How come my new Nikon isnt zooming?

[dannylightning]

how much zoom do you need is the first question. 100mm is not that much zoom, you probably want a 200-300mm for general shooting but even one of those will probably leave you wishing you had more zoom, i guess that depends on what you are shooting. my 18-200mm lens is great but if i am trying to shoot things like birds it just not good unless you can get really close them. even my 500mm lens leaves me wishing i had more zoom in allot of situations when shooting birds but than again even 150mm is way to much zoom for shooting something like a landscape so it all depends on what you will be shooting as to how much zoom you need.

18-55 is a perfect lens for things that are close to you and landscapes, but for if you want to get up close to far away objects you probably want at least a 200mm or 300mm lens

this link will give you a idea about how much zoom a lens will give you.
Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR Lens Simulator
just make sure you pick the correct body and lens you will be using, your D3300 body is a DX so make sure you pick a DX body and than pick which type of lens you plan to get.

 

[chuasam]

Considering id still likely to be able to take relatively wide angle shots but want to be able to get closer as well...whats the next logical step for an absolute newbie who doesnt want to break the bank?

Use your feet... get closer


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Kawaracer]

Thanks for the advice.
My worry is for now that i dont want to be carrying two lenses.
And it appears that if I go with eh 55-200mm, i miss out on all the sub-55mm wide angled capabilities as I would likely sell my 18-55 and/or not want to carry around both lenses.

Am looking for the best in price and compromise, considering the above.[/QUOTE]

What's the point of a Dslr if you don't want to change lenses? Maybe a compact camera (Nikon COOLPIX P520 | COOLPIX Digital Camera from Nikon fits you better. Or If you want there exist super zooms (18-200,18-270,...) but they haven't the best image quality. Google is youre best friend.

 

[Solarflare]

2. If you really really want a telephoto lens, you might consider picking up an old film lens. They'll be manual focus, but they'll be cheap, and they should fit your camera (so long as you pick up the right mount).

He has a cheap entry level DSLR. Manual focus on such a camera is for masochists only. I strongly recomment against it.

And it appears that if I go with eh 55-200mm, i miss out on all the sub-55mm wide angled capabilities as I would likely sell my 18-55 and/or not want to carry around both lenses.

What ?!?

If you didnt wanted a camera with the ability to change lenses, then maybe you shouldnt have gotten one ?!? Its perfectly normal to own multiple lenses for the same DSLR, and mount whichever you need for the current situation.

 

[dannylightning]

well you may need to get something like the 18-200mm or the 18-140mm lens if you think either of those will have enough zoom for you.

or you buy a small camera messenger style bag if you choose to get something like the 55-200 or 70-300 or similar and carry both lenses with you. it only takes a about 30 seconds to swap out a lens including the time it takes to put the lens covers back on and put the other lens back in you bag. its really not a big deal to do that 90% of the time.

they do make point and shoot cameras that have like a 20X zoom and the whole thing will fit in your pocket some of those take nice photos but your going to get much better control of the photos you take with a DSLR and probably better image quality too.

those are kind of your choices here.

If I know what I will be shooting I choose my lens accordingly, say i got to a car show, I throw my 35mm lens on the camera and leave the rest at home.

if I am shooting birds I generally throw my 150-500 mm lens on and leave the other lenses in the car because that is big and gets kind of heavy after carrying it around for a couple of hours, if i get done with birds and want shoot landscapes or other things around the park I am at I go back to the car and throw my 18-200mm lens on and just carry that around for the rest of the day.

if I only had a 18-55 and 70-300 I would just carry a small messenger bag around and swap out lenses as i needed.

being able to swap out lenses is great. if I am not shooting birds and I am not really sure what lens will fit the situation best for the place I am going that day Ill take all my lenses with me except for the big one and use what i need when I need it. I have a camera back pack that will fit all of my gear in it so I can take it all with me if i want. and I also have a messenger bag for when I want to travel light with a few lenses.

 

[Vautrin]

2. If you really really want a telephoto lens, you might consider picking up an old film lens. They'll be manual focus, but they'll be cheap, and they should fit your camera (so long as you pick up the right mount).

He has a cheap entry level DSLR. Manual focus on such a camera is for masochists only. I strongly recomment against it.

Yes. Definitely avoid it if you can but if it's all you can afford, well, beggars can't be choosers.

 

[dennybeall]

You could get the Nikon 18-140 lens and also a teleconverter, say 2.0. The converter will fit in a pocket and double the lens with a little loss of f-stop.
The 18-140 is a nice lens. The older 18-130 is OK and less expensive since the 18-140 came available.

 

[Mr.Photo]

You could get the Nikon 18-140 lens and also a teleconverter, say 2.0. The converter will fit in a pocket and double the lens with a little loss of f-stop.
The 18-140 is a nice lens. The older 18-130 is OK and less expensive since the 18-140 came available.

A 2.0x teleconverter on a variable aperture lens is pretty much useless. A 2.0x TC will bring with it a 2 stops loss of light. That means a lens that is normally f/3.5-5.6 now is an f/7.1-11 lens which most camera's cannot auto focus beyond 5.6 reliably (if at all). Not to mention using a budget wide to medium telephoto zoom the image quality would be horrendous.

The general consensus is that the more telephoto you want the more expensive it gets. Consequently if you want extreme telephoto with a fast maximum aperture be ready to shell out for the price of a nice low mileage used car. However in the Nikon camp at least there are a couple of budget options to consider.

