photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
lightrules | profile | all galleries >> Lens Tests by LightRules >> Stabilized SuperZoom Test >> 200mm v. 270mm tree view | thumbnails | slideshow

200mm v. 270mm

Tamron VC lens used for both images.
200mm [320mm FOV]
200mm [320mm FOV]		 270mm [430mm FOV]
270mm [430mm FOV]

comment | share
Doug Kerr 18-Jan-2010 05:13
What is interesting is that, cropped to cover exactly the same amount of scene and viewed at the same print or display size, the image taken at "270 mm" is perceptibly sharper than the one taken at "200 mm". This means that any "decline" in lens resolution from "200 mm" to "270 mm" (very common in lenses of this genre) does not wholly "negate" the theoretical improvement in image resolution we should get, with an increase in focal length, from an increase in the number of sensor elements that cover a particular actual scene object.

I had (briefly) a Sigma 18-250 mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II OS, and with that the same exercise I described gave a poorer viewed image with the "250 mm" focal length than with
"200 mm". Thus there was no benefit in having the longer focal length available. So I sent it back.

I have a Tamron 18-270 VC on the way.

Thank you, "lightrule", for this excellent review.
Guest 22-Nov-2009 00:43
it is noticeable, but not a very big difference. You can crop about 20% to 30% at most and reach to 270mm.
Guest 07-Nov-2008 22:34
Actually... the difference in FoV is quite noticable...
click on thumbnails for full image