NZFF

Im looking at upgrading my Superzoom camera to the Nikon D40x/D60. Camera wise, I can interpretate the information, but lenses confuse me!

From what ive read, to calculate the zoom range divide the largest mm by the smallest eg- 55/18= 3x Zoom. But apparently this means nothing in SLRs...

In that case, what lense should I get for Plane spotting? Currently I have a 18 times zoom on my camera, which seems to be sufficient. I was thinking I would need a 300mm lense, is this about right?

Thanks in advance

The zoom range -- which shows as 3X or 10x -- simply shows the difference between the shortest and longest zoom. When you can't change the lens, this is important because it defines the usefulness of the camera over a wide range. But this will represent an actual focal length, which is the 18mm or 300mm part. The actual focal length is a bit more important with a SLR because you don't have to make just one choice to get a zoom range, you can simply have more than one lens.

Both of the Nikons you mention have a small sensor, and the focal lengths are quoted for normal sensor size, so to get the real equivalent focal length you multiple the stated length by 1.5.
So your 18-55 lens will have an effective focal length of 18x1.5=27 to 55x1.5=82. So your lens is the equivalent of a normal (film) lens of 27-82mm.

But to give a similar solution to your 18x zoom, you really need a couple of zoom lenses. Some people simply buy two lenses which overlap slightly in the zoom range, or you can have a gap in the range as long as it is small. For instance, you might want a 18-55mm zoom plus a 50-200mm zoom, which has an overlapping range, or a 18-55mm plus a 70-300mm zoom, which doesn't overlap but is probably a cheaper and better solution.

So effectively you'll end up with 16.6x zoom range., which compares very well with your current 18x, but with a lot more flexibility being a SLR.
Incidentally, because of the reduced sensor, the 300mm end of the zoom gives an effective focal length of 450.

Thanks Robin,

So im looking at.

Nikon D60, with a 18-55mm Lense, and a 70-300mm Lense. 55-70 wouldnt be too much of a gap??

Something I'm wondering...
In the era of film SLR, I had a very nice 90-230mm f2.8 lens.
Attachment of a cheap extension tube between it and camera produced 180-460mm but of course slowed it down to an effective f5.6.
This meant you needed bright sunlight to shoot.
With better digital sensors, wonder if this doesn't become viable, even in normal lighting?

I recently bought a Canon 400D with a 18-55 & a 75-300 both are great lenses, however neither are IS lenses which isn't such a big deal with the 18-55 (Wide angle) nor is it with the 75-300 up until about 120mm zoom. When I bought it I always envisioned using the zoom lens for aircraft but I constantly find myself using the wide angle because in the 75-300, even 75mm seems alot of zoom and this lens isn't much use unless I find myself in a cr@p spotting site . Soooo...... what I'm going to look into is a 55-200 (preferably IS) to get a nice 'mid range' length of zoom.

Hi there,

Yeah, Im leaning towards the 450D now. Im definently going to get IS lenses, its definently worth it IMO.

Do you like the 400, and why didnt you get the 450? The price gap is so small!

I've got 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses. The lens with the shorter focal length doesn't have IS, but the latter does. I'm not sure that getting IS on your short focal length lense/s is worth the outlay (probably worth it on zoomier lenses), unless you can get it at the same price (or have a chronically unsteady hand).

Alex

Alex wrote:

QUOTE (Alex @ Jul 30 2008, 09:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've got 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses. The lens with the shorter focal length doesn't have IS, but the latter does. I'm not sure that getting IS on your short focal length lense/s is worth the outlay (probably worth it on zoomier lenses), unless you can get it at the same price (or have a chronically unsteady hand).

Alex

The IS on smaller (and larger) lenses enable you to take a picture with less light with out a tripod than a non IS lens. Usually arounds two stops I think.

For Canon the 18-55IS and 55-250IS are really good quite cheap lenses.
Try not to get the older 18-55 lens that doesn't have IS as it's not the best quality optically and it doesn't have the best build quality.
I think you will get more use out of the 18-55 than the tele lens, but if you can get the tele lens for not too much extra then that's great.

The 400D is a cheaper option and is still a great camera. It just lacks live view, which isn't great and a few other changes but the difference in price can be amazing when compared to the 450D.

Instead of getting two lenses, you could look into a convenient one lens solution. Nikon makes an 18-200VR (image stabilisation in Nikon terms) which is meant to be very good but not very cheap, Canon is coming out with one soon and Sigma makes one that is quite good in both a Canon and Nikon mount. Tamron also makes an 18-250 which is apparently okay.

IS is helpful in a lot of situations but is more helpful at longer focal lengths like 100mm+ depending on how shaky you are. It can give you one or two f stops advantage in low light and if you can get an IS lens for not much more then definitely go for it.

Actually Anthony, for import 400D's and 450D's, the price difference is pretty minimal, plus I have a heap of SD cards that Id like to use. Plus plus, I dont want to upgrade for a while, so the newer the better I suppose.

Here is my current plan.

Canon 450D Body
Canon 18-55 IS lens
Canon 55-250 IS lens

All up, its close to $1000 AUD, and then I possibly might add an extender for an extra $100 or so.

Then, when I win lotto, I can buy one of those $1800 L 100-400mm Canon Lenses!

Yes but that's a parallel import and I've heard of Canon not honouring warranties on grey market models, although that's likely to not be true. I doubt you'll have to use the warranty anyway.
The 450D is a better camera than the 400D which is a great camera.
Having lots of memory that you wouldn't have to replace would outweigh any kind of cheaper price on the 400D.

I haven't heard of the Canon 70-250 IS, although I have heard of a 55-250, 70-300 and 70-200 in various flavours of IS.
The L lenses are great, but very expensive. Usually you get what you pay for.

Woops, I meant 55-250

Yeah, the differences are pretty minimal in the 400 and 450, but apparently it just makes it better! Live view would be excellent for Tripod mounted shots!

Yeah, all my cameras have been imported, im not really worried about warrenty, your probably right too- I wont need to use it hopefully