The One-Lens Photography Tool: The All-in-One Zoom Buying Guide

[Panama Hat & Camera]

In my thread A DSLR superzoom camera, I presented my attempt to merge two worlds: DSLR cameras and superzoom bridge cameras. This B&H article is closely related to my thread but it generalizes the subject to several camera and lens manufacturers.
Cheers,
Antonio.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora...up#slideshow-1

[Shadowman]

Having owned one years ago (Nikon P90) I got a good sense of the pros and cons, for the most part the system was a good choice, but at the time of use I wasn't as heavily into lowlight shooting.

[Manfred M]

Antonio - I went the superzoom lens route during my recent trip to Brazil and Bolivia; I took around 5000 shots with the full-frame Nikkor 28-300mm lens over a 1 month period, so I got to know it well and have a fairly good overview of what works well and where it could perform better.

The main reason I opted for this approach is that I wanted to travel reasonably light and being able to carry a single body and single lens were the primary consideration. Spending a month living out of a 50 litre backpack plus my camera bag in conditions that ranged from tropical to near freezing meant that appropriate clothing took precedence over camera gear.

Frankly, I missed my usual lenses. I recognize the tradeoffs I was making and the four aspects I missed the most between this lens and my usual assortment I travel with were:

1. Much darker viewfinder given that the lens was 1 - 2 stops slower than the /2.8 lenses I usually shoot with. These are the measured apertures and I believe that the light transmission is about one stop lower than the theoretical value which was a handicap in low light situations;

2. Slower focus speeds versus my usual lenses. I suspect that is simply the difference between pro and lower end lenses;

3. Inferior lens coating which meant I got more veiling flare in my shots than I am used to; and

4. It was not quite wide enough. I do a lot of shooting at a 24mm focal length and 28mm was often simply not quite wide enough. At those focal lengths, every mm is important.

The lens has a lot more distortion (which can be corrected in raw conversion) and has lower microcontrast (also correctable, to a point).

The lens worked as well as I had expected and in my view, it was the correct purchase for my trip. I expect I will use it again from time to time, but it will likely not be used other than in situations where I need to limit myself to a single lens. I'm a lot happier with the performance of my other lenses, even though they take up more space and weigh a lot more.

[tclune]

I use the Nikon 18-140 as my travel lens. It is good enough that I keep it on my camera unless I have specific need of properties that it lacks. For me, that includes reach for birding and wildlife, wide angle for indoor shots, and macro shooting. Every once in a while, I like to shoot with a 35mm prime just to shake me out of my photography rut. But, for most of my shooting, the travel lens is good enough for my not-very-inspired photography.
I find the lens to be as sharp as I need and a very handy range without a lot of compromise in quality. My D5200 has good enough dynamic range that I seldom find the lens' slow maximum aperture to be a disadvantage. I replaced the very capable Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 with the 18-140 because I found the greater range of focal lengths more useful to me than the faster aperture -- although I haven't gotten rid of the Tamron because it is a very nice piece of glass. I will also sometimes travel with the tiny Nikon 35mm f/1.8 in my pocket for those times when aperture is my main concern.
The things that are less than thrilling to me about the 18-140 include its barrel distortion at the wide end and pincushion distortion at the long end are sometimes irritating. When I first got the lens a few years ago, I tested this, and expected it to drive me crazy. But, in normal use, these things are surprisingly invisible on most photos. When I realized that, it changed my attitude about a lot of the specsmanship that seems to dominate lens discussions. Another minor annoyance that bothers me more than it should is that Nikon sells this lens without a lens hood. You can (and should) buy one for it for a few dollars, so it isn't a financial burden, but it just feels cheap and sleazy that Nikon didn't include this standard part of the lens.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Manfred, thank you for sharing the experience with your superzoom lens (and comparison with your other lenses). You said what I expected (and confirmed what is written in the B&H article). One thing I had not thought about was the darker viewfinder, probably because my kit lens (a Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6) has basically the same aperture as my 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 and I use very little my Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, which does not have autofocus, and my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.
Cheers,
Antonio.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

