikons front element that much closer to the subject than the Tamrons when they are fully extended? If so, there is the answer I think. I have never used either of these so I don't know, thats why I was asking.
May 10, 2012 09:20:38 #
Thank you Searcher but it shoudn't matter because its the focal length thats in question. But just in case, I just took these which are more focused: Image A is the Tamron maxed out to 270mm, Image B is the Tamron at 200mm and Image C is the Nikon maxed at 200mm.
Thanks too Rpavich, I'm aware of cropped sensors but not clear on "cropped " vs "standard" and "actual format" lenses. With my limited understanding, both of these lenses are DX so should work accordingly. The model number of the Tamron is 'B003N ll' if that will help. Thanks
Thanks too Rpavich, I'm aware of cropped sensors but not clear on "cropped " vs "standard" and "actual format" lenses. With my limited understanding, both of these lenses are DX so should work accordingly. The model number of the Tamron is 'B003N ll' if that will help. Thanks
A: Tamron @ 270mm
B: Tamron @ 200mm
C: Nikon @ 200mm
May 10, 2012 09:31:55 #
Hi MT. The Tamron fully extended from mount to front element is approximately 18cm, the Nikon is 13 cm. But shouldn't 270mm and 200 mm be the "view" at the sensor? In other words, if you have two lenses, say 85mm, and one is physically longer than the other and both are used to take the same subject, shouldn't the images be the same? Thanks
May 10, 2012 09:38:55 #
Theoretically that is so. Maybe you just got yourself the new Nikon 18-300mm lens and they mislabeled it! LOL
May 10, 2012 09:59:30 #
Oh I wish? Mmmm maybe you're right. I'll take both lemses to the local camera store and compare them with their stock. Will post results later.
It's a mindboggler! I thought the Tamron 18-270 would have been an improvement over the kit 55-200 but noted the discrepancy fairly quickly. I did call tech support at Tamron for an explanation and was told that the range of the Tamron (18-270mm) was wider than that of the Nikon so that's why they're different! I guess I just accepted that but the logic has bothered me since. I even asked one of the techs at B&H when I was there last and he never heard of such a thing! My head hurts!
Thanks everyone...the mystery and misery continues! LOL There MUST be an explanation!
It's a mindboggler! I thought the Tamron 18-270 would have been an improvement over the kit 55-200 but noted the discrepancy fairly quickly. I did call tech support at Tamron for an explanation and was told that the range of the Tamron (18-270mm) was wider than that of the Nikon so that's why they're different! I guess I just accepted that but the logic has bothered me since. I even asked one of the techs at B&H when I was there last and he never heard of such a thing! My head hurts!
Thanks everyone...the mystery and misery continues! LOL There MUST be an explanation!
May 10, 2012 10:09:28 #
Oh just had another thought. Since the Tamron is physically longer, its front element is actually closer to the subject so the magnification should be greater! Your thoughts...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.