Extra High-Power Zoom Lens vs. Point and Shoot Camera

[Nikonbby]

Hi,

I recently bought a Nikon D3000. I had used a point and shoot camera for years, and, I actually hated photography for a really long time. Then I learned about all the neat stuff you can do with photography if you have a camera that has a manual mode and has Aperture settings. Needless to say, I fell in love with photography and decided that, rather than buy another point and shoot, I'd go out and buy a DSLR to replace my old point and shoot that finally wore out.

I do have an issue, though. I absolutely hate the lens that came with my D3000. Not only is it not the correct lens (I was supposed to get this lens: AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, but instead I received this lens: AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II, which needless to say has made getting sharp images and bit difficult), I also hate how short the zoom is on this lens. It's less than most base level point and shoot cameras. It really irritates me when I see something high up in a tree or far off in the distance and I know that I can't get a picture of it because it's so far off.

Other than the lens issue, I love my camera, but now I have a bit of an issue.

I've recently decided that I'd like to try and buy a lens to go with my D3000. I chose the NIKKOR 55-200mm with Vibration Reduction and an aperture starting at f/4-5.6. It also has the special coating that prevents Chromatic Abberation (which is what the incorrect lens I received with the body of my camera has). This lens is the cheapest hi-power zoom lens Nikon sells. I've actually come to the realization that I'd never want a telephoto lens, because I'm not sure I could even hold the thing, but I still worry about the zoom on this thing. I don't entirely understand the whole "mm" at the end of the numbers and what that translates too in terms of zoom. I know that I want something that can zoom very far, because often I feel limited by the zoom range on my lens. It's one of the things that has made my new love of photography a pain.

So, now, here's the real question. The price of the lens is about comparable to the price of a Canon Point and Shoot (I chose Canon because none of Nikon's point and shoot cameras go distance in the area of zoom) - the Canon Powershot SX120IS to be exact. This camera has a zoom of 10x's and it also has a full manual mode as well as Aperture priority and shutter priority, along with a slew of scene modes. I always shoot in manual, so the scene modes aren't something I absolutely have to have, but the fact that this camera has a manual mode and is the size of a small point and shoot (or, as I've been looking at it, about the size of an extra lens for my Nikon) and it also has a 10x's zoom, it's a pretty enticing deal to me. I'm pretty sure that the picture quality will be nowhere near what I get with my D3000, but I figure if it can zoom farther than the lens and cost about the same, then I might could be happy with it.

My only problem now is figure out if that's really the case. Does anyone know about how much more zoom power I'll get out of a 55-200mm lens? Also, has anyone here ever used the Canon Powershot SX120IS?

Oh and another thing I really adore about the Canon point and shoot is the fact that it can be set to standard or wide angle, a feature which will be really, really nice. I have a hard time deciphering these numbers and things sometimes, but this is what is says about it's focal length:

6.0 (W) - 60.0mm (T) f/2.8 (W) - f/4.3 (T)
(35mm equivalent: 36 (W) - 360 (T) mm)

What do all the W's and T's mean?

From what I've understood it has a really nice wide aperture (2.8) which is quite a bit less than the lens I'm looking at getting (4).

Does anyone have any suggestions at all for me? I'm really in a pickle. Part of me wants to buy the lens for my Nikon because I know that the image quality will be better, plus, I've already spent a lot on it and I don't want to quit using it because I end up with a point and shoot that does all it can do plus some (though I'm fairly certain it won't be able to outmatch the image quality). But then, I'm not entirely sure that I'll be happy with the amount of zoom on the lens, and for the money, I'd rather buy something I'm going to be happy with.

Of course, I might just not understand the zooming capabilities of the lens. Anyway, let me know if you have any suggestions. I'm pretty open-minded about both companies and, though I favor Nikon, I don't totally hate Canon. The only thing I really hate is the fact that Canon won't switch over the battery format that Nikon uses.

Anyway, sorry for the length. Any suggestions or comments regarding this will be appreciated.

[Rehesan]

If your priority is to have a very long zoom without spending fair money in a long telezoom lens, then you should stick to the point and shoot, that type of cameras has the ability to do both optical and digital zooms (10x).

No DSLR lens will give you a "10x" zoom factor in an easy to carry and cheap package, for that I should say you would need to consider a 500mm focal lenght lense or more.

Just as an example: your 55-200mm lense is equivalent to a 3x zoom factor at 200mm focal length.

The other option is to get a teleconverter for your DSLR, but those are not cheap either.

Telezooms prime lenses are not cheap, good glass requires to spend good money.

[Aegea]

Easy answer first - W means wide and T means tele. So the P&S has a lens that has a 6mm focal length at f/2.8 at the wide end and 60mm at f/4.3 at the tele end. This is "equivalent to" 36mm to 360mm on a full frame (standard 35mm) camera - that's because the sensor on the P&S is about 1/6 the size compared to a full-size camera. The small sensor also limits the quality of the image for various technical reasons, even if it has the same or more megapixels.

The total zoom range of the 2 lenses you have is 18-200, or about 11x.Your 18-55 is equivalent to a 27-82 (roughly) on a full size 35mm camera, and the 55-200 is equivalent to 82-300. So in equivalent terms, the 3000 has a slightly bigger range (split between two lenses), and is a bit wider at the wide end but not so long a tele.

If you really want a single lens with a 10x zoom for the 3000, I'd suggest the 18-200 that Nikon makes, it has a decent reputation, but the great advantage of SLRs is that you can change lenses.

[Nikonbby]

Wow, thanks guys. I just spent about 30 minutes trying to understand if I could get a non-DX format lens for my DX format camera. I understand what they mean by the whole "image sensor being smaller" thing, but I don't know what effect that will have on the end result. I sort of feel like I screwed up big time getting this DSLR since it has the DX imaging sensor.

Any thoughts or information on what sort of effects a non-DX lens has on the final image on a DX camera?

Also, Aegea, you said that between the two lenses I would be getting I'd have about an 11x zoom, did I read that correctly? That sounds pretty good to me. Also, thanks for clearing up the whole W and T thing. I thought that W was probably wide, but I wasn't sure about the T. I suppose that if I'm reading it correctly, that it means that on the wide end of things (small zoom) I'd have a minimum aperture of 2.8, and on the long zoom end I'd have a 4.3 (sorry, all these numbers and millimeters and stuff really throw me)?

And, Rehesan, I realize I'd never be able to get a small lens that would cover the 10x range, hence the reason why I was looking at the point and shoot. I'm well aware you've got to pay good money for good glass. The quality of the glass is part of the reason why I chose Nikon to begin with. I'm just trying to get the most bang for my buck, and attempting to save myself from lugging around a huge lens. So I'm going for the most zoom in the smallest package.

I also realize that the image quality is not going to be as good on the point and shoot. But, I'm thinking about a lot of different factors in this. I know that going back to a point and shoot after using a DSLR would be a definite downgrade, but when I consider that I could get a longer zoom as well as a video mode and several other scene features (albeit at a less than optimum image quality) for less than what I could pay for a lens that's only going to increase my zoom by a little bit and drop my minimum aperture down to 4, I just have to stop and give it all a little bit of extra thought.

I haven't actually decided yet, nor am I taking sides on the issue. I'm just throwing my thoughts out there and seeing what people think and if they have any suggestions.

I appreciate the feedback from both of you, though. It's going to be really helpful in making my final decision. Thanks!

[Rehesan]

repeated post.

[Rehesan]

Originally Posted by Aegea

The total zoom range of the 2 lenses you have is 18-200, or about 11x.Your 18-55 is equivalent to a 27-82 (roughly) on a full size 35mm camera, and the 55-200 is equivalent to 82-300. So in equivalent terms, the 3000 has a slightly bigger range (split between two lenses), and is a bit wider at the wide end but not so long a tele.

If you really want a single lens with a 10x zoom for the 3000, I'd suggest the 18-200 that Nikon makes, it has a decent reputation, but the great advantage of SLRs is that you can change lenses.

Yes, you are right, I just missed the part of Nikonbby´s post saying the Nikon camera is a D3000 (DX format), so you are correct: a 10x zoom factor can be achieved on a 18-200mm DX format lense, and most of all, that lense is good for almost any kind of photography situation: from fair good wideangle to good zoom range.

[Rehesan]

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

Also, Aegea, you said that between the two lenses I would be getting I'd have about an 11x zoom, did I read that correctly? That sounds pretty good to me. Also, thanks for clearing up the whole W and T thing. I thought that W was probably wide, but I wasn't sure about the T. I suppose that if I'm reading it correctly, that it means that on the wide end of things (small zoom) I'd have a minimum aperture of 2.8, and on the long zoom end I'd have a 4.3 (sorry, all these numbers and millimeters and stuff really throw me)?

