Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Zoom lens
Page 1 of 2 next>
Aug 7, 2017 14:23:22   #
Bobnewnan
 
I've been using a Tamron 16-300mm as my "go to" lens for several years, no problems, good results. Now Tamron has an 18-400mm lens. On my Nikon DX d500, that's a difference of 150mm. If I set my existing lens at 16mm and zoom out to 166mm I can see what a 150 mm increase provides. Now if I zoom from 150 to 300 mm, that is also 150mm increase. The question: is the 150mm increase linear in both settings? In other words, do I get the same apparent increase with both settings? It doesn't appear that it does when zooming in on a ruler and checking the magnification but lens mathematics is not my forte. I don't want to spend the money and find that it really doesn't make that much difference at the far end.

FYI, I shoot a lot of birds in flight and grounded animals. Thanks.

Reply
Aug 7, 2017 14:33:41   #
jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419
 
No.
Zooming out 900% is not the same as zooming out 33%.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

Reply
Aug 7, 2017 14:48:21   #
ggttc Loc: TN
 
The Tamron 18-400 is a DX lens...not a FF.

Reply
 
 
Aug 7, 2017 15:32:24   #
RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA
 
Bobnewnan wrote:
I've been using a Tamron 16-300mm as my "go to" lens for several years, no problems, good results. Now Tamron has an 18-400mm lens. On my Nikon DX d500, that's a difference of 150mm. If I set my existing lens at 16mm and zoom out to 166mm I can see what a 150 mm increase provides. Now if I zoom from 150 to 300 mm, that is also 150mm increase. The question: is the 150mm increase linear in both settings? In other words, do I get the same apparent increase with both settings? It doesn't appear that it does when zooming in on a ruler and checking the magnification but lens mathematics is not my forte. I don't want to spend the money and find that it really doesn't make that much difference at the far end.

FYI, I shoot a lot of birds in flight and grounded animals. Thanks.
I've been using a Tamron 16-300mm as my "go t... (show quote)

You can see the effect of zooming here: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

Reply
Aug 7, 2017 15:39:08   #
jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419
 
ggttc wrote:
The Tamron 18-400 is a DX lens...not a FF.

And . . . ?

Reply
Aug 7, 2017 15:50:42   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
Sorry, what real world difference does it make?! Do you want a max 300mm zoom or a max 400mm zoom lens!? If you mant the additional 100mm on the long end, get the new lens. You can always sell your current 16-300. Personally, I find even 400mm a bit short for birds and other wildlife.

Reply
Aug 7, 2017 16:13:17   #
ggttc Loc: TN
 
jackpinoh wrote:
And . . . ?


Isnt the 16-300 a full frame lens...I could be wrong here.

Reply
 
 
Aug 7, 2017 16:18:42   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
Bobnewnan wrote:
I've been using a Tamron 16-300mm as my "go to" lens for several years, no problems, good results. Now Tamron has an 18-400mm lens. On my Nikon DX d500, that's a difference of 150mm. If I set my existing lens at 16mm and zoom out to 166mm I can see what a 150 mm increase provides. Now if I zoom from 150 to 300 mm, that is also 150mm increase. The question: is the 150mm increase linear in both settings? In other words, do I get the same apparent increase with both settings? It doesn't appear that it does when zooming in on a ruler and checking the magnification but lens mathematics is not my forte. I don't want to spend the money and find that it really doesn't make that much difference at the far end.

FYI, I shoot a lot of birds in flight and grounded animals. Thanks.
I've been using a Tamron 16-300mm as my "go t... (show quote)


As members have shown before, not all 18mm or 300mm are the same. Two lenses will show different images at the same focal length. Still, the new Tamron will give you reach out to 400mm, not to shabby.

Reply
Aug 7, 2017 18:21:02   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
ggttc wrote:
Isnt the 16-300 a full frame lens....

Nope.

Reply
Aug 7, 2017 19:04:22   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
Bobnewnan wrote:
I've been using a Tamron 16-300mm as my "go to" lens for several years, no problems, good results. Now Tamron has an 18-400mm lens. On my Nikon DX d500, that's a difference of 150mm. If I set my existing lens at 16mm and zoom out to 166mm I can see what a 150 mm increase provides. Now if I zoom from 150 to 300 mm, that is also 150mm increase. The question: is the 150mm increase linear in both settings? In other words, do I get the same apparent increase with both settings? It doesn't appear that it does when zooming in on a ruler and checking the magnification but lens mathematics is not my forte. I don't want to spend the money and find that it really doesn't make that much difference at the far end.

FYI, I shoot a lot of birds in flight and grounded animals. Thanks.
I've been using a Tamron 16-300mm as my "go t... (show quote)

The difference in angle of view of a 300 vs a 400 mm lens on a DX camera is not much: 5.4 degerees vs 4 degrees on the diagonal, respectively. What you actually get with the particular zoom may vary, as Jerry mentioned.
I've not used or even seen the 16-400 but all superzooms are a bigger compromise, and sharpness usually suffers a bit on the longer end of the focal range. Do you want convenience (which they are) or sharp images? There is a reason the really good zoom lenses are not more than a 3x range. Much less compromise.

Reply
Aug 7, 2017 19:51:39   #
MT Shooter Loc: Montana
 
GoofyNewfie wrote:
The difference in angle of view of a 300 vs a 400 mm lens on a DX camera is not much: 5.4 degerees vs 4 degrees on the diagonal, respectively. What you actually get with the particular zoom may vary, as Jerry mentioned.
I've not used or even seen the 16-400 but all superzooms are a bigger compromise, and sharpness usually suffers a bit on the longer end of the focal range. Do you want convenience (which they are) or sharp images? There is a reason the really good zoom lenses are not more than a 3x range. Much less compromise.
The difference in angle of view of a 300 vs a 400 ... (show quote)


Try it sometime Jim, it may just change your perception of super zoom lenses the first time you use it.

Reply
 
 
Aug 7, 2017 20:16:07   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
MT Shooter wrote:
Try it sometime Jim, it may just change your perception of super zoom lenses the first time you use it.


I know they are really convenient- I use a 28-300 sometimes.

Reply
Aug 8, 2017 05:27:15   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
jackpinoh wrote:
No.
Zooming out 900% is not the same as zooming out 33%.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/



Reply
Aug 8, 2017 10:52:21   #
Bobnewnan
 
Thanks for the link to the Nikon simulator. Makes it clear what the gain is and with the pixel count of the d500 I think I'll just keep on using my 16-300mm and crop to get the "simulated" increase to 400mm and use that $649 for something else. And for those who rant against cropping, don't. I'm not a professional photographer and shoot for my pleasure! Y'all have a good day now, ya hear.

Reply
Aug 8, 2017 12:01:28   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
Tony Northrup did a couple of reviews comparing zoom lenses. If memory serves correctly, while he thought it was quite sharp, it lacked being as long as advertised.
I believe (as an example) their 70-200 was really a 70-180. Other than that, he appeared to really like it.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.