John, thank you for your comments. My Canon SX50 is a good camera, but I dream of a Sony RX10 IV, that has a 24-600mm FFE f/2.4-4.0 Zeiss lens and excellent reviews (please, see my thread What do you think about the Sony RX10 IV camera?), but is very expensive (US$ 1700) for a point-and-shoot camera.
Cheers,
Antonio.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Tom, thank you for your comments.
I have a Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 (it is my kit lens) and I noticed it is sharper than my Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3. I bought my 18-300 because I need more focal length than my 18-140 can deliver (I wish I had 400mm).
You are right, Nikon does not supply the lens hood of those lenses and so I bought both. Although the two lens have the same diameter and the minimum focal lenght (18mm), Nikon specifies two different lens hoods (HB-32 for the 18-140 and HB-39 for the 18-300). The HB-39 is also used in Nikkor 16-85mm lens, thus the correct lens hood for the 18-300 should be the HB-32.
Cheers,
Antonio.

[pnodrog]

It will be interesting to see if slow higher aperture lenses become more acceptable as we all? move to mirrorless systems. The penalty of lower viewfinder brightness disappears and if we ignore optic quality it is the only the extra DOF that expensive fast lenses will offer.

Maybe Nikon first releasing a good quality 24-70 f4 lens for the Z mount at a competitive price was not such a silly idea.

[Tronhard]

I have probably bought my last body for a while (5DIV), but I am concentrating on lenses right now. I am looking at one heck of a lens, the newly released Sigma 60-600 Sport lens. It seems to be getting very favourable write-ups and as long as I continue to do weights I can carry it!

I have had the Canon 28-300L lens, also a big weight because of its large amounts of glass and solid metal construction. It is an amazing lens, although I wish they would upgrade it to a turning zoom instead of a push-pull as they did with the 100-400.

On the Nikon side of things I am very happy to have the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR on my Df - it works a treat with the great sensor on that body. It's about half the weight and bulk of the Canon equivalent.

[Manfred M]

Manfred, thank you for sharing the experience with your superzoom lens (and comparison with your other lenses). You said what I expected (and confirmed what is written in the B&H article). One thing I had not thought about was the darker viewfinder, probably because my kit lens (a Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6) has basically the same aperture as my 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 and I use very little my Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, which does not have autofocus, and my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.
Cheers,
Antonio.

I read the article and generally agree with what it says.

One other issue neither I nor the B&H article mentioned is "lens blowback", which tends to be more of an issue with a superzoom lens than with either fixed focal length lenses or "pro" lenses.

Before I went on my recent trip to Brazil and Bolivia, I cleaned my sensor and checked to makes sure it was quite clean. I did not remove my lens from the camera body at all, but still got some fairly significant sensor dust deposits.

A problem with any lens and especially lenses that extend and retreat a lot is that they pump a lot of air through both the lens and into the camera's mirror chamber (for DSLRs) and into the much smaller interior chamber for mirrorless designs. The dust getting in this way found its way onto the sensor. This is often referred to as "blow back". I found this was more of a problem with the 28-300mm lens than with the other lenses I tend to shoot.

I did have my bulb-style blower along and found I had to clean the sensor several times during the trip; far more frequently than I do when I am at home or on other trips with similar environmental conditions.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Antonio - I went the superzoom lens route during my recent trip to Brazil and Bolivia; I took around 5000 shots with the full-frame Nikkor 28-300mm lens over a 1 month period, so I got to know it well and have a fairly good overview of what works well and where it could perform better.

The main reason I opted for this approach is that I wanted to travel reasonably light and being able to carry a single body and single lens were the primary consideration. Spending a month living out of a 50 litre backpack plus my camera bag in conditions that ranged from tropical to near freezing meant that appropriate clothing took precedence over camera gear.

Frankly, I missed my usual lenses. I recognize the tradeoffs I was making and the four aspects I missed the most between this lens and my usual assortment I travel with were:

1. Much darker viewfinder given that the lens was 1 - 2 stops slower than the /2.8 lenses I usually shoot with. These are the measured apertures and I believe that the light transmission is about one stop lower than the theoretical value which was a handicap in low light situations;

2. Slower focus speeds versus my usual lenses. I suspect that is simply the difference between pro and lower end lenses;

3. Inferior lens coating which meant I got more veiling flare in my shots than I am used to; and

4. It was not quite wide enough. I do a lot of shooting at a 24mm focal length and 28mm was often simply not quite wide enough. At those focal lengths, every mm is important.

