Zoom on new DSLRs

I am planning on getting my first DLSR. A lot of the bundles come with 18-55 lenses. That doesn't seem to be much of a zoom. On the other hand, getting a lens that up towards 100mm makes the thing quite heavy.

Do people who own the 18-55 lenses find that the zoom along with editing at home is sufficient?

I am planning on getting my first DLSR. A lot of the bundles come with 18-55 lenses. That doesn't seem to be much of a zoom. On the other hand, getting a lens that up towards 100mm makes the thing quite heavy.

 

Do people who own the 18-55 lenses find that the zoom along with editing at home is sufficient?

No the 18-55 kit lens is not much of a zoom. Whenever I travel, I always bring along my 18-200 zoom lens (I have a Nikon DX DSLR). It is an excellent travel lens, and lets you zoom in on objects you cannot be reach by foot. It is a bit heavier than the kit lens, but it is well worth the extra weight IMHO. You can also go for a 3rd party lens if cost is an issue.

Agreed, 55mm is not a long lens. Having a DSLR and lenses that will do the job you want them to do definitely means carrying around heavier equipment.

Like the poster above, I bring along an 18-200mm lens when I travel.

One of the main reasons to go to an interchangeable lens camera is the option to choose the best lens for a particular photographic situation. The cost for this versatility is increased weight and bulk while travelling. One of the best current compromises is a superzoom like the aforementioned 18-200 or 18-250 lenses. The image quality is not bad (actually pretty close to the kit zooms) and the convenience of not having to change lenses often is worth giving up a usually unnoticeable amount of sharpness.

The one caveat I might mention is that if you plan on shooting wildlife or sports, the focusing on these lenses is fairly slow compared to a good long telephoto.

Something to consider...

I have recently given my DSLR a rest when travelling (except to Alaska where the big fast zoom is ideal for wildlife) and started carrying a Sony NEX. the DSLR image quality in a camera the size of a large point and shoot is a travel photographer's dream come true. Here is a link to our latest cruise where I bit the bullet and left the DSLR at home: http://galleries.pptphoto.com/reflection2013

Another link to my review of my NEX7: http://www.pptphoto.com/articles/nex7.html

Best of luck choosing a camera...so many good choices out there!

Dave

Yep, different tool and purpose than a P&S - so you really can't look at it the same way. Thinking on terms of how much 'x' of zoom you get is ignoring the primary reasons to get into DSLRs - the ability to change lenses, having a larger body with more dedicated controls, a much much bigger sensor for better resolution and low light capability, having fast dedicated PDAF focus sensors for very fast tracking of moving subjects, bigger batteries for longer battery life, and so on. The 'big' part is the main compromise you make to get into a DSLR, and the secondary compromise is the need to buy more than the basic lens they give you with the body to match the functionality of a P&S superzoom.

I also use a superzoom lens, an 18-250mm, on my DSLR for when I want a reasonably compact, maximum flexibility travel lens. It works great - but at the same time, I'm regularly changing lenses to get specialized lenses for specialized needs, which was a key to buying a DSLR to begin with.

Like Dave, I also picked up a NEX as a second body, which offers me the exact same sensor and image quality in a much smaller, lighter body for travel convenience and less strain and stress when I just want to travel light. I tend to use it often when traveling, even when I bring the DSLR along...the little NEX gets a lot of use because of its size. You may indeed consider such an option, as the smaller body and lesser weight can in some ways mitigate the added weight from an 18-200 type zoom lens. In other words, a zoom lens for the NEX may be nearly the same size as that for a DSLR, but it's often lighter, and the body saves so much room in volume and weight that overall the package is lighter and less bulky. Or, you can get the smaller mirrorless camera and a few lenses, since even with 2 or 3 lenses the mirrorless kit will fit in the same footprint as most DSLRs with just one lens attached (I can fit my DSLR + 18-250mm into my small video bag with no room to spare...in the same space, I can fit my NEX + 18-55mm lens + 55-210mm lens + 16mm lens and wide angle adapter plus a spare battery, lens cleaning cloth, and my sunglasses!).

While the 18-55mm zoom is on the short side, I would say that it will cover 75% or more of your photographic needs.

And the whole point of DSLRs is to have multiple higher-quality short zoom (or prime) lenses and change them out as necessary.

Also, the 18-55mm is typically a "starter" lens, and most DSLR owners eventually (or rapidly in many of our cases) begin to build their "lens farm" with the lenses they really want as they can afford them.

