Demise of the ' standard ' lens ?

[dee]

This post is in response to Payasam's post not about bicycles - and zooms.

I apologise for bringing SLRs into the picture - my 1st rangefinder , other than a less than sucessful episode with a Zorki 4 in the 70s , was in mid 2006 .
A late starter .

My first camera with a standard zoom was a Minolta auto focus 7000i which must have been around 1995 or thereabouts .

Prior to this a 50mm f 1.8 lens would effectively be thrown in with most SLRs , or would be a cost effective prime , permitting available light shots and selective focus through control of D.O.F .

Now standard lenses struggle towards f 3.5 , and are often reduced to f 4.5 - my Leica zoom at f 2.8 is enormous even at 4/3rds .

A 45mm f 2 pancake Rokkor is almost permanently mounted on my Panasonic L1 body , effectively a 90mm , and I have a couple of f 1.4s , now 100mm .
The 85 f 1.7 is just too unwieldy but was a fantastic lens on an XD7
The 35mm f 1.8 is most useable at an effective 70mm - close to my 50 on the M 8 .

OK , great value 50mm lenses are available for all cameras , but a pair of Zooms seem to be the norm these days and a return to comparitively ' slow ' max appertures .

I wonder if current generations may be missing out on the quality and flexibility of a prime lens on a digital SLR ?
Most I ask , don't even know what they are missing with her compact or DSLr .
As if an entire experience of photography - evn snapshooting [ ! ] curtailed .

Any thoughts ?

 

[Krzys]

Zooms are the norm.

My pet peeve is digital photogs talking about 'nifty-fifty' lenses on their hideous crop bodies.

 

[kzphoto]

I think there's a tendency towards 'newer' photographers to use whatever comes with their camera. IE kit lenses with horrible f/3.5,f/4.5 apertures. Also, some people see a prime lens as a drawback. Would you rather have an 18-200 zoom, or a 50/1.8? When you consider the options, the zoom doesn't look so bad.

 

[kzphoto]

As an aside, I shoot a 50 'lux religiously, and wouldn't trade it for the world.

 

[pvdhaar]

When I compare the output from a modern 18-55 DX kit zoom with a 50/1.8 prime, I can only come to a single staggering conclusion: the cheapy zoom beats the 50 prime on almost all accounts except shallower DOF.. even if you factor in that you're having to bump the ISO to get the same shutter speed at the smaller aperture, the kit zoom is sharper, more contrasty and has less chromatic abberations.

The 50 is obviously a double Gauss design from another century, while the zoom was designed from the ground up for use on a DSLR.

Sure, there have been recent introductions of 50/1.4 primes (Nikon/Sigma) that trump the cheapish zooms again, but these 50s are hardly cheap enough to be 'thrown in with the camera'..

 

[kzphoto]

When I compare the output from a modern 18-55 DX kit zoom with a 50/1.8 prime, I can only come to a single staggering conclusion: the cheapy zoom beats the 50 prime on almost all accounts ...

I own the 50/1.8 and a 18-70/3.5-4.5. The zoom lens is broken, after about 1 year of use. The 50, is still working after 4 years of use. I love zoom lenses, but the construction sucks -- even on the pro models. I'd rather take a few fast primes and forget about the zoom lenses. Besides, they're too heavy!

😀

 

[250swb]

Its horses for courses. I love my Leica primes, but equally there are days when the twin zoom setup and a DSLR can't be beaten for productivity.

I wonder if 'new' photographers truly appreciate the qualities of a prime nowadays, if they have been brought up purely on zoom lenses. But things move on, and they would probably wonder if I'm not missing out on the benefits of video built into a DSLR body. I think one thing is certain though, the lens (prime or zoom) does affect the style of image making (not necessarily the image itself, but often), and like Worzel Gummidge you have to 'change heads' to adapt to and accomodate each situation.

Steve

 

[Chris101]

I own the 50/1.8 and a 18-70/3.5-4.5. The zoom lens is broken, after about 1 year of use. The 50, is still working after 4 years of use. I love zoom lenses, but the construction sucks -- even on the pro models. I'd rather take a few fast primes and forget about the zoom lenses. Besides, they're too heavy!

