How Important is optical zoom on DSLR

Rainyface

Hi, I'm a long time reader of this photography forum but this is my first post. I'm on the verge of purchasing my first DSLR - Thinking of a Nikon D3000 and the kit I'm thinking of going for is the 18-55 plus a 50-200 lense.

A friend of mine recently purchased a Canon 500D and spent big money buying another lense which gives him a X8 optical zoom. He's new to DSLR photography also and explained that I'd need something along those lines to get decent photo's of scenery, people 20yds away etc.... Is this the case?

I've been in a number of Camara shops in Dublin and no-one has ever mentioned that this may be an issue before.

Would I be better off selecting something different? I don't have a specific "theme" of photograpy type (ie nature, scenery, action etc) but I'd like to have the option of taking half decent shots for all of the above - if thats possible.

Cheers

.Longshanks.

Firstly the kit lens is perfect IMO for anybody starting out.

I think the best advice is get the camera with the kit lens and it for a while (few weeks / months) to see what kinda shots you like taking the most and what you feel your missing out on.

This time last year i got my first DSLR and bought a relatively cheap 55-250mm zoom lens at the same time. In the past 9 months I've just it about 5 times and maybe 4 of those were taking pics of the moon. Its wasted on me and i use a 10-20mm super wide lens i've since bought far far far more.

Rainyface wrote: »

......that I'd need something along those lines to get decent photo's of scenery, people 20yds away etc.... Is this the case?

A zoom can be good for getting shots of people far away, but (in my case of the cheap 55-250mm) its gets you an up close image, but because the lowest aperture number when fully zooomed is about f5 this means the subject can be lost in the background due to the large depth of field. To be able to isolate a person from the background from a distance (using a long zoom) you would need a lower F number for a shallow depth of field. Something like a F2.8 or similar which cost BIG bucks.

Good example;

borrowed from here

For landscape shots the wider the lens the better - for me anyways....

Just my 2c

Morrisseeee

Well in fact the best lenses are the prime lenses, ie. with a fixed focal length eg. a 200mm f2.8 lens, this is called a telephoto lens, it is a fast lens (hense the aperture of f2.8, letting in loads of light to your sensor). Having a lens of X8 or X20 or whatever is a misnomer, its the millimeter length of the lens or zoom lens that gives you your closeness to your subject. A 50mm lens (nifty-fifty) will give you a 'normal' view, ie. what you eye sees, so lenses smaller than this (28mm, 16mm) are called wide-angle lenses, larger/longer than 50mm (100mm, 300mm) are telephoto lenses. There are of course zoom lenses say: 18-200mm, 70-300, 17-40, and these are handy for giving you the option of wide-angle to standard to telephoto without having to change lenses.
(hope I've explained it as easily as possible :eek::p)

I won't even go into the size of your sensor as this determines the proper length of the lenses, as there are several sizes of sensors, full-frame, 4/3's, 1.6 crop, 1.5 crop !!!!

CabanSail

I think that the fact your friend is talking in terms of "8X Optical Zoom" shows that they are not someone I would be giving a lot of weight to their advice.

Superzoom Cameras can get away with much wider ranges of focal length as they have a much smaller circle of illumination. This means they have small sensors & there are downsides to this. It is these cameras which quote focal lengths in terms of "8X Zoom"

In a DSLR you have a much larger sensor, be it Full Frame or Cropped. This will give you better performance. You also have the advantage of selecting differet lenses to suit the subject. The "Kit Lens" will be something for general use. Which lenses you choose after that will depend on your needs (& budget) and you will have to be aware of the compromises. A zoom lens with a focal length range of 18-200mm is as large as I am aware of. These are only available for cropped body cameras & do have some problems. They are quite "slow" & will have various distortions at different settings. They can make a good general lens though. You can get faster zooms & the 70-200mm f2.8 lens is a popular one. It is fast but it is also quite large & heavy, so that has to be taken into account. Both these lenses are not generally cheap either. You can also get advantages of high quality & very fast lenses by not having a zoom at all & using Prime Lenses.

So in a nutshell the Body & two lenses you have mentioned above would be a good set up for someone starting out & will give you a lot options. You may discover the shortcomings in certain situations & that is where you can seek out the best solution for your needs.

sineadw

TBH if you're only starting I'd stick with the kit lens. You'll learn way more by trying to achieve what you want with that at first. Then if you *know* you need a telephoto down the line you can make an informed decision. I think I've used mine about 5 times...

PopeBuckfastXVI

Yes start with the 18-55 kit lens. I got an 18-55 & 55-200 lens when I was starting out, and to be completely honest I kind of wish I'd not got the 55-200, and waited till I could afford something good in the telephoto range, as the cheap 55-200 kit lens isn't the sharpest.

