How useful is a 80-300mm lens for a DSLR?

April 24, 2008 6:52 AM

Upgrading to a DSLR camera for the first time: how useful will an additional lens be?

I want to buy an entry-level DSLR camera. I'm a keen walker, most of my photographs are landscapes and I don't want too much extra weight to carry if it can be avoided. For this reason, I am tempted by the Olympus E-410, shortly to be replaced by the E-420, but available in my budget range bundled with the 14-42 and 40-150mm lenses (it's a 4/3rds camera, so my understanding is that this means 28-84mm and 80-300mm in normal language).

This is the only DLSR deal I can find where I can afford the additional lens. I'm not likely to be able to be able to afford additional expenditure for at least 12 months. Am I likely to use the extra lens enough for this to tip the deal? (UK based, if that makes a difference)

posted by unless I'm very much mistaken to technology (22 comments total)

You may need something at the wide end. I bought a 10-20mm on a Canon 400d(xti) which is effectively 16-32. Those extra mm's are amazing and i don't know how i ever lived without them.

Saying that, you do the best with what you've got. My experience of photography is that there will always be one more thing you need to buy to make your kit complete. Remember, photographer first, lenses second, and camera third in the importance factor....
posted by chromatist at 7:01 AM on April 24, 2008

The general advice is to start with a basic lens (like that 14-42) and then buy other lenses once you figure out how your current lens is limiting you. Given the way you describe your preferred subject mater, I don't think you'll have much use for the longer lens.

Also, I'd probably go with a Canon or Nikon if they fit your budget. If it helps fit your budget there would be nothing wrong with buying one generation behind (like the rebel XTi) on the canon side.
posted by Good Brain at 7:04 AM on April 24, 2008

For walking around, 80-300 is difficult to work with - framing shots that far out will be pretty hard; every muscle twitch will change your shot. Personally, I'd find 84 a little limiting as my maximum reach - but then again, you're walking, and usually that means sticking to one lens for the sake of weight and convenience.

Only you can really answer this question, in the end. I do a lot of telephoto work while mounted on tripods, so if I were making the purchase, I'd go for it. But I also don't go very wide as a rule; I tend to shoot details rather than landscapes or street scenes. And really, 28-84 is a pretty solid normal range to work in. Then again... what's the cost difference? If it's only, say, $100, I'd tend to go for it. Again, though, that's just me, and you're clearly strapped for cash. Saving a little money right now and putting that cash somewhere else - a good case, some memory cards, some filters, etc - might be a better move.
posted by Tomorrowful at 7:04 AM on April 24, 2008

If you're doing landscapes, I don't think the longer lens will do you much good. I'm sort of against zoom lenses for my own use because the act of changing the lens forces me to stop and think about what I'm trying to accomplish. That being said, what about getting a fixed lens of 50mm equivalent or smaller?

Also, if you're not totally married to the Olympus, I'd suggest looking at the Pentax line. The cameras are quite good and will accept any Pentax lens ever built. So, you could buy the body and find some solid used lenses for cheap.
posted by backseatpilot at 7:10 AM on April 24, 2008

IANAGP. When I'm walking (urban and not), I tend to want to explore macro subjects combined with mid-distance subjects. I'm just starting to re-enter (d)SLR territory myself. I'm thinking, if I move back to a dSLR that I'll be wanting advice on the best two lens set up.
posted by michswiss at 7:13 AM on April 24, 2008

If the bundle price is good enough, then yes , go for it. I find that even when I shoot landscapes a good zoom can be indispensible. (I don't carry a SLR due to my small carrying space, but I did get a camera with an optical zoom at 432mm equivalent.) I sometimes shoot a friend's SLR, and when he finally got a zoom lens it made a lot more shots do-able.
posted by azpenguin at 7:14 AM on April 24, 2008

Following up on Good Brain - the 4/3 sensor size is a good bit smaller than the size Canon and Nikon use on their sub-$2k SLRs. That makes every lens "narrower" in effect - a 24mm lens on an XTi has a cropped field like a 36mm lens, but that same lens would feel like a 50mm on a 4/3 camera like the E-410. If you're interested in going wide, you definitely want a bigger sensor, because everything's 'magically' wider that way. 14 on your Olympus isn't even all that particularly wide, but on a full-frame lens it's about as wide as things get.
posted by Tomorrowful at 7:19 AM on April 24, 2008

The 14-42 will be useful for landscapes; the 40-150? Probably not so much. It's a pretty good length for portraiture, birds, maybe flowers and other stuff, but you'll probably only end up using the lower end of it when you're out walking around, and I suspect you'll feel constrained by it and wish it was wider if it's all you had. So for what you're doing I'd probably only take the wider (14-42) lens, if I was really short on space.