😀

I also have a 50mm f/1.8 and a 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 DX. The 18-70 is the best lens to use on my IR converted D70, and I use it there extensively. On the other hand, the 50 gets lots of time on my N80, F5 and FG Nikons.

 

[thrice]

I have a bag of primes, but I only take 3 with me when I go shoot, one is always a 50.

As rangefinder shooters (the majority of us at least) we are forced into this situation. Many new SLR photographers are yearning for smaller and smaller setups and this often requires either primes or a smaller sensor or both. Unless they want to shoot film, or can pony up the bills for a digital rangefinder.

The other end of the spectrum are those who want bigger more impressive cameras to keep up with the joneses, these people aren't photographers though.

 

[Arjay]

I wonder if 'new' photographers truly appreciate the qualities of a prime nowadays, if they have been brought up purely on zoom lenses. ... I think one thing is certain though, the lens (prime or zoom) does affect the style of image making (not necessarily the image itself, but often), and like Worzel Gummidge you have to 'change heads' to adapt to and accomodate each situation.

Very true. As someone who has come back to film and RF cameras after shooting various digital cameras which of course were equipped with zoom lenses, coming back to using prime lenses is quite an eye-opener.

Whereas I adjustedfocal length when using a zoom lens, I find that with a prime, I have to use the 'sneaker zoom', i.e. I have to walk around to find the desired FOV.

Interestingly, this way of shooting pictures - while slower and a little less intuitive - gives me a lot more control over the perspective that is going to be visible in my pictures. Not just because focal length is constant, but because it forces me to be more precise in how I look at a scene and how I imagine bringing it onto film.

Not using an SLR viewer is more of a challenge in imagining exactly what I am going to capture and how I am going to differentiate in-focus and out-of focus image areas. In fact when using prime lenses on a RF camera, I feel I am forcing myself much more to consciously think about the picture I'm shooting than compared to when I use my DSLR.

The reward, however is that film gives me a very large 'sensor' with the possibility to play with much more clearly defined in-focus and out-of-focus areas. And those primes have so many aperture blades (my M-Hexanons have 10 as opposed to 7 or 9 on my Nikkors!), producing a much nicer bokeh.

Another benefit is that my camera doesn't blink - i.e. I can always see whether I captured the right moment or not. Try that with a DSLR or a digital P&S...

What's remarkable, the RF/prime lens experience is also influencing the way I am using my DSLR these days ...

But back to topic: A 'standard'lens is actually not defined by its focal length, but by its angle of view. So a true standard lens for µ4/3 would probably be something like a 25mm lens, or for a crop camera like an Epson R-D1 it would be a 35mm lens. So, not having such a lens at one's disposal is making it a little difficult to understand the concept.

I guess one has to try it to get the idea, as the idea of a 'standard' lens probably is to produce a kind of perspective that most would associate with our natural vision.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

There are two advantages primes have, if you can live with a single focal length, and that's size and aperture. My EF 24-70 f/2.8L is as good optically as any prime I've owned in the focal lengths it covers. Better than many, in fact. But a 24 f/2.8 prime is much smaller and lighter. And, of course, a 50mm 1.4 is faster. And I own the primes in that range. Despite that, most times having every focal length from 24-70mm in a single lens with outstanding optical quality wins out and that's what's on the 5D.

Back in the day when primes came with the camera, things were different. Zoom lenses really weren't as good as primes optically. That has changed these days.

 

[f/14]

I "grew up" with a single 55mm lens only. Then followed a long period with film and primes. 21, 24, 35, 50 and 75mm. Helped to form a photographic vision.
Until recently, most zooms were of a lesser quality than the best primes from the same company. The cheap kit-lenses still are. The best of modern zooms like the latest Nikkor 24-70mm (and the 14-24mm) has changed this. They seem to outdo the current primes from that company. Even the German lens-makers should watch their back here. On this background, maybe the next level of skill required by the photographer is combining the experience and thinking from the prime lens era with the freedom of the zooms. After 6 months with the zoom, it is really hard to argue why I should carry around a set of primes instead. Size and weight is an issue though. Still carry an M or two with film when traveling light. 50 and 35mm. (The hardest prime to give up is the 24mm on the R8. More a question of film vs digital.)