Afterall, if you are only going to want a single lens, there are other options besides a DSLR.

Other popular lenses for cruise photography besides the 18-55mm is the 18-105mm and 18-200mm.

Out of the 12 DSLR lenses I have, I rarely carry more than 3 or 4 on a cruise. Typically I carry a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5~5.6, and Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6

When I am on and around the ship, I typically use the Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 17-50 as they are both high quality lenses, and provide the best possible optics for my DSLR.

When I go on excursion off the ship, I take the 18-200mm and possily the 11-16mm if I know I will be inside buildings. The 18-200mm is great for a one-lens solution, but like all super-zoom lenses, it suffers from optical defects - so it's use is limited to times I don't want to take multiple lenses.

And the 70-300mm is reserved for my long-reach needs.

When I cruise I always carry more of a zoom lens. On my recent Med cruise I used my Canon 18 - 200, almost exclusively.

If this is your first DSLR, get the 18-55 kit lens, and take the time to learn how to use it. Eventually, you'll find what you're missing. I do think that, in general, the 18-55 (especially Canon, where I'm more familiar) is the best "kit lens" out there. With Canon, you can also get their 18-55 STM as a kit on the T5i.

I'd get the kit, not worry about the zoom range, and learn the camera. Glass will follow, believe me...:eek:

Another option is the Panasonic FZ200, one camera one lens and has a great focal range. Full review here

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200

Panasonic Lumix FZ200 key specifications

• 24x 25-600mm equivalent lens with F2.8 across the zoom range
  
• 12.1-megapixel High Sensitivity MOS sensor
  
• 12 fps continuous shooting
  
• High Speed Video at 120 fps (HD) or 240 fps (VGA)
  
• 1080 60p video recording in AVCHD or MP4 formats
  
• 0.2-inch EVF (Electronic View Finder) with 1,312,000 dot equivalent resolution
  
• 3.0-inch, free-angle 460,000-dot LCD screen
  
• Panorama Shot mode
  
• RAW and RAW+JPEG data recording option
  

We just got our first DSLR. Canon rebel T5I.

We upgraded the lens to get the 18-135.

My wife likes taking close ups so she got the Canon

CANON EF 100MM/2.8 USM MACRO AF

whereas I like taking shots from a distance and got the

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

I would like to get a wide angle lens but given what we just spent in the past few weeks that won't happen for a while.

Given the amount of time I spend hanging out in photography forums it seems apt that my first post on this forum is in this section. :) I'd agree with the suggestion that you learn to use the camera before heading off, otherwise you simply have a heavy, cumbersome point & shoot. The 18-55 will get you the majority of the shots you're looking for and then comes the expense of filling the gaps...

I'm taking a 16-35 and 24-120 on our next trip, to be honest the 24-120 would probably be more than adequate but I fancy trying some ultra wide angle stuff. Just trying to work out whether I'm brave enough to take a 300mm f2.8 out on a rib... :eek:

I shoot full frame (D600) and carry a 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4

We just got our first DSLR. Canon rebel T5I.

 

We upgraded the lens to get the 18-135.

You might think that the 18-135 would be the standard lens these days. 135mm on a DSLR is equivalent to 200mm on a film camera.

Why don't camera makers offer a 135 option on every camera? Just advertise it with two prices, one for each lens.

If you are hesitant of any lense larger than 55 and those zooms that are larger and heavier that are longer than 100mm then a P&S is what you need to consider

18-55 as others have said is a narrow range. Works if you dont' want to take wide vista pictures nor those where you want tight shots of things far away. There is no escaping physics that a large sensor requires larger lenses.

If you only plan to us 18-55 and crop, go get a compact superzoom, they offer much of the benifits of today's DSLR at a fraction of the size

I am planning on getting my first DLSR. A lot of the bundles come with 18-55 lenses. That doesn't seem to be much of a zoom. On the other hand, getting a lens that up towards 100mm makes the thing quite heavy.

 

Do people who own the 18-55 lenses find that the zoom along with editing at home is sufficient?

 

You might think that the 18-135 would be the standard lens these days. 135mm on a DSLR is equivalent to 200mm on a film camera.

 

Why don't camera makers offer a 135 option on every camera? Just advertise it with two prices, one for each lens.

Kits - cameras with lenses in a box - are typically the way entry level DSLRs are sold.

As you go up in price and sophistication, there are different kits available with upgraded lenses - depending on the manufacturer. And other than the base cameras, you can usually buy the camera body only and the lens separately.

