As if it’s not soon to become completely apparent, I know absolutely nothing about the subject of camera equipment. A couple years ago, I bought myself a Nikon N65 SLR camera, and whatever the basic zoom lens is that comes with the standard kit. A 28-80? Anyway, it’s nice for zooming in and out to take, say, headshots of my dog or whatever, but if I happen to be more than ten feet away from whatever it is I’m shooting, the zoom is pretty, uh, unzoomy. If he strikes a particularly nice pose, I still have to run up close to him to take the photo, which very nearly always means I don’t get the photo.
Anyway, I was poking around looking to see if there are other options, and it appears that there are two types of zoom lenses–ones that look exactly like mine and are priced between $100-$150, and ones that look extremely long and far beyond my needs, and priced at $1500 anyway.
Are there any decently priced (maybe below $300) zoom lenses that will give me, say, twice the zooming power? Or do they only come in “might as well be a point and shoot” and “buy this if you need to take photos of baby dik-dik at the top of kilimanjaro, from your cabin at the base of the mountain”?
There are all kinds of zooms. I have a 35-200mm zoom for my Olympus OM-1. You don’t have to get a Nikon zoom, BTW. Kalimar and Soligor, for example, make fairly decent zooms for not a lot of money.
One thing to be aware of when using a zoom is telephoto distortion. When you zoom in, the background is “compressed”. When you zoom out, the background “gets farther away”. You’ll need to know this when composing your shots. If you want a certain look, then it may be better to move the camera instead of zooming in. Of you want another look, you may want to back up the camera and zoom in.
There are gonna be a lot of tradeoffs because of the complexity and wieght of a long zoom. It won’t be anywhere near as easy to get satisfactory results hand-held as with your short, light 28-80.
Why not get a prime (fixed focal length) lense at 135 or 200mm? It’ll be lighter than a long zoom (thus allowing easier hand-held shots), image quality will likely be somewhat better (since it is of simpler construction) and a pretty good one will be about the same price as a fairly crappy zoom.
If you’re bound and determined to have a long zoom, I bought a Sigma 70-300 for less than $300 thats certainly adequate quality, though it’s a bit awkward to handle and pretty much requires tripod mounting at full extension.
You’re probably looking for one of the all-purpose lenses, which zoom from 28 mm to 200 or even 300 mm. For this gain in convenience, what you give up, especially at your price point, is speed (not so good in low-light situations), and quality (I won’t categorically pan them, but wider-range zoom lenses are necessarily more complex in design, and therefore more difficult to do well). However, you may find them to suit your needs just fine. To keep prices low, third-party lenses are the way to go.
Manufacturers’ descriptions[ul][li]Sigma 28-200mm[/li][li]Sigma 28-300mm[/li][li]Tamron 28-200mm[/li][li]Tamron 28-300mm[/li][li]Tokina 24-200mm[/ul][/li]Popular Photography reviews[ul][li]Sigma 28-200mm[/li][li]Sigma 28-300mm[/li][li]Tamron 28-200mm[/li][li]Tamron 28-300mm[/li][li]Tokina 24-200mm[/ul][/li]Street prices[ul][li]Sigma 28-200mm[/li][li]Sigma 28-300mm[/li][li]Tamron 28-200mm[/li][li]Tamron 28-300mm[/li][li]Another Tamron 28-300mm (I haven’t bothered to check what the differences are)[/li]Tokina 24-200mm[/ul]
Back when I was taking pictures more often, I bought two zoom lenses that have made it easier to get the quick shots. I (still) have a Pentax K1000 with the standard 50mm lens, then a 28mm wide angle, then a 28 - 70mm zoom which is normally mounted on the camera, and last at 70 - 210mm zoom. If I have limited room, I only take the two zoom lenses, and they cover everythingI might want to do. Unfortunately, they only stop down to 4, so if I have low light shots I want to take, I have to pack the 50mm stock lens as well. I also bought three Hoya close-up lenses: +1, +2 and +4 diopters. They are stackable, so I can mount a +7 diopter lens on another one and see the fingerprints on a flea.
Vlad/Igor
You may want to get a longer zoom to compliment your existing lens but don’t ditch it. Novice photographers are often seduced by long lenses and tight cropping. Learn to work with the wider end of the zoom you have and even though you’ll have to get close to some subjects and you sometimes can’t crop in the viewfinder as tightly as you like you may find you can make more interesting photos because of it. That’s not to say you should shoot normal portraits at 28mm but do experiment.
Before going down to Cameras R Us and hurting your MasterCard, check the phone book for camera stores that carry used equipment. If your locale has a pawn shop, give it a visit. I’ve picked up some nice lenses for pennies on the dollar vs. new.
One word: Ebay
You can find 3rd party lenses for your Nikon at a fraction of the cost of a photo store.
This lens is one I’ve used for years. I took it on my first safari, using it with my N70, and I continue to use it with my Nikon D100 digital. It’s a terrific all-around lens with very decent optics.