That doesn't mean the bundle isn't a good deal; if you like the camera and are basically getting the longer lens for a song, go for it. You'll probably want to use it eventually (e.g. the inevitable wedding or other family event), maybe just not on this trip.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:24 AM on April 24, 2008

It really, really depends on what you're going to photograph. Personally, I like fixed focal length lenses for street and portrait photography and mostly use a 28mm (translating to approx 44mm) on my Canon 400D (XTi in the US). If you're into landscapes, the 40-150 probably isn't going to be all the useful. The 28-84's got a very good range, and should cover all the potential bases that you'd normally need. But...

For landscapes you'll probably want something a bit wider. I know literally nothing about Olympus lenses, but the focal length doubling of the 4/3rds format really doesn't lend itself to wide angle photography.

Personally, I'd highly recommend getting a Canon or Nikon. I'm sure the other brands are perfectly good, but they simply don't have the lens selection that a Canon or a Nikon does.

For wide angle, I know there's an excellent Canon 10-22 (which translates to 16-35), which would be perfect for landscapes. I think it comes out to around £350.
Examples

I believe there's also a Sigma equivalent that has a similar focal range and is probably a bit cheaper (Maybe £250? I can't remember offhand) I'm sure Nikon have something too.

If you haven't got that sort of cash, all the kit lenses are going to be fairly decent. They all seem to be around 17-55, which equates to about 24-85, a fine normal length. If you use that fully wide, stop it down to f8-10 or so, stick it on a tripod and press shoot, you should end up with... Well, that's dependent on you!

By the way - a shutter release cable can be had on eBay for under £5, and if you're doing and tripod work then it comes in very, very handy.

One last thing: whichever camera you decide to buy, try googling around for tips on landscape photography. A few fundamental choices in composition make an absolutely huge difference.

Have fun!
posted by Magnakai at 7:26 AM on April 24, 2008

Spend as much as possible to get the best glass you can get. I know nothing of Olympus and their DSLRs, I am a Nikon user (for digital and 35mm film). Two pieces of mediocre glass can very well frustrate you to the point of not picking up the camera at all.

Another point:
You say you are interested in a 'walkaround' rig. Why would you want to carry around 2 lenses? Are you really planning on swapping them around? It seems like the 4/3 sensor would be limiting to me, especially on the wide end. My DSLR (bought years ago) is a D50, and I started with the 18-55 kit lens. It was just wide enough for landscapes, and got just tight enough for portraits. If I needed to get closer, I used my feet. This is a very important lesson to learn, and no amount of fancy zoom-ness will make up for learning proper composition first hand. When I'm walking around, I do not want a big bag with lenses clunking around.

Make sure the Olympus is what you want. Try out the Nikon and Canon offerings as well. You can find a decent pro level DSLR probably for what you're paying for your new kit, and it might serve you better.
posted by Geckwoistmeinauto at 7:36 AM on April 24, 2008

"Personally, I'd highly recommend getting a Canon or Nikon. I'm sure the other brands are perfectly good, but they simply don't have the lens selection that a Canon or a Nikon does."

Just as a small interjection; having worked with a variety of kit, I've found that this isn't really the case anymore. Both Oly and Pentax have a ton of good lenses.

Pentax in particular is great because you can mount old Takumar and K primes, which often seem to beat the hell out of current lenses but have to be manually metered.

All that said, I wouldn't go for the Oly for the crop factor reason alone. This will be aggravating if you shoot mainly landscapes.
posted by selfnoise at 7:51 AM on April 24, 2008

which often seem to beat the hell out of current lenses but have to be manually metered.

