How much zoom do we really need?

[table1349]

I used to think 5x zoom was small, but I don't think it really is. I know that it's not the "zoom" per se, but the camera's focal length in mm's that matter, but to me a 30 or 50x zoom is kind of ridiculous. Who really shoots and that distance anyway? I mean to me anything over 18x seems like overkill. Am I right?

No you not right. The whole concept of X zoom is a sales promotion. A 1mm to 19mm lens would be a 19X lens. That sound like too much zoom to you?

Focal lengths exist for specific reasons. An accomplished photographer understands the value of various focal lengths and picks what they need.

 

[Derrel]

How much zoom one needs kind of depends...on a bunch of factors. 35mm-70mm f/2.8 used to be a popular "pro" zoom; then it went to 28-70mm f/2.8; today it's at 24-70mm f/2.8; 24-105mm in L-series f/4 IS with USM is a popular Canon lens for FF cameras. 70-200 has been around for a loooooong time in zooms, I guess 35 years or so. I think there's probably a zoom lens made for 95% of people, in a common, right-off-the-shelf category.

Desired end results can be "highest quality in a zoom"; "most-convenient for a weekend", "most reach" (Tamron 150-600mm for example!); general utility; "super-zoom" 18-300, and so on. I think that now, now that MOST images are seen smallish, that the constant bashing of longer-ratio zooms is a bit overdone. People see many images today at 1,200-pixels wide on a web page in a "big" format, and as small as 2x3 inches on an iPad or other handheld device...ANY zoom is plenty for that, even the crummy ones, so...hey... 18-200 Nikon is good enough for that.