The lens has a lot more distortion (which can be corrected in raw conversion) and has lower microcontrast (also correctable, to a point).

The lens worked as well as I had expected and in my view, it was the correct purchase for my trip. I expect I will use it again from time to time, but it will likely not be used other than in situations where I need to limit myself to a single lens. I'm a lot happier with the performance of my other lenses, even though they take up more space and weigh a lot more.

Manfred, I saw the photos you took in Brasil and Bolivia and they are very good. You said you missed your usual lenses. I believe this is true and that the optic quality of expensive fast lenses is far better than that of superzoom lenses, but I would like to see this to evaluate better the difference. Please, if possible, post a thread with some new photos taken with the same camera, your favorites lenses and with the Nikkor 18-300mm. To be fair, each pair of photos (one with your favorite lens and the other with the superzoom) should be of the same subject, with the same light condition, the same point and angle of view (please use a tripod), same aperture, ISO and focal lenght (the shutter speed can vary). Post processing should be the same.

I read the article and generally agree with what it says.

One other issue neither I nor the B&H article mentioned is "lens blowback", which tends to be more of an issue with a superzoom lens than with either fixed focal length lenses or "pro" lenses.

Before I went on my recent trip to Brazil and Bolivia, I cleaned my sensor and checked to makes sure it was quite clean. I did not remove my lens from the camera body at all, but still got some fairly significant sensor dust deposits.

A problem with any lens and especially lenses that extend and retreat a lot is that they pump a lot of air through both the lens and into the camera's mirror chamber (for DSLRs) and into the much smaller interior chamber for mirrorless designs. The dust getting in this way found its way onto the sensor. This is often referred to as "blow back". I found this was more of a problem with the 28-300mm lens than with the other lenses I tend to shoot.

I did have my bulb-style blower along and found I had to clean the sensor several times during the trip; far more frequently than I do when I am at home or on other trips with similar environmental conditions.

Thank you for sharing your experience. Another thing I had not thought about is the "lens blowback". I believe this happens with zoom lenses in general, but that this is a bigger issue for superzoom lenses. I wonder the situation of superzoom bridge cameras, which sensor can't be cleaned because the lens is attached to the body.

Cheers,
Antonio.

[Manfred M]

Antonio - I did that when I first got the lens. I shot the 18-300mm at a 105mm focal length which is identical to the Nikkor f/2 105 DC lens (both cost roughly the same money).

I did a shot of a printed box:






Here is the 105 DC - shot at ISO 64 at f/11 at 1/160th second. The camera was on a very sturdy tripod and the subject was lit with studio flash. This shot is enlarged to 100%







This shot is the 18-300mm Nikkor. Same settings; 105 mm (the "optimal" range of that lens) at f/11, ISO 64 and 1/160th second with tripod and studio flash.





I shot tethered and carefully manually focused to ensure that I nailed the focus exactly. The 18-300mm is definitely a bit softer (lower resolution). It's still good enough. Even though I set the zoom to 105mm, it was not exactly the same focal length as the 105mm DC.

If you click on the image to show it in Lightbox and toggle back and forth between the two images one can see the difference in sharpness. The 150 DC was designed in 1993, so it is a very old lens.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Manfred, thank you for show me the two photos. Now I have an idea of what I'm losing in sharpness when I'm shooting with my superzoom lens. Considering that the comparison was made against a prime lens, I think that the performance of your 28-300mm is good. I hope that my 18-300mm performs as good as your 28-300mm.
I think the difference between the focal lenghts is caused by the focus breathing (typical of the zoom lenses). Do you agree?
Do you think new prime lenses are much better than your Nikkor f/2 105 DC lens?
Cheers,
Antonio.

[Manfred M]

I think the difference between the focal lenghts is caused by the focus breathing (typical of the zoom lenses). Do you agree?

No, the cause is likely something else. The focal lengths marked on a zoom lens are accurate for subjects that are at "infinity", so when focusing on something that is closer, the scale is wrong. I know that at the closest focus setting my Nikkor f/2.8 70-200mm G lens works out to about 135mm even though the focus marking shows 200mm.

Do you think new prime lenses are much better than your Nikkor f/2 105 DC lens?

Not just the primes. Had I used the 70-200mm lens I expect it would have been sharper too.