The ubiquitous 18-55mm is usually bundled with the base cameras from the manufacturers as there is a lot of competition at that level, so pricing is very sensitive.

This kind of discussion always reminds me of the days when I got my first 35mm SLR. In those days, you got a 50mm lens, and that was it. If you saved up your money, you might eventually buy a 24 or 35mm lens, and a 135mm lens.

There were no zooms in those days.

I have followed all of your advice, I think. I bought a Canon T5i with and 18-55mm yesterday. I will add a zoom telephoto later on and carry it in my case. That seems to be the best balance of the options.

Thanks!

I am planning on getting my first DLSR. A lot of the bundles come with 18-55 lenses. That doesn't seem to be much of a zoom. On the other hand, getting a lens that up towards 100mm makes the thing quite heavy.

 

Do people who own the 18-55 lenses find that the zoom along with editing at home is sufficient?

An 18-55 zoom lens is essentially a throwaway lens that keeps the cost of the camera down. It is the lens equivalent of selling digital cameras without memory cards. You will very quickly buy a better zoom lens. I would recommend that when you buy a new dSLR, buy it as body-only and then get the lens that you really want.

DON

Throw away is a good one but so true..

I carry my 18-200mm Nikon and a prime 35mm (1.8)

I have used an SLR before when it was on film and then went to P&S for years. The reason I switched to DLSR now is that I want more control over the way the camera take pictures, as I did with my old SLR. I will accumulate lenses but I want to use the 18-55 kit lens while I am figuring the camera out. With the faster lens speeds and the incredible ISOs since my last film SLR back in the stone age, this should be quite an experience.

I see the point of buying the body only and getting a mid-range zoom separately but they put the kits on with such great prices it is pretty hard prices. Because my T5i was part of a promotion the kit lens is virtually free.

From past experience I will probably go to 18-135 quickly, and that will be my go to lens, but I like having the option to use the kit lens for something light when I am running around.

There was a time with 200mm was considered a pretty big amount of zoom. Now, there are point and shoot super zooms that reach an equivalent of 500mm+ --- which is nearly impossible on a dSLR.

When you shrink down the camera sensor (which really dictates the QUALITY of your images), it becomes pretty cheap and easy to obtain massive zoom. Thus, camera manufacturers promote the massive zoom on their relatively cheap cameras as a big selling point. (Just like they promote megapixels to the point where they are more than anyone needs).

The reality is, a good photographer learns to zoom with their feet far more often. Kit 18-55 lenses have evolved to give a pretty good quality. In the hands of a good photographer, the 18-55 range on a APS-C camera, (the equivalent of 27-83mm) -- Can cover 60-90% of your photographic needs.

I own 10+ lenses, but my go-to is my 16-50.

18-55 is the proper range for basically anything indoors. The proper range for landscapes. Zoomed in to the 55mm end, it is a decent portrait lens.

Putting aside other factors like minimum focusing distance, aperture... Purely in terms of focal length:

The 18-55 (or for me, 16-50) range covers about 75% of my shots. (some may be taken with my 50mm macro, my 35 1.8 lens). I do some portraits with my 85mm and 135mm prime lenses -- Another 10-15% of my work. And I use my telephoto zooms (70-210 and 70-300) only about 10-15% of the time -- for sports, wildlife.

I could easily stick to under 55mm for portraits, the 85mm is for headshots and outdoor portraits, the 135mm is outdoor headshots basically.

So really, if it wasn't a matter of shooting sports and wildlife, I could make do with just an 18-55 range. (Personally, I'd still want a macro, faster prime, etc).

You guys should look at the 17-55mm f/2.8 (Canon or Nikon) or the 17-50mm f/2.8 (Sigma). They are very nice lenses... especially the Sigma. In Dx0Mark testing, the Sigma beats both Canon and Nikon at half the price.

I had the 18-105mm when I bought my D90 kit. But when I bought my D7100, I bought the Sigma 17-55mm f/2.8 (I gave my son my D90 and 18-105mm).

I am very glad I did - the Sigma (and I am sure the Canon or Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8) 17-50mm is crazy good.

When you think about it, at 50mm and f/2.8, these lenses are two stops faster than the 18-55mm kit lenses. Two stops is huge, and you would have to spend $6000 to get that kind of performance improvement by upgrading your camera body.

Especially that the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 costs $600, it is a very cost-effective way to get a lot more low-light performance (at least compared to upgrading the camera).