Superzoom lenses

<p>I see more negative comments on this forum than on the other forum I'm on about superzooms. I'd like to give my views on them and then feel free to add your own.</p>

<p>1. They are good for casual photographers who want to move up from a P&S but don't want to do a lot of lens changing.</p>

<p>2. They are good for more serious photographers who want to travel light. They are especially good for vacations and for shooting family events.</p>

<p>3. They are good for situations where one must work fast and changing lenses can result in lost shots, and one doesn't want to carry two bodies.</p>

<p>4. For the serious photographer, they should be thought of as one lens among a group of lenses each with its own advantages and uses.</p>

<p>5. Any modern superzoom will make excellent 8x10 and very good 11x14 prints. This is according to tests I've seen in Pop Photo, dpreview, and other magazines and websites. It's also my own experience. Of course excellent and very good are judgements that each person has to make for him/herself. Some people are only fully satisfied with an 8x10 view camera.</p>

<p>6. My own situation: I have a Nikon 18-200 VR. I also have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, and a Nikon 70-300 VR. I choose a lens or group of lenses depending on what I'm shooting that day. When I shoot on the street or in the parks of NYC, I'll often bring just the 18-200 VR because I want to travel light, be inconspicuous, and work fast. I'll often have to go from w/a to tele and back again too quickly to change lenses. When I'm going around the city like a tourist shooting a variety of subjects I bring my 18-200 VR, Nikon 10.5mm FF FE, Sigma 10-20, and Nikon 35mm f/1.8. For the zoo or aquarium I bring my 17-50 f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 50-150 f/2.8, and 70-300 VR.</p>

<p>My point here is that the 18-200 VR is one lens among several each with its own job to do.</p>

<p>Though my 18-200 has been eclipsed, in terms of $ spent on other, more specialized lenses, it's still in the ol' go bag. In fact, I've actually come to think if <em>it</em> as a specialty lens, now - an elegant compromise that fills certain bills like no other <em>single </em>lens can, regardless of what you're will to spend. The trick is to just understand the pros and cons, and match the activity up to the lens. When it's your first/only lens, a superzoom is a great tool. When it's one of several lenses, it's <em>a</em> tool, and certainly a unique one. My wife refers to the 18-200 as "the useful lens." Heh. I've handed her the body with a 70-200 mounted, and she said, "If I want to lift weights, I'll do it when I'm not trying to take a picture."</p>

<p>Mark,</p>

 

<p>Frankly, I don’t see any of your points as being in favor of a superzoom. Quite the

opposite, in fact.</p>

 

<ol>

 

<li>There’s only a few real reasons why one should want to “move up from a

P&S.” The <em>most important</em> of those is the ability to choose lenses. The

next would be image quality, with ergonomics and handling close behind. A superzoom negates the

first and significantly diminishes the second. High-end P&S cameras have excellent

ergonomics and handling these days, rendering the last largely moot.</li>

 

<li>A “more serious photographer” interested in traveling light can travel

<em>much</em> lighter with a good P&S than with an SLR with a big honkin’ lens. If

said photographer is interested in traveling light, then it’s guaranteed that large prints

aren’t the photographic goal, which eliminates the one meaningful advantage of the DSLR in

this situation. A photographer with even a modest amount of skill should be able to capture the

same image with a P&S as with a superzoom in any circumstance where a superzoom would

be considered, making the P&S the ergonomic winner hands-down (since “traveling light” is

the primary concern).</li>

 

<li>The only situations where you need to change to extremes of focal lengths more rapidly than

can be accomplished by swapping lenses are event coverage, such as weddings or

photojournalism. In both cases, you’ll have the second body for many more reasons than to

have a different lens quickly available. That leaves casual amateur events, like a kid’s

birthday party, where there are so many reasons to use a P&S rather than a “pro-looking” camera it’s not even funny.</li>

 

<li>For the serious photographer, one should chose one’s gear to fit one’s needs,

not merely to check all the boxes on an equipment list. And, if a superzoom would be beneficial,

one should not be ashamed to use a P&S merely because it doesn’t look like a

“pro camera.”</li>

 

<li>Any modern P&S will make excellent 8″ × 10″ and very good

11″ × 14″ prints as well. And, of course, outstanding Web-sized images.