The f/2.8 means the maximum aperture of the lens when is full wide, not the minimum. In other words, when you shot on the widest focal length, the lens aperture could be wide open (allowing to enter more light) and when you shoot in full zoom, the maximum aperture is reduced to 4.3, so the light allowed to enter is less.

The aperture values obey this rule: lower number-lens more open, higher number-lens less open. Also, this has a relation talking about focal lenght (how long or wide the lens can be), the lower the focal length is, the higher the aperture, the longer the focal length is, the lower the aperture.

I hope I could answer your question and I hope you are not more confused now than before.

[Nikonbby]

Originally Posted by Rehesan

The f/2.8 means the maximum aperture of the lens when is full wide, not the minimum. In other words, when you shot on the widest focal length, the lens aperture could be wide open (allowing to enter more light) and when you shoot in full zoom, the maximum aperture is reduced to 4.3, so the light allowed to enter is less.

The aperture values obey this rule: lower number-lens more open, higher number-lens less open. Also, this has a relation talking about focal lenght (how long or wide the lens can be), the lower the focal length is, the higher the aperture, the longer the focal length is, the lower the aperture.

I hope I could answer your question and I hope you are not more confused now than before.

That's what I meant. I noticed that Nikon refers to the smaller number (larger opening) as the maximum and the larger number (smaller opening) as the minimum. I probably fudged up what I said because it really confuses the heck of me trying to explain it. But I do understand the concept of aperture and wider means more light, smaller number, etc, etc.

It's really hard to say this stuff in words sometimes.

But thanks for attempting to help me understand what I'm doing better. I know I'm definitely still learning. I've added that 18-200mm lens to my list, though, so that gives me more to think about.

Also, I'm not sure if you caught my other question, but I was wondering about the limitations the DX system has with a non-DX lens? I've read another thread on Flickr that attempted to explain it, and it did make sense, but at the same time, I'm still a bit confused. Is using the DX system with a non-DX lens going to alter the image I get vs. what I see in my viewfinder? I know that the old FX systems work with a DX lens (or so that's how I read it), but they crop the image down. Or was that supposed to be reversed (if so, Nikon needs to do some rewording on their site)?

Thanks again for the help!

[OsmosisStudios]

I'm gonna be picky here...

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

I recently bought a Nikon D3000. I had used a point and shoot camera for years, and, I actually hated photography for a really long time. Then I learned about all the neat stuff you can do with photography if you have a camera that has a manual mode and has Aperture settings. Needless to say, I fell in love with photography and decided that, rather than buy another point and shoot, I'd go out and buy a DSLR to replace my old point and shoot that finally wore out.

Good, welcome to the club.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

I do have an issue, though. I absolutely hate the lens that came with my D3000. Not only is it not the correct lens (I was supposed to get this lens: AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, but instead I received this lens: AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II, which needless to say has made getting sharp images and bit difficult),

If you were supposed to get the VR lens and didn't, discuss it with your dealer or whoever you got the camera from. That's not right. Second, the VR/non-VR shouldnt matter for 90% of your shooting. The lenses are otherwise identical, so getting "sharp images" shouldnt be difficult.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

I also hate how short the zoom is on this lens. It's less than most base level point and shoot cameras. It really irritates me when I see something high up in a tree or far off in the distance and I know that I can't get a picture of it because it's so far off.

An 18-55 lens is a 3x zoom, very much like most base level point and shoots. Easy way of finding out the zoom ratio: T/W. 55/18 = 3.05.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

I've recently decided that I'd like to try and buy a lens to go with my D3000. I chose the NIKKOR 55-200mm with Vibration Reduction and an aperture starting at f/4-5.6. It also has the special coating that prevents Chromatic Abberation (which is what the incorrect lens I received with the body of my camera has).

The coatings on the 18-55 and 18-55 VR are identical.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

This lens is the cheapest hi-power zoom lens Nikon sells.

It's the cheapest telephoto lens, not High-power lens. "High-power" is ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

I've actually come to the realization that I'd never want a telephoto lens, because I'm not sure I could even hold the thing, but I still worry about the zoom on this thing.

You have a telephoto lens. There are considerably bigger ones, but most still arent that bad unless you're talking some of the very big telephoto (500+mm) primes.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

I don't entirely understand the whole "mm" at the end of the numbers and what that translates too in terms of zoom.

Millimeters mean nothing for zoom: they refer to the focal length (distance from the front of the lens (front of the first element) to the focal crux point within the lens. All you need to know is that smaller numbers mean wider angle, larger numbers means longer telephoto.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

I know that I want something that can zoom very far, because often I feel limited by the zoom range on my lens. It's one of the things that has made my new love of photography a pain.

You don't necessarily want a longer range, but a longer focal length.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

So, now, here's the real question. The price of the lens is about comparable to the price of a Canon Point and Shoot (I chose Canon because none of Nikon's point and shoot cameras go distance in the area of zoom) - the Canon Powershot SX120IS to be exact.

Nikon does make several point and shoots that cover similar ranges as the Canon cameras. The SX120IS has a 10x zoom range: the Nikon S8000 has the same. The Canon SX20is has a 20x zoom: Nikon P100 is a 26x zoom.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

This camera has a zoom of 10x's and it also has a full manual mode as well as Aperture priority and shutter priority, along with a slew of scene modes. I always shoot in manual, so the scene modes aren't something I absolutely have to have, but the fact that this camera has a manual mode and is the size of a small point and shoot (or, as I've been looking at it, about the size of an extra lens for my Nikon) and it also has a 10x's zoom, it's a pretty enticing deal to me.

Again, the Nikon P&S cameras have this (the S8000 doesnt, but Nikon does have some).

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

I'm pretty sure that the picture quality will be nowhere near what I get with my D3000, but I figure if it can zoom farther than the lens and cost about the same, then I might could be happy with it.

You think wrong.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

My only problem now is figure out if that's really the case. Does anyone know about how much more zoom power I'll get out of a 55-200mm lens? Also, has anyone here ever used the Canon Powershot SX120IS?

The 55-200 is approximately a 4x zoom. T/W = 200/55 = 3.63. The SX120is is a 36-360 equivalent. I've used both, and while the SX120is DOES offer manual controls, getting to them, using them, and getting actually useable differences between settings is exceedingly difficult. For instance, the aperture range is f/2.8 and f/8. That's it.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

Oh and another thing I really adore about the Canon point and shoot is the fact that it can be set to standard or wide angle, a feature which will be really, really nice. I have a hard time deciphering these numbers and things sometimes, but this is what is says about it's focal length:

As explained, so can the 18-55. It has a wide end (18mm, or a 27mm equivalent) and a tele end (55mm, or 80mm equivalent).

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

6.0 (W) - 60.0mm (T) f/2.8 (W) - f/4.3 (T)
(35mm equivalent: 36 (W) - 360 (T) mm)

What do all the W's and T's mean?

This has been explained adequately by others.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

From what I've understood it has a really nice wide aperture (2.8) which is quite a bit less than the lens I'm looking at getting (4).

f/2.8 on a compact is more like f/8 on a SLR. The amount of light is fairly similar (less, but similar) but the bokeh (the blurring of the out-of-focus areas) is totally different.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

Does anyone have any suggestions at all for me? I'm really in a pickle. Part of me wants to buy the lens for my Nikon because I know that the image quality will be better, plus, I've already spent a lot on it and I don't want to quit using it because I end up with a point and shoot that does all it can do plus some (though I'm fairly certain it won't be able to outmatch the image quality). But then, I'm not entirely sure that I'll be happy with the amount of zoom on the lens, and for the money, I'd rather buy something I'm going to be happy with.

It sounds like you want a superzoom. THe Canon SX20is or Nikon P100. An SLR is not what you're looking for.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

Of course, I might just not understand the zooming capabilities of the lens.

I think you're misunderstanding the fundamental concepts of the SLR system

[QUOTE=Nikonbby;1026600]
Anyway, let me know if you have any suggestions. I'm pretty open-minded about both companies and, though I favor Nikon, I don't totally hate Canon. The only thing I really hate is the fact that Canon won't switch over the battery format that Nikon uses.
[/QUOTE
Hate to break it to you, but the Canon SX120is and the SX20is both use AA batteries, and often the lithium ion rechargeable batteries aren't interchangeable between models, let alone brands.

Originally Posted by Nikonbby

Anyway, sorry for the length. Any suggestions or comments regarding this will be appreciated.

Get a superzoom bridge camera and be done with it.

[LeeR]

I had a high-end point and shoot before getting a DSLR and the primary reason I made the jump is because I hate the limitations of an LCD screen. On my camera I can either use the eyepiece or the screen on the back but either way I am looking at an LCD interpretation of the image I am shooting. Now you have to understand, I shot film for years and I pride myself on being able to see the subtle differences in the quality of light, qualities that an LCD simply cannot duplicate. Aside from that, the P&S has the potential to shoot the same quality images as my DSLR, but to me being able to see those subtle differences is well worth the extra cost.