1. You can purchase either the Nikon or Tamron 70-300 VR (VC for Tamron) lenses. These lenses are actually extremely good lenses despite the fact they are considered "consumer" grade lenses. Used the Tamron can be found for as little as $250 where the Nikon is typically more like $350-400 used.

2. If you have a body with a built in AF motor (aka. D7000/7100, D600/610, D750, D800/810, D3/4) you can purchase some of the older screw driven AF lenses which can be had used for significantly less money than the modern AF-S lenses with or without VR. Many of these lenses are optically as good as their newer counterparts, and in some cases actually smaller as they don't have all of the electronics and other fluff of the more modern lenses.

I actually went the 70-300 route when I first started out. Once I purchased my D7000, I started keeping my eye out for some older AF lenses to pick up. I happened upon an older Tokina AF 300mm f/4 lens that works a dream on my D7000. I purchased this lens used for $200, and it's an awesome lens.

 

[elemental]

Considering id still likely to be able to take relatively wide angle shots but want to be able to get closer as well...whats the next logical step for an absolute newbie who doesnt want to break the bank?

The options posted here are good ones to expand your lens arsenal, but if you're an "absolute newbie," there's also a lot to learn about what different focal lengths are for. For example, if you're using your 18-55 and want to get close to a subject, there's a very big difference between zooming in to 55mm and getting close and shooting at 18mm. There's a good representation of this on Wikipedia, actually. This is where "zooming with your feet" comes in: You may want to keep the focal length where it is but move yourself to change the frame.

I'm opening a bit of an age-old debate, but a fixed focal length lens (aka "prime," or a lens without zoom) forces you to keep the same perspective and composing by moving the camera. This is both a good habit and allows you to learn some of the basics with one fewer variable (focal length). Additionally, you'll almost always get better image quality from a prime lens, particularly with low-priced lenses. This one for Nikon has excellent image quality, gives you a field of view about equal to what you see, and is inexpensive by lens standards at $200. I've got one, and it's excellent.

If you're interested, search "prime vs. zoom." It's a decades-old debate, but shooting with primes after starting with 18-55 and 50-200 kit lenses on my first SLR was a huge learning step for me, and I wish I'd done it at the beginning, so I'll throw it out here.

 

[gbud]

I skimmed all the replies so forgive me if this was said already.
The lens that comes with the D3300 kit has a lock button for the zoom. Hold the button down and turn.

 

[Mr.Photo]

I skimmed all the replies so forgive me if this was said already.
The lens that comes with the D3300 kit has a lock button for the zoom. Hold the button down and turn.

The OP's original concern was not that the lens wasn't zooming, but rather that it seemed to only zoom a very small amount.

 

[480sparky]

.....
I'm opening a bit of an age-old debate, but a fixed focal length lens (aka "prime," or a lens without zoom) forces you to keep the same perspective and composing by moving the camera. ......

Um.... when you move the camera, you change the perspective and composition.

 

[Vince.1551]

Not sure if we are talking about the same problem here but...
Zooming all the way in to 55mm is going to give you the almost exact field of view as the naked eye. That is what it is supposed to do. You want closer, buy a longer lens.

It's a crop sensor


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[astroNikon]

You could get the Nikon 18-140 lens and also a teleconverter, say 2.0. The converter will fit in a pocket and double the lens with a little loss of f-stop.
The 18-140 is a nice lens. The older 18-130 is OK and less expensive since the 18-140 came available.

A 2.0x teleconverter on a variable aperture lens is pretty much useless. A 2.0x TC will bring with it a 2 stops loss of light. That means a lens that is normally f/3.5-5.6 now is an f/7.1-11 lens which most camera's cannot auto focus beyond 5.6 reliably (if at all). Not to mention using a budget wide to medium telephoto zoom the image quality would be horrendous.

The general consensus is that the more telephoto you want the more expensive it gets. Consequently if you want extreme telephoto with a fast maximum aperture be ready to shell out for the price of a nice low mileage used car. However in the Nikon camp at least there are a couple of budget options to consider.

1. You can purchase either the Nikon or Tamron 70-300 VR (VC for Tamron) lenses. These lenses are actually extremely good lenses despite the fact they are considered "consumer" grade lenses. Used the Tamron can be found for as little as $250 where the Nikon is typically more like $350-400 used.

2. If you have a body with a built in AF motor (aka. D7000/7100, D600/610, D750, D800/810, D3/4) you can purchase some of the older screw driven AF lenses which can be had used for significantly less money than the modern AF-S lenses with or without VR. Many of these lenses are optically as good as their newer counterparts, and in some cases actually smaller as they don't have all of the electronics and other fluff of the more modern lenses.

I actually went the 70-300 route when I first started out. Once I purchased my D7000, I started keeping my eye out for some older AF lenses to pick up. I happened upon an older Tokina AF 300mm f/4 lens that works a dream on my D7000. I purchased this lens used for $200, and it's an awesome lens.

FYI, figure out what you want in the long run.
It might actually be cheaper to upgrade to a body with a built in motor and purchase older AF-D lenses. This in itself can save a ton of money as a first step.

When I bought my 80-200/2.8 lens it saved me over $700 vs the 70-200/2.8 AF-S lens which would be needed with a lower body without a lens motor. Most of my lenses are AF-D, which has saved a tremendous amount of $$$

 

[elemental]

.....
I'm opening a bit of an age-old debate, but a fixed focal length lens (aka "prime," or a lens without zoom) forces you to keep the same perspective and composing by moving the camera. ......

Um.... when you move the camera, you change the perspective and composition.

Oh yes, that doesn't make any sense, does it? I meant "angle of view."