Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 14, 2018 at 18:18 history edited Michael C CC BY-SA 4.0
added 9 characters in body
May 14, 2018 at 6:28 history edited Michael C CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1291 characters in body
May 14, 2018 at 4:33 vote accept Jojodmo
May 13, 2018 at 23:35 history edited aaaaa says reinstate Monica CC BY-SA 4.0
fixed link
May 13, 2018 at 7:04 comment added Michael C If the entire range of focal lengths is in the telephoto range it's not that bad for a 4X or so zoom. The problem with going from wide angle through normal to telephoto is that the wide angle portion must use a retrofocus design and then the lens has to move different groups in different directions and amounts to switch to a telephoto design.
May 13, 2018 at 6:31 vote accept Jojodmo
May 14, 2018 at 4:33
May 13, 2018 at 5:50 comment added OnBreak. @Jojodmo - physics problems is an understatement. For comparison, look at how bulky the 70-200 f/2.8 and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 are - and those are ~2.5x and 4x zooms. You're asking about a 30-200 or, ~6.6x zoom. The aperture range will suck, because anything worthwhile will be cost prohibitive if not physically impossible, and the image quality as well. Like Michael said, there's a big reason you don't see good zooms over 3x. They're huge and prohibitively expensive to do right (by IQ standards) if it's even physically possible.
May 13, 2018 at 2:49 comment added Jojodmo Thank you so much for the in-depth answer! I know that no one wouldn’t create one, but out of curiosity, do you know if it would be possible to make such a lens or if it would run into physics problems?
May 13, 2018 at 2:07 history edited Michael C CC BY-SA 4.0
added 185 characters in body
May 13, 2018 at 2:01 history edited Michael C CC BY-SA 4.0
added 185 characters in body
May 13, 2018 at 1:53 history answered Michael C CC BY-SA 4.0