Saying "8x zoom" is relatively meaningless when it comes to dSLR's, and as CabanSail says above, the advice of anyone who talks about as an important factor when choosing a lens can be ignored relatively safely.

For what it's worth, 200mm on my DX Sensor in my d80 seemed to provide the same 'closeness' as my friends '10x zoom' on his bridge camera.

gandalf

TBH I tend to stick to using a 50mm or 30mm lense on my camera these days. I have a Sigma 70-300 but it only comes out on the rare occasion. If I were you I would stick with the kit lense for the moment and learn to use your camera with it. As you get used to the camera you should get a feel for the type of shots you want to take and then you can make a decision on what other lenses to get. Welcome to the expensive world of Photography.

(I think Nikon do a version of the nifty fifty, if you can afford to get it!)

PopeBuckfastXVI

I think (am open to correction) you can calculate the zoom ratio by dividing the larger focal length by the smaller.

So an 18-55 lens has a zoom ratio of 55:18 or 3.05x
A 55-200 lens has a zoom ratio of 200:55 or 3.63x

Lens sharpness degrades (generally) if you build them with ratios much higher than 3:1 or 3x.

If you want to measure the full 'range' of an 18-55 and 55-200 kit then you can get it as 200:18 or 11.11x

Ghost Train

my compact relates optical zoom relative to the minimum zoom... and then also relates zoom relative to 35mm format

so x7.1 optical zoom = equiv 28mm x 7.1 = ~200mm (at max zoom)

18-55=28mm-85mm=x3
55-200=85mm-300mm=x11 (taking 28mm as min)

Rainyface

Thanks for the replies everyone -
The offer with the 2 lenses is on pixmania so I thought I was getting a good deal with them - Maybe better off just going with the standard one for now and figuring out what I want in the future!

lissard

Just to concur with a lot of what is said above. I have a 55-250IS telephoto and it sees scarcly any use. If I were adding to my newly purchased SLR I would consider either a 50mm F1.8 lens or an external flash (SB600). Given a choice I'd pick the flash - it makes an absolutely colossal difference to indoor shots when you can bounce the flash.

Paulw

Must admit, my 70-200mm is probably my most used lens (along with my 24-70mm).

I have a 50mm (f/1.4) but seldom use it.

It will really really depend on what you take photos of.

wersal gummage

CabanSail wrote: »

A zoom lens with a focal length range of 18-200mm is as large as I am aware of.

slightly off topic, but - just for info (cant imagine its much use):

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/

Thraktor

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I think (am open to correction) you can calculate the zoom ratio by dividing the larger focal length by the smaller.

So an 18-55 lens has a zoom ratio of 55:18 or 3.05x
A 55-200 lens has a zoom ratio of 200:55 or 3.63x

Lens sharpness degrades (generally) if you build them with ratios much higher than 3:1 or 3x.

If you want to measure the full 'range' of an 18-55 and 55-200 kit then you can get it as 200:18 or 11.11x

Yep, that's the basic means of calculation. If you were aiming to simply maximise the overall zoom ratio of your setup, then you could augment the kit zoom with a 10-20mm, a 50-500mm, a 300-800mm and a 2x teleconvertor, giving a range of 10mm to 1600mm (15 to 2400 in 35mm) and a zoom ratio of 160x. If you didn't mind about missing out on the 5-9mm range, you could even add a 4.5mm fisheye to bump the ratio up to 356x. Of course, all this would be a colossal waste of money unless you particularly need to shoot at every possible focal length right up to 2400mm, which I can only imagine being used to take photos of insects from a kilometer away*.

On a rather more serious note to the original poster, my own advice would be to stick to the kit lens for now. The reason that kit zooms come in the familiar 18-55mm focal range is that it's the range most people take most of their photos in. After learning the basics with the kit zoom, you'll start to get a better idea of what sort of photos you like taking, and will have a better idea of what you might want out of your next lens. If you do feel the 55mm of the kit lens is limiting at that stage, then you'll have a decent idea of what to look for in a telephoto zoom. Conversely, if it turns out you've taken a lot of shots at the 18mm end of the kit zoom, then it might be worthwhile getting a wide angle lens instead. On the other hand, it may not be the range you're concerned with by that stage, but the low-light capabilities or the depth of field, in which case a fast prime lens would be a better investment. Then there's also the option of a macro prime, if you end up taking a lot of close-ups. Anyway, my point is that there's a wide range of options out there for a second lens, so you're better off holding on to your money, and getting to grips with the camera and kit zoom for now.

*Okay, this is a bit of an exaggeration, but I did a quick calculation, and a 2400mm equivalent lens could fill the frame with one of these guys from a distance of 37.8 meters.