Hey, thanks for all the replies! I’m going to spend a lot of time looking over the options, I have no idea what I want to do yet–just wondering if there is an option for closer zoom without getting into the astronomically expensive range, or buying a lens that’s eighteen inches long.
One thing I could use some help on is what all the terminology means. For example, just what is 28-80? And what’s the 200/300mm designation all about? How do I compare one lens to another?
Thanks again,
~mixie
The 28 - 80 refers to the distance from the lens to the film. “Standard” SLR cameras use a 50 mm lens for “normal” (neither magnified/telephoto nor wide angle) photos. Lenses with lengths longer than 50 mm are divided by 50 mm to calculate magnification. An 80 mm lens is 1.6 power, a 100 mm lens is 2 power, a 200 mm lens is 4 power. (I do not know that a 28 mm lens is a .56 power because when we start into wide angles, we are not actually attempting to measure magnification.)
Like tomndebb said, 50 or 55mm is considered “normal” in 35mm photography. This is the lens that most approximates how your eye sees. It’s neither a telephoto nor wide angle. Anything less than 50mm is considered wide angle, anything greater is a telephoto.
For most practical applications, you won’t need anything wider than a 20mm. For a casual photographer, even that might be a bit wide. A 28mm should suffice for your needs.
A 28-80 is a moderate wide angle to slight telephoto lens. Personally, I hate this zoom range. At 80mm it’s very good for portraits, but in between it’s either not wide enough, or too loose. For me, the two most important zoom ranges are 18-35mm and 80-200mm. Earthling listed a number of lenses that cover most of these two ranges. I have especially heard good reviews about the Sigma 28-200mm.
One thing that makes one zoom lens more expensive than another is its maximum aperture. For serious photographers, this is an important consideration. The Sigma 28-200mm has a variable aperture of f3.5-5.6. This means that at 28mm it’s maximum aperture (lowest f-stop) is f3.5, and at 200mm, it’s f5.6. If you’re shooting out in the sun, this doesn’t matter that much. But as soon as you hit situations with lower light, this is an important consideration. You won’t be able to handhold pictures in less-than-ideal lighting situations without motion blur or using flash.
Photographers pay a premium for wide aperture zooms. For example, that Sigma 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 retails at less than $200. I have a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 which set me back a grand. Plus a 20-35 f2.8 which cost almost the same. You pay a lot for that extra light.
For your purposes, though, I think the Sigma 28-200 or 28-300 should suffice and serve you well. And it won’t break the bank.
At the most fundamental level, a lens will be specified by two (sets of) numbers: its focal length, and its aperture.
The focal length is the number shown in mm. The higher this number is, the narrower the field of view covered by the lens (diagram), thus lenses with focal lengths shorter than 50 mm are considered wide angle lenses. Conversely, because of a long lens’s narrow field of view, a given object will appear magnified when projected onto the film plane (diagram), and these are thus called telephoto lenses. A prime lens has a fixed focal length, and are specified by only one number (e.g., 50 mm); a zoom lens, on the other hand, is built with mechanisms that allow it to vary its focal length, and are thus specified with two numbers, which encompass its zoom range (e.g., 28-80 mm zoom).
So, what does all this mumbo-jumbo mean? Well, since a picture is worth a thousand words, a demonstration is in order. The top half of the page shows the increasingly narrow fields of view as the focal length increases, with the corresponding effect that the subject of the photo appears larger with each succeeding frame. The bottom half of the page also shows the effect of narrowing fields of view as focal length increases, but the subject matter is kept to a consistent size in the frame by moving the camera farther away from the subject with each shot.
The other specification used on lenses is its aperture, denoted in f/numbers (or f/stops) to show the largest opening available to a lens to gather light. On the barrel of a lens will be a ring labeled with numbers such as 3.5, 5.6, 8, 11, etc. (your lens may have different numbers). This is called the aperture ring, and if you look into the end of the lens while you turn this ring, you’ll see that the diaphram blades move to create smaller or larger openings (comparison photo), thus allowing differing amounts of light to reach the film. Similar to your pupils dilating, a larger diaphram opening allows the camera to “see” better (that is, take shots quicker) in dim light. In less expensive zoom lenses, typically the amount of light that makes it through the lens at the telephoto end is less than that at the wide-angle end, so these lenses are specified with two f/numbers (e.g., f/3.5-5.6), with the numbers showing the apertures at each end of the zoom range.
I have this one too. Heavy SOB, but when you need the light for a long shot, it’s gold, Jerry.
For years and years (decades, in fact) I did the lion’s share of my photography with a 24-50mm and a 70-210mm. There were times when it seemed I had to change lenses with every shot, and missed some great shots because I couldn’t change lenses fast enough. A few months ago I bought the Tamron 28-300mm. Wow! I never have to change lenses, unless I’m doing something really specialized, like shooting eclipses. It’s not a perfect lens, but way better than what I had before. I highly recommend it.
Heavy? Pshaw…Try lugging around a 400mm f2.8 for awhile. 