Assuming the camera is a tool used in the process of making prints, and not simply a lekking

object, this is the only criteria necessary to make the decision.</li>

 

</ol>

 

<p>The fact of the matter is that superzoom lenses are slow, bulky, expensive (often more than a

P&S), and have comparatively poor image quality. A P&S will be slow, small and light,

cheap, and have image quality comparable to a DSLR with a superzoom so long as you restrict

yourself to printers that sit on a desktop.</p>

 

<p>One can, at this point, start identifying areas where the DSLR will be superior. For example, the

DSLR will have much better high ISO performance than the P&S. True, but anybody who

actually cares about such things wouldn’t waste time on a slow superzoom either. At the

least, you’d be bouncing flash, and all high-end P&S cameras have hotshoes so the

DSLR has no advantage there. More likely, you’d be reaching for your fast lens and leave

the superzoom at home.</p>

 

<p>And so it goes. Any other situation where a P&S isn’t suitable, neither is a

superzoom. Shutter lag? Well, the superzoom’s autofocus isn’t going to be blazing

fast, either. Large print performance? Maybe you could get a bit more out of the DSLR, but put a 50

f/1.8 on the DSLR and the difference between that and the superzoom at large enlargements

(assuming good technique, of course, as always) will be much more significant than between the

P&S and the superzoom. And so on.</p>

 

<p>The superzoom makes very limited sense as, for example, part of a newspaper’s lens

collection. There will be rare occasions when a superzoom will be appropriate for some of the reasons you

list above. For the paper, keeping the workflow consistent will be the most important factor,

negating all the other advantages of a P&S in such a situation. But for virtually all other

purposes, the P&S is a <em>far</em> superior choice.</p>

 

<p>I suppose there is one other situation where the DSLR beats the P&S, one that I hinted at

above. If your intention is to make a statement that you have lots of disposable income and therefore should be given serious consideration as a mating partner, a DSLR

with a big lens will, indeed, do that better than a P&S. It will also, however, identify you as a geek at best and a pervert / terrorist at worst, so even here the DSLR isn’t the clear winner.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p><em>Any other situation where a P&S isn’t suitable, neither is a superzoom. Shutter lag? Well, the superzoom’s autofocus isn’t going to be blazing fast, either<br /></em><br />Ben: Well, that's just not true. For example, Nikon's 18-200 AF-S is <em>very </em>nimble, focusing much faster than a 50/1.8 on the same body (and more quietly, as well - the difference between causing subjects to turn and look, or not, in a fairly quiet setting). The ability to shoot at 18mm, and 100mm a split second later, with VR helping out ... that's indespensible <em>for some situations</em>. A working PJ is more likely to have two lenses on two bodies for those situations. But there isn't a giant, empty gulf between working PJs and people with P&S cameras asking the waiter to take a snapshot of them. <br /><br />On one urban walk-about, with the light changing from bright afternoon sun (when <strong><a href="../photo/6868344&size=lg">this shot</a></strong> was taken, at 200mm) and twilight a couple hours later (when <strong><a href="../photo/6692079&size=lg">this shot</a></strong> was taken, at 18mm), I was delighted to have an 18-200 along as the single - and quite lightweight - lens mounted to the camera and in my backpack. The same day involved other shooting for which a P&S would have been miserably lacking. And why would I want to have to bring two cameras?<br /><br />As for shutter lag: no, a P&S would not allow me to <strong><a href="../photo/7830418&size=lg">do this</a></strong>, which took advantage of both the very good (in late day light) AF and the higher frame rate that a DSLR can provide. That 18-200 was on the camera because I was out for a walk with a couple of different things in mind, but knew (since I was handling dogs) that I had no intention of carrying or changing multiple lenses just then. But why, on a walk like that, use a different camera than I'd otherwise use? I'm comfortable with it, I've mastered its user interface and behavior. I don't need to change those mental gears if I also, coincidentally, want a wide ranging lens on once in a while. I'll also head out the door with the <em>same</em> camera and a 20-pound bag full of lenses. I like having the choice - and it's not about impressing the ladies.</p>