And therein lies the rub. As much as I like vintage glass (I'm slowly buying some very nice M42 lenses at the moment), I wouldn't recommend it to an average/new user. A lack of autofocus and metering will just end up frustrating most people. On the other hand, once you have a bit more experience, it can be really fun and very rewarding.
posted by Magnakai at 8:01 AM on April 24, 2008

Skip the 40-150mm if you're just doing landscapes. Buy a good tripod and a comfortable walking camera bag instead. I like my Mountainsmith Tour lumbar pack for long walks. It's got all manner of loops and compression straps with additional straps to hold a tripod.
posted by junesix at 8:04 AM on April 24, 2008

I am not a landscape photographer, I'm a photojournalist. I would be mainly concerned about how fast your lenses are, though I'm not sure about how much it would affect landscape photography, given that there's probably going to be a lot of light when you shoot. I know kit lenses are generally on the slow end of things (hence why they're cheap) but if you can hold out and save up for some fast glass, it will open up a world of possibility.

I started with an 18-200 3.5-5.6 lens which did me well but as soon as I picked up my 50 1.4 and my 80-200 2.8, the 18-200 has been essentially ditched, and will be totally ditched as soon as I grab something fast and wide. I'm also a big fan of primes opposed to zooms, because you have to actually think about the composition.
posted by riane at 8:09 AM on April 24, 2008

Wow - a couple of hours later and not only some great answers to my question, but a whole raft of additional and highly useful information. I've learned more here than I have in several weeks of reading magazines and looking at other sites on this topic, so thanks to everyone.

I'm going to go away and seriously look at some of the alternatives, as the limitations of the 4/3 sensor that have been pointed out don't seem to justify the slight space saving of the Olympus. It also sounds like starting with one decent kit lens is the way forward for someone like me.
posted by unless I'm very much mistaken at 8:33 AM on April 24, 2008

I'd go for a Nikon D60 and an 18-200mm VRII lens. You won't need to worry about a second lens for a while and you would have a very versatile and (relatively) compact setup.
posted by psyche7 at 8:52 AM on April 24, 2008

Seconding riane. I started with the Canon 18-55 kit, and just recently got the 50/1.4 for a soon to arrive newborn. Fast glass is just awesome in low or ambient lighting, and the lack of zoom forces me to be less lazy and move my feet to get the shot I really want. Prime, fast, and wide is next on my list.
posted by NoRelationToLea at 9:06 AM on April 24, 2008

I'd go Pentax. Great supply of great cheap lenses. I really hate kit lenses. They can be pretty stifling.
posted by sully75 at 10:03 AM on April 24, 2008

For your second lens, especially given your desire for light weight, I would recommend a fairly wide prime (non-zoom) lens - maybe a 30mm. This will give you a good field of view and, if from a good lensmaker (Nikon, Canon) will also give you sharper images than a zoom. They're normally much cheaper and also better for low-light photography.
posted by zippy at 10:13 AM on April 24, 2008

By the way, if you want to browse lenses, Photozone is my favorite place to get reviews. Sadly their Oly and Sony/KM sections are just getting started.

One thing to bear in mind is that the wider you get, the less advantage a prime tends to offer than a zoom, both in terms of resolution and also in terms of distortion. The architecture problems inherent in ultra-wide lenses tend to create a ceiling for quality. This is one of the nice things about full-frame sensors... you get the picture you want without having to go beyond 35 or 28mm.
posted by selfnoise at 10:54 AM on April 24, 2008

I don't know how new, or seasoned, you are to photography, but if you were ever used to shooting 'normal' with a fast 50mm on a 35mm body - skip the cheap zooms, skip the 50/1.8 and just go for a 28mm, 30mm, or 35mm prime (on a ~1.5X crop body, anyway).
posted by unmake at 11:37 AM on April 24, 2008

If you do end up leaning towards Nikon, like psyche7 says, the 18-200 is a good choice. My answer kind of sounds like I'm bashing it but for a mid-range lens it's actually quite good. For times that I'm shooting outdoors and I'm lazy about carrying all of my gear, you basically have all of your options in one lens. For sports shooting or low light situations it's kind of useless but for an all-purpose kind of thing, I reccommend it, highly.
posted by riane at 7:26 PM on April 25, 2008