 

[Turtle]

Some modern zooms are incredibly good and even those of five or ten years ago have some superb examples. Often one does not need a fast aperture (or want shallow DOF) and with the high ISO performance of the latest DSLRs there is a lot that can be done at f2.8 or f4.

I personally am not a fan of 50mm. It rarely fits with my vision and I tend towards 35mm for most, or even wider. Where I want longer, something over 50mm tends to work for me, such as 75-90. I would imagine that in the age of 'drama' few are attracted to simple lenses prefering lenses that allow either easier or more dramatic results. I have a 50 planar in my kit bag but is is used only about 10% of the time.

 

[Ronald M]

Zooms are ok for digicams for when you can`t control the situation, bad weather & sports say. Dust is always a problem with digi cams.

My D200 Nikon as purchased with the 18/55 as it was not purchased for serious work. Then i found out just how good it is and started buying Nikkor primes and got a fairly complete set before the price explosion.
The D700 gets used with mostly old Ai and AiS lenses, but i do have some non pro zooms for again where I can not control the situation. They work ok, and I am not about to invest $6000 in pro zooms that are no better than what I have in primes.

The primes make the zooms look pretty bad in areas like distortion and for ultimate sharpness. But I think there is room in the world for either.

I have come back to the standard lens after decade of not seeing its usefulness. 35/50/85 or 105 becomes my go to no brainer kit.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I grew up with prime lenses and this has led to the way I approach my subjects when composing. Even when using the latest Nikkor 18-35 or 24-70 on my D3 bodies, though it should be pointed out that for the majority of the work I do the flexibilty and speed of using two bodies with two zooms, covering 24-200 in total, is a personal must.

I still have, and use, primes for certain work. Usually to make them most of the shallower DOF or speed. With RF gear I only ever use 28, 35 and 50mm anyway and couldn't imagine using a Tri-Elmar or similar... though this may simply be because I've never had the opportunity.

Modern zooms are getting better and better, the most recent Nikkor 24-70 still blows me away compared to the older zooms I used to use. However I don't see them fully replacing prime lenses simply because they don't have the 'speciality' factor which keeps me using primes for specific jobs. For a 'pro-sumer' camera kit or basic kit I see no other option for camera companies than offering a zoom lens. Most users want the versatility to shoot family portraits, kids sports days & holiday sunsets etc.

Just as what constitutes a standard lens to each individual, what will work best for you in terms of zooms or primes is a simple case of 'horses for courses,' which is why I believe, and hope, that both can continue alongside one another.

 

[Ewoud]

After starting out with my first SLR AF Canon with a 28-90 I soon saved up for a cheap 50 1.8 that made me love my camera. Shooting with it made me walk up to my subjects and gave me the opportunity to shoot in lowlight that changed my life/photograpy.

I still don't own a longer lens then 135mm and love my bag of primes.

If a younger photog who shoots Nikon asks me what to buy I allways point them to the Nikon 35 1.8 for there dSLR. Hoping they will love this as well.

But for reportage work its more of the 2.8 zooms now a day, but I don't like the results as much... but it pays the bills.

Holiday for me is the Bessa with the Nokton 40 and some rolls of XP2 or TRI-X..

 

[Avotius]

[WARNING: pun ahead]

I hope we can look back on this time of slow zooms as "the dark ages".

 

[sig]

It is a couple of years ago when the standard lens quouted here was the standard lens..... I do believe it is called progress (some good and some bad)

The benefits of a zoom is bigger than the drawbacks..... at least that is what the market thinks. However I love my 1.4 50mm

 

[jsrockit]

I'm a big fan of primes... and wide angles. The only zoom that would interest me would be one that went from say 21-24mm to 50mm and had a constant aperature of f/2.8.

 

[paulfish4570]

35 to 50 for me, on a 35 mm. get closer, or back up. in the getting closer, and the backing - on feet - there is forced time to consider framing, composition. but hey, i am old and getting older ...