<p>The only P&S's that can match the zoom range of a superzoom would be an EVF Superzoom (electronic viewfinder). I've had three. First a Fuji FinePix S6000 fd, then a Nikon P80, and then a Canon SX10 IS. All were good cameras, but none match a DSLR with a superzoom in several ways that are important to me. One was image quality which was good at ISO's up to 400, but got progressively worse from 800 up. None were acceptable over 800 and I'm not that fussy. Second was that while they are smaller, they are not pocketable so it still meant a camera hanging from the neck and/or a camera bag. Once you have a camera dangling from your neck or you're carrying a bag, the size of the camera is not that important.</p>

<p>Recently I upgraded my D60 to a D90. I also got a Tamron 18-200 which is much smaller and lighter than the Nikon 18-200 VR. I keep the Tamron on the D60 and it replaces my last EVR Superzoom, the Canon SX10 IS. It's compact, lightweight, and I find it better than the EVR. It's gives me a smaller and lighter alternative to the D90 with the 18-200 VR.</p>

<p>I have nothing against EVR Superzooms. I gave the P80 to my wife and she loves it, and I gave the SX10 IS to my daughter and son-in-law and they love it. They just were not for me.</p>

<p>As for impressing women, I used to have to chase them away with a baseball bat. Now I just hide their walkers.</p>

Mark D,

 

<p>

<blockquote>

The only P&S's that can match the zoom range of a superzoom would be an EVF Superzoom (electronic viewfinder).

</blockquote>

 

<p>

what does type of viewfinder (if any) has to do with absurdly large zoom range?

 

<p>

Later you used the phrase "EVR Superzoom"; what does "EVR" stand for in this case? I would have assumed that it would have been a typo, but then you did mention a Nikon VR lens.

<p>Matt,</p>

 

<p>If I may suggest, your use of a superzoom is a very close match to the example I gave of a

photojournalist. You already have an established workflow based around a DSLR and you

occasionally find yourself in situations where added convenience trumps absolute image

quality.</p>

 

<p>But you know as well as I do that virtually everybody who asks the question, “Should I

get a superzoom?” is really asking, “I want to spend some more money on a camera

but I like the way my P&S doesn’t make me change lenses, so may I have your

permission to buy this superzoom that I already know you won’t recommend because you

never see serious photographers using one?”</p>

 

<p>There <em>are</em> valid uses for a superzoom. It’s just that they’re few and

far between — and, if you have to ask, you’re better off with the P&S.</p>

 

<p>Oh — and nice pictures!</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Ah, Ben... but (at least on a modern DSLR), that superzoom was what I gladly bought with the camera, <em>knowing</em> that I'd be fleshing the rig out with more specific lenses later. I'd been shooting traditional film SLRs for thirty years, and knew what I liked for glass on those bodies, but also knew that having a Swiss Army Knife of a lens like the 18-200 was going to be a very good fit. <br /><br />There are many examples here on PN of folks who've done exactly that - kept the kit superzoom, and added pro-ish glass as time permits. Starting out with a single prime could actually be very frustrating for a lot of folks. The superzooms are a great laboratory for findout out what sort of focal lengths actually talk to you, so that you know what to look at next. I don't casually advocate lenses like that - it really does come down to the user, and where they're headed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There <em>are</em> valid uses for a superzoom. It’s just that they’re few and far between..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Statistics and sales say otherwise. Fortunately, most folks who enjoy the photos they've taken with superzooms don't come here for validation.</p>

<p>Parv, EVF means electronic viewfinder. There is no generally accepted name that I know of for DSLR-like cameras that use electronic viewfinders. I've heard them called EVF's, Digicams, Superzooms, and DSLR-like cameras. As a group they are larger than compact P&S's and have higher ratio zoom lenses. My Nikon P80 had an 28-400+ (don't remember exactly) equivalent lens and the Canon SX10 IS has a 28-560 lens. I'm not aware of any compact P&S with that high a ratio zoom lens (20:1 for the Canon).</p>

<p>I'm not a camera designer, but I suspect that since they are larger than compact P&S's they can have a larger lens with a higher optical zoom ratio.</p>

<p>"Fortunately, most folks who enjoy who enjoy the photos they've taken with superzooms don't come here or validation".</p>

<p>Lex, how do you know that since many if not most of the photos in the Image Forums don't identify the lens used for that photo. Given the number of superzooms sold over the years, it's probably that photos taken with them have shown up on the Image Forums. Further given the prejudice against superzooms on this forum, I would think that many people would not mention the fact that a superzoom was used.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mark, you seem to be misinterpreting my comment. I agree with your initial post 90%. And Matt probably remembers my comments on this issue from previous discussions regarding his photos. I've seen plenty of very good photos taken with zooms like the 18-200 VR Nikkor that would meet my personal standards for sharpness.</p>

<p>FWIW, I do routinely check things like EXIF data, partly to ensure a photo is relevant to a discussion (boring, busybody moderator stuff) and partly out of idle curiosity. Lots of photo.netters take perfectly good photos with superzooms and somewhat less ambitious demi-superzooms. (Remember when something like a 24-105mm was considered an ambitious lens?) Take a peek through the archives of the Nikon Forum's "Nikon Wednesday Pic" threads for plenty of examples. There, we encourage maximum fun and minimum haughtiness, so it's easy to see how many pix are taken with superzooms and modest kit zooms.</p>

<p>The 10% I disagree about? I don't see any overwhelming prejudice against such lenses on photo.net. I do see a handful of very noisy naysayers who tend to pooh-pooh anything they don't personally use, or that costs less than the down payment for a car or house. But try as they might to infiltrate as many discussions as possible, they don't represent a majority. Not picking on Ben in particular here, I don't actually recall seeing his comments in many discussions, but after a decade here and way too many posts, my memory is probably less sharp than even the worst superzoom.</p>

<p>It usually boils down to qualifying our opinions based on our personal preferences. Some folks don't do that. Are they qualifying their opinions from the perspective of a landscape or architectural photographer who demands maximum resolution? Or as casual snapshooters? Do they shoot mostly night photos of trains using a tripod mounted camera? Do they shoot mostly nightclubs and concerts at high ISOs with a handheld camera? As photographers our pursuits are diverse, but we tend not to qualify our assertions about equipment and technique based on what we intend to photograph. My portfolio speaks for itself - I'm mostly a casual snapshooter with fairly low standards for "sharpness" but reasonably high standards for image impact in terms of the human condition or just plain ol' humor. So, other than finding the variable aperture occasionally a mite too slow, most consumer grade zooms would meet my low standards.</p>

<p>Personally, I'm seriously considering swapping my whole mess o' gear for a lighter weight dSLR and superzoom. Due to chronic severe back and neck pain I rarely use my heavier D2H anymore and doubt I'll ever use my medium-weight 300/4.5 AI Nikkor again. This year I've mostly used my old compact rangefinder Olympus 35 RC, and C-3040Z P&S digicam. But I do occasionally need better high ISO performance and AF response. I'd probably get along just fine with something like a D90 and 18-200 VR, and chances are nobody would notice any difference in my photos. My fine art pretensions have long been satisfied with cameras like medium format TLRs with fixed 80mm lenses, so even there nothing would change if I swapped to a whole different kit for candid handheld pix.</p>

<p>One more good use of the superzoom: As a versatile back up lens when something happens to any of the lenses within the 18-200mm range.</p>

<p>Lex, sorry I did misunderstand. I always say that what one sees depends on where one stand. As you say many people see things from their own perspective and forget that other people have different needs, wants, and preferences. When we give advise, we should base it on the needs of the person posting the question, not our own preferences.</p>

<p>Sorry to hear about your back and neck pain. Have you tried acupuncture? My wife's friend suffered for years until she tried acupuncture, and it was the only thing that helped. I have a D90 that I use with the 18-200 VR. I also have a lighter D60, but I find that the 18-200 VR balances better on the bigger heavier D90 so I don't feel as much difference as I expected. I also have a Tamron 18-200 Di that I keep on the D60. That combination is significantly lighter than the D90 18-200 VR combination. The Tamron lacks stabilization, but is as sharp as the Nikon. You could also pick up a lightweight Sony body and the Tamron and it would be stabilized by the body. I'm 66 and although I'm in decent shape I appreciate every bit of photographic weight I can shed. It's amazing how much heavier gear gets when you've been carrying it around all day.</p>