18-70 vs.18-55 vs. 55-200 in nikon lens

[bluesky]

I think I'm going to purchase a d50 this xmas and and trying to figure out what lens (likely 2) to get with the body. Nikon offers a bundle w/ the d50 and a 18-55 lens.

If I'm not mistaken, these number (18-70 and 18-55) refer to the min/max focal length of the lens which directly impacts the zoom of the lens. If the fspot ratings on the two are the same, what does the extra 15 mm give you? Is it zoom or is it perspective or both?

Finally, how can I translate these numbers to "power"? In other words, how far can I zoom with a 18-55 lens in terms of x (several websites claim this is a 3x lens). How can I calculate this for other ranges like 18-70 and the 55-200 am I also considering.

Thanks guys!

[Ironman11]

Well Bluesky, I'll see if I can help.

Your focal length (18-70mm, 18-55mm), does show the zoom of your lens. The small # is wide-angle (how far the lens can zoom out, to get the most perspective), and larger # is telephoto (or zoomed in) The extra 15mm from the 18-55 to 18-70 will let you zoom in more to get closer to the action.

I'm a pretty new DSLR user myself, so I can see how your confused about the 3x, 4x, etc. zooms, normally used for point-and-shoots, compared to the 18-55mm and such. Basically, just divide the larger # by the smaller # to get your "x-zoom."

This means that these are the approximate zoom-factors for your lenses:
18-55mm - 3x
18-70mm - 3.9x
55-200mm - 3.6x

The combo of the 18-55 and 55-200mm would be a "combined" equivalent 18-200mm focal length, or an 11x zoom (although of course, you would have to change lenses.)

I hope this helps you out. Good luck with your DSLR purchase!

--Alex

[bluesky]

Great post. That information help quite a bit. Thanks!

Now for a followup:

In terms for a telephoto lens, I would think (fstop ratings being equal) that one would a lens that has a good range interms of bring the shooter closer to the subject. Having said that, the 18-70 gives a factor of 3.9x while the 55-200 gives a factor of 3.6x. Additionall, it would allow the shooter to capture more light having the lower fspot rating, right?

The 18-70 specs are: f3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX
The 55-200 spects are: f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX

Seems like the 18-70 is a better lens right?

[Ironman11]

Well, the 3.6x and 3.9x are somewhat misleading. All the multipication factor is is the difference from full wide-angle and full zoom. When you're looking for the largest zoom you can have (which gets you closer to the subject), just look for the biggest number. For example, the 55-200mm will bring you in closer than the 18-70mm.

As far as F-stops go, you’re right. The lower number, being the larger aperature, allows more light to enter the lens, which is very good. A lens with a large aperture (small F-number) is sometimes called a “fast lens.” For night high school football, I shoot with a Sigma 70-200mm telephoto, which has an aperture of f2.8. You really need the big apertures for night action.

Considering all of this, your lens choice depends on how close you want to be to the action. The 18-70 is more of a standard range, closer to what your eye sees. The 55-200 will give you that telephoto zoom you might need.

Hope this helps,
Alex

[Mike 2]

Hi Bleusky

If you are considering one of the three Nikon lenses I recommend that you seriously consider the new Tamron 24mm - 200mm digital zoom lens. There are a couple of good reviews available. It provides the telephoto range you want plus the equally important 24 mm wideangle for landscapes and especially architecture photos. Remember that you have to account for the smaller sensors and x1.5 magnification factor of the Nikon D50 and D70 DSLR's, compared to a standard 35mm film camera. The Tamron also has a very close focussing ability and other excellent features. It may also be less expensive than a close equivalent range Nikon. As a long-time Nikon user I own a number of excellent Nikon, Tamron & Sigma lenses for use with my film cameras and D70 DSLR. At some future date, if needed, you could add an even wider range in the 11-20mm range. The D50 is an excellent choice for you at this stage of you digital experience.

Mike 2

[Franglais]

I think I'm going to purchase a d50 this xmas and and trying to figure out what lens (likely 2) to get with the body. Nikon offers a bundle w/ the d50 and a 18-55 lens.

If I'm not mistaken, these number (18-70 and 18-55) refer to the min/max focal length of the lens which directly impacts the zoom of the lens. If the fspot ratings on the two are the same, what does the extra 15 mm give you? Is it zoom or is it perspective or both?

Finally, how can I translate these numbers to "power"? In other words, how far can I zoom with a 18-55 lens in terms of x (several websites claim this is a 3x lens). How can I calculate this for other ranges like 18-70 and the 55-200 am I also considering.

Thanks guys!

For a moment let's leave aside vague terms like "Zoom range" and "power" and talk about what you can actually do with a lens. The view that you get with a given lens on the D50 is determined by the focal length that you have set on the lens. So if we go through the range of focal lengths and what I use them for:

18mm: Wide-angle, useful for landscapes where you want to get in the whole scene
24mm: Weak wide-angle, useful in crowds or for telling a story of an event
32mm: "Normal" view. Not dramatic but nice for family or pictures of people at a respectful distance
55mm: Weak telephoto, useful for a portrait from waist upwards
70mm: Telephoto, useful for portrait from bust upwards, landscapes
135mm: Strong telephoto, useful for headshot or picking out detail in a landscape
200mm: Very strong telephoto, bare minimum for wildlife

And so on. In fact none of these focal lengths are very extreme. If you want an eye-popping wide-angle you'd have to go down to 10mm, and if you want to do close-ups of birds you'd need a 400mm.

