[orangepeel]

My friend recently decided to jump into dSLR. He came from the world of compacts where ?x zoom is all the rage.

Anyway, he was looking at the nikon "AF-S DX VR 18-200mm 3.5-5.6G IF-ED" as an everyday lens and this is a quote from the nikon bumf...

"This is an all round 11.1x zoom lens, ideal for dedicated amateurs... blah blah"

I told him that I had the baby "AF 70-300 f/4-5.6G" and that there would be more zoom on it. He then mentioned that nikon say it's only a 4.6x zoom and that his would obviously be better (zoom wise - i'll ignore optical quality for now).

Anyway, I just worked out how nikon calculate this ?x zoom number. It appears as though it's the max focal length divided by the min focal length. It may well have been obvious to you but I'm new to this and just worked it out

So now for the rant... why the **** **** do these **** **** **** nikon **** use such a **** stupid ***** calculation which to compact users can equate to less zoom on some lenses? why in **** gods **** name would they do this?

[Dabhand16]

I always thought that describing the 'zoom range' was standard for all lens makers. However, it woul be useful to also state the magnification range as compared to a standard lens with a normal outlook, that is zero magnification.

You are right to say that whereas 'we' would look at the focal length to ascertain the strength of a lens, and probably not even register the 'zoom range', compacts are marketed the other way round.

Whilst we are on the subject, how do you rate the 70-300? I would prefer, in an ideal situation, f2.8 as the maximum apature, (although my 18-70 kit lens is f3.5-f4.5), and the new 18-135 is closer to that, and I've just posted some thoughts on lenses on the forum announcing this lens. There is also a 70-300 f4.5-f5.6 VR for £399 comming soon.

I'm going to wait for the prices to settle before making any decisions.

[Steve]

Its just set to maximise advertising effect and bring in the most revenue. The fact taht it sets to confuse the very people that the big companies are hoping to get as their customers in by the by to them.

Unfortunately it is the way of the world as more and more standards become less straightforward and more confusing

[Markulous]

You'll be saying that manufacturers use megapixels as an indication of quality next! LOL!

At least focal length is something that can't be messed with, even if it leads to confusion for some when considering crop factors on dSLRs!

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Markulous

At least focal length is something that can't be messed with, even if it leads to confusion for some when considering crop factors on dSLRs!

Never a truer work written...this is still one of the most confusing and talked about DSLR topics around.

[orangepeel]

Originally Posted by Markulous

At least focal length is something that can't be messed with

Actually...

Apparently the focal length is a bit flexible. I was trying to find out what it was acutally a measurement of.

Measuring Focal Length

Anyway, at the start of the article, you can find: -

In fact most lens makers will tell you that the focal length marked on a lens is +/- 5%. That means your 400mm could be as short as 380mm and still be "within spec". Normally telephoto lenses err on the short side. It's MUCH more likely that a lens will be shorter than marked than longer.

It's a bit like a car manufacturer selling a Fandango 1.6L which is only 1580cc

Wonder if I can buy a lens costing £400 but only pay £380 on the basis that it's "nearly £400"

[Steve]

Originally Posted by orangepeel

Wonder if I can buy a lens costing £400 but only pay £380 on the basis that it's "nearly £400"

You could always start a petition
I'd sign it