18-55mm zoom equal

gramps50

I currently have a Fugi S6000fd point and shoot camera, I am now considering making the switch to DSLR. My Fugi has is marked 28-300mm and has 10.7 optical zoom so I am guessing that with a DSLR I would need a 55-300mm telephoto lens to get the same zoom level or am I missing something here?

Eclipsed

To equal your Fuji you would need a 28-300mm lens.

What you're missing is the fact that with a DSLR you loose quality the more zoom you stuff into a lens. If you are going to get a DSLR that is capable of capturing so much detail, then to make the most of it, you need to get lenses that can help it capture that detail.

To equal your point and shoot you will probably need to get two lenses. The only lenses that may work for matching your old camera are the 18-200mm zoom lenses. They are decent but aren't the sharpest or fastest lenses. Canon does make a rather heavy and expensive 28-300mm lens, but it would drive you nuts if that was your only lens.

The biggest question is, what are you hoping to use this camera for? Sports? Wildlife? Landscape? Also, how much do you feel like spending? Better lenses are more expensive.

-Eclipsed

craig_d

gramps50 wrote:

My Fugi has is marked 28-300mm and has 10.7 optical zoom

There's no "and" there -- you've just said the same thing two different ways. The Fuji has a lens that is equivalent to a 28-300mm lens (on a full-frame 35mm camera), and 28-300mm is a 10.7x zoom range (300/28=10.7).

so I am guessing that with a DSLR I would need a 55-300mm telephoto lens to get the same zoom level or am I missing something here?

You need to know the crop factor of the camera you're thinking of buying to answer that question. Most DSLRs below $2000 have image sensors smaller than a 35mm frame, and the crop factor can be used to calculate equivalent fields of view. For example, a Canon Rebel (any model) has a 1.6x crop factor, so to get the equivalent of 28-300mm you would want (28 / 1.6) on the wide end, and (300 / 1.6) at the long end, or roughly 18-190mm. So 18-200mm would be the way to go if you really want a single lens that covers the whole range.

Whether such a lens would be acceptable to you depends on how demanding you are in terms of image quality. Lenses with such a wide zoom range usually have problems with geometrical distortion at both ends, and often aren't very sharp at their long ends. They are also usually slow, with a maximum aperture of only f/5.6 at the long end. But then, these criticisms probably apply to the Fuji's lens as well; it's f/4.9 at its long end, only a third of a stop or so faster than f/5.6.

What I generally recommend is two lenses: something around 18-55mm for general use, and 70-200mm for telephoto, both preferably with an f/2.8 maximum aperture. This is not an inexpensive solution, but it does produce better results. Then again, if you would be satisfied with the images from an 18-200mm lens, you can certainly save money and the hassle of carrying two lenses around by going that way.

ziggy53

In a FF (Full Frame, as in a traditional 24mm x 36mm imager) you would need a 28-300mm lens for the same FOV coverage. For a 1.5x/1.6x crop camera, like an entry level Nikon or Canon for instance, you would look for an 18-200mm or so to get a similar FOV.

For instance a Nikon D3000 through Nikon D300 with a Nikkor 18-200mm, f3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX or a Canon 1000D through a 7D with a Canon EF-S 18-200mm, f3.5-5.6 IS would yield a very similar visual experience.

In Olympus (with a roughly 2x crop factor) I would look at maybe an E620 camera and Zuiko 18-180mm, f/3.5-6.3.

Of course part of the reason for buying a dSLR is the ability to use a variety of lenses and I do belive that a 2 lens solution for any of these cameras would be potentially much more capable, assuming the correct choices of course.

Pentax and Sony crop cameras would be a similar situation to the Canon and Nikon crop cameras.

ziggy53

... and Craig beat me to it, so I'll agree with him.

gramps50

Thanks for the replies, cleared up a few things I wasn't aware of. I have had Pentex sSLRs in the past and had some lens and flashes for it. In the past the Pentex dSLRs didn't review well and the price was way out of range so I just used the compact digital cameras. Then while cruising through the forums here I see someone selling a Pentex K-x so I started reading up on it, well it gets good review for an entry level camera so I thought great I have some lenses and other accessories I can use. Well upon further research I discovered that yes the lens will fit but I would loose AF and most other functions so I know I would not be happy with that setup so now Instead of buying the camera with a 18-55mm lens for $549 and using the lens that I have I would also need to get a telephoto lens to get the same focal length that I am getting with the Fugi.

I can get the K-x in a kit with the 18-55mm and either a 50-200mm or a 55-300mm the later being an additional $200. The k-x had a 1.5 crop factor so to equal what I have I would need the 50-200mm if I am reading the above correctly.

I am just casual photographer that shoots any thing from the grandkids playing sports, birthdays, vacations landscape, and nostalgia drag racing shots. I also shot some macro stuff so I pretty well run the gamuet of shooting senerios.

ziggy53

OK, rereading the thread title and the OP question, are you asking if a second lens of 55-300mm range, in addition to an 18-55mm kit lens, would be needed to simulate the FOV of your FujiFilm S6000fd?

If that was the question then no, on a crop 1.5x or 1.6x sensor you would need a range of 55-200mm-ish in addition to the 18-55mm kit lens.

I have a Canon EF-S 17-55mm, IS USM and an EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM that works nicely on my crop 1.6x Canon cameras to give me a very nice working range, similar to that of your FujiFilm S6000fd. I don't miss the slight gap at 55-70mm at all.

On a budget the Nikon:

Nikkor 18-55mm, f3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR
and
Nikkor 55-200mm, f4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR

... work nicely as a pairing, and on Canon:

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
and
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS

... are the rough equivalent.

ziggy53

See, I just can't type as fast as anyone today.

You are correct in your thinking Gramps.

P.S. None of the lenses we are discussing are true "macro" capable lenses. I would suggest either a diopter/close-focus accessory lens (fits over the front like a filter) or a suitable dedicated macro lens would be best.

In a pinch the shorter zoom could also likely be used in front of the longer zoom and the shorter zoom would then be an effective diopter to the longer zoom.