The 18-55 is a useful lens which allows you to go from wide-angle to weak telephoto. The 18-70 goes a bit further on the telephoto side (this is probably what you mean when you talk about "power"). The 55-200 is a pure telephoto lens.

Does that help?

Charles

[Mike 2]

Bluesky,
Re my previous post. Sorry. I meant the new 18mm-200mm Tamron Di 11 lens, not 24mm-200mm as stated. A lens with a great range for general purpose photography as I previously stated. See the user experience of Dianne in the Tamron 18mm-200mm lens thread. Don't get tied-up with all the technical jargon. Decide what subjects you want to photograph and then pick the lens that will cover the range you need now. You can always expand your lenses when you have done some shooting and find that you are restricted at the long or wide end. Enjoy,

Mike 2

[bluesky]

Thanks to all who replied. This makes alot more sense to me now. Part of me thinks it would be best to just purchase the 2 lens kit (18-55 and 55-200) since I'm just starting out. The other part of me think I should just get the body and maybe that Tamron lens that Mike2 talked about.

Is it true that a single lens can do the job of two? In other words, 18-200 seems like quite a range for a single lens.although, the fspot range isn't too bad (3.5-6.3) which is actually better than the nikor 55-200, and just as good as the 18-55.

Anyone know of a good place that decodes Tamron lens part numbers similar to this place for Nikon I actually thought people in the forums here or at dpreview.com warned away from Tamron stuff in general.

I did find a review of this lens at kenrockwell.com (link here); don't think I want all the image distortion.

[Ironman11]

Is it true that a single lens can do the job of two?.

Well, for the most part, the two specialized lenses will be much better than the single lens. As that review showed you, on the huge focal length ranges, distortion is typically a problem. It all comes down to your personal preference. You can have 2 better lenses, but you'll have to switch them, or one single, not-so-good lens.

Of course, I haven't used these lenses in question. Maybe you can get first-hand from someone else if the distortion is really that bad.

[Franglais]

Is it true that a single lens can do the job of two? In other words, 18-200 seems like quite a range for a single lens.although, the fspot range isn't too bad (3.5-6.3) which is actually better than the nikor 55-200, and just as good as the 18-55.

.

The 18-55 is a f3.5-5.6 and the 55-200 is an f4-5.6. Going to f5.6 rather than f6.3 is important because Nikon's autofocus is guaranteed to work only to f5.6. At f6.3 there's 33% less light getting through and you might have problems.

I've used Tamron in the dim and distant past and the results were nice, but the colours were not quite the same as with Nikon. Personally I'm rather conservative in my lens choice and I steer away from lenses that try to do everything. My preference goes to lenses like the 18-70 where the performance is pretty much constant at all focal lengths and apertures.

Charles

[bluesky]

I agree with you, Franglais. I bought the d50 body only and a 50 mm F/1.8 for now. I'm waiting to read some hard reviews on the new 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor lens. If it does what they say does, I think this might be a great walking around/general purpose lens and a solution to my lens questions.

They are retailing around $650 but if you do the math it's less than $100 more than what I was planning to spend on the two (see below) to get AND it's a VR!

18-70 mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor is about $360
70-300 mm f4-5.6 APO DG Macro Sigma $220

What do you all think?

[Nikonpenguin]

That's right bluesky.
I have a same idea with you on Lenses.

I had both 18-70 and 70-300 and I sold them.
Then I got 50mm f1.8 and I'm waiting for 18-200mm VR.

[bluesky]

Man, I read the review of the post production 18-200 VRII on ken's page this url. Why spend that much cash on a lens and have to photoshop each image? That's BS if you asked me. Plus, I wonder how impartial ken is about nikon products. The overall flavor of his reviews make me think there is a serious bias towards nikon gear -- perhaps not *that* impartial after all.

I'm not biting on the 18-200. I'll get a 18-70 for now. Maybe a Sigma 70-300 APO if I think I need more reach. If you get the the 18-200 VR, post your experiences with it in here.

[Franglais]

Man, I read the review of the post production 18-200 VRII on ken's page this url. Why spend that much cash on a lens and have to photoshop each image? That's BS if you asked me. Plus, I wonder how impartial ken is about nikon products. The overall flavor of his reviews make me think there is a serious bias towards nikon gear -- perhaps not *that* impartial after all.

I'm not biting on the 18-200. I'll get a 18-70 for now. Maybe a Sigma 70-300 APO if I think I need more reach. If you get the the 18-200 VR, post your experiences with it in here.

I looked at the review and Ken says that the 18-200 is actually quite good for distortion (which is why you need Photoshop). He says the 18-70 is worse than the 18-200. That's reassuring to me. I have the 18-70 and I've never felt the need to do any distortion correction.

Charles

[Nikonpenguin]

Yes, I've read that line too.
I hope this 18-200mm VR could do most of job. I'm not asking for perfect one and I do still see other lens' advantages.
However, I'm counting on Nikon's more developed technology on this one.

This doesn't mean I will not have a backup lens. Actually I'm shopping for my backup lens right now. If you have suggestion, let me know. It should have good performance as well as low price.

p.s. Here is another good site for recommendation for Nikon items.
http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm