Evil zooms....

C

craygc

Well-known
Local time
10:42 AM
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
1,078
Probably not but at least a discussion point.

Every lens I have barr one - rangefinder and SLR, small and medium format - is a prime. Recently, a colleague at work who is buying a Nikon D700 and looking for a wide-ish zoom came to me when he saw the current price of good wide-zooms and asked if I was interested in selling my Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8.

My initial feeling was no way as this covered my favourite range of focal lengths and no doubt eventually, I will purchase an FX Nikon DSLR. Continuing... upon being asked, I went home and started looking at this lens (again after many years) on my FM3A, and with a little playing I suddenly came to the conclusion that I really don't like this lens. The problem is the zoom part - I hate playing with it to crop, and I cant help but play with it. At least with a prime, I accept what it is and physically position myself even before I raise the camera to my eye.

My final position is that it IS for sale. It goes and will fund an 85mm f/1.4 AI-S and a 20mm f/2.8 AI-S for the Nikon.

Just interested and curious about the views of others on zooms given this is a rangefinder forum and as such implies the use of primes...
 
Many modern zooms are as good or better than primes. A zoom is an excellent match for a DSLR.

Nothing "evil" about them. Obviously, a zoom is not a wise choice for a classic rangefinder.
 
By chance, today used 25-50 zoom lens. Again and again I catch me using mostly 25mm and 50mm focal lengths...sometimes 40mm and always choosing focal length before I zoom with feet before I press release. So I'd be happy with varifocal walkaround lens kind of 25/50 or 24/45 for lazy family weekends like this.
 
A while ago I used a f/3.5 50-90mm zoom on my OLYMPUS PEN FT on a sport event (~70-130mm corresponding to full format). Quite a long lens for this small camera, but good handling (two ring zoom). Still no pictures back
 
Ah, prime vs. zoom again. Just like digital vs. film. They are tools which when can lead to a result you want. I would certainly use a prime if I were shooting a portrait or some street action. I would certainly have a telephoto zoom at an airshow, NASCAR race or some railfan events.
 
Although I very seldom use it, or any other part of my Canon kit, I am always impressed with the image quality that my 24-70 2.8L produces. However, I most consistently make good photos with a 35mm prime.

When I was getting into photography, an old pro told me that he often saw new photographers move from consumer zooms to pro zooms to primes. Indeed, that is exactly how things have gone with me. Then again, I've also moved from SLR cameras to rangefinders, and from digital to film. Weird... :D
 
I agree that zooms are evil. My dad shoots with a DSLR and I hate it when I see that his newest lens is always an f/3.5-5.6. Who wants the widest aperture to be an f/5.6? That just stinks. When you zoom in, you are simply wasting light (resulting in larger aperture number) that you could use if it were a prime lens. Another thing I hate about zooms is that they give people a mindset that you don't have to move around your subject and that you just have to stay in one spot, zooming in and out until you are happy with the Field Of View. One time my dad saw something that he wanted to take a picture of in a field on the opposite side of the road as he was driving. He pulled the car over, rolled down the window, pulled out his Canon 30d with zoom lens and started snapping off lots of pictures from inside the car. He could have gotten way better pictures if he would have gotten out of the car and thought about the composition more.
 
Zooms are good if you use them as variable focal-length lenses and not cropping devices. It is useful to have a 24/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/2.8, and 70/2.8 lens in one, but if you are just going to stand in one spot and select, say, 53mm, when you should actually take a few steps back and shoot at 70mm, it'll show.
 
craygc said:
... I really don't like this lens. The problem is the zoom part - I hate playing with it to crop, and I cant help but play with it. ...
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you like the idea of being a "prime lens person", and it is making you uncomfortable because you actually find the zoom attractive and useful in some ways. I know this feeling well because I suffer badly with it myself! :eek: I love the compactness and the image quality I get with primes and their faster aperture, but I have to acknowledge that zooms are very convenient at times. I wish you good luck in finding your solution!
 
Of course I dont really think zooms are evil, nor was this supposed to be a zoom versus prime debate. Merely that I was really shocked at my own reaction to (re)looking at a lens that I had deliberately kept because it covered my favourite focal lengths in full frame. For me, the 90mm is the longest focal length I use and 90% is between 20mm and 40mm (35mm film equivalents) so I never face decisions of grabbing for a 200+mm lens.

ChrisN said:
It sounds to me like you like the idea of being a "prime lens person", and it is making you uncomfortable because you actually find the zoom attractive and useful in some ways. I know this feeling well because I suffer badly with it myself! :eek: I love the compactness and the image quality I get with primes and their faster aperture, but I have to acknowledge that zooms are very convenient at times. I wish you good luck in finding your solution!
Click to expand...

There is probably some truth in that too Chris... :bang:
 
Petroleum V. Nasby said:
Many modern zooms are as good or better than primes. A zoom is an excellent match for a DSLR.

Nothing "evil" about them. Obviously, a zoom is not a wise choice for a classic rangefinder.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some current zooms are excellent. I have the 16-45/4 DA lens for my Pentax DSLR and it's flat out superb. I still like using primes because they make you approach things differently, but if I'm going on a walk or a trip the 16-45 tends to be the one that stays on the body. Sure, f/4 isn't speedy, but when you have perfectly usable ISO 3200 is it that much of an issue?

That said, I own and love quite a few primes (including a few 50/1.4s); it's just a little more challenging and fun to use them because you are restricted to the angle of view they present. That, and some of them have specific characteristics that I enjoy. But from a pure image quality standpoint I can't say that they do better than the 16-45 at any reasonable print size.
 
The only zooms I have were bought by other people.

If the zoom is longer than 50mm I tend to play with them a bit, but I prefer standard lengths.
The one wide zoom I have is a 17-35, and I find that I either use it at 17... or 35. The in-between parts don't tend to get used at all.
 
everything has its use, the main factors are the increased size, loss of speed and inevitable barrel or pincushion (or "mustache") distortion with even the very best zooms VS. the increased practicality of variable focal lengths that the zoom offers over the smaller, faster, close to distortion-fee primes. These things are what they are.
 
Zooms for SLRs are what the tri-elmar is for the RF: more than one lens in a single piece. Personally, I prefer primes, but on my DSLRs, carrying three primes takes a heck of a lot more space than carrying three primes for my RD1, so I use zooms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom