OT: Wide zooms anyone?

[gbb]

Hi,

I'm just starting to get comfortable in wide territory (CV 25) for people pics and street stuff, and was wondering if anyone has used a wide zoom for this purpose and how you'd compare it to rf prime wides. Especially of interest are a) whether you see better using one setup or the other, b) whether there's a visible difference in quality. I mean to compare top of the line zooms by nikon/canon w the best leica/cv modern wides. If there is a great difference in quality, would you trade that off for the convenience of a zoom at this focal length?

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

A wide zoom is pretty much an SLR lens. I use my Zuiko (Olympus) 24-48 about once a year when it's needed. The downside is the small aperture.

If I had a CV wide for my rangefinder I'd gladly use that every time.

 

[jonasv]

Hrm hmm. The best of Nikon and Canon (Canon 16-35 f/2.8, Nikon 17-35 f/2.8) can certainly do as good as the CV wides and probably a bit better (especially the Nikon is spectacular even wide open). Zeiss or Leica ultrawides are probably even better but I have never used them or compared the results, so I'm just guessing. The zooms are however very expensive and extremely big - the advantages of the CV wides are obvious. The CV's are a definite step up from the 'prosumer' wide zooms (Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5, Canon f/4) in my opinion - they're each others equals in the center I think, but definitely not at the corners. Again, the CV is a lot smaller (as far as price goes the Nikon or a CV prime would probably be about the same, the Canon is a bit more expensive but also a bit better).

The convenience of a zoom works both ways, you can use it to your advantage very often, but a lot of people with a zoomlens will just zoom in and out to frame a shot, without paying to much attention to composition - something a prime forces you to do.

I think you may like carrying the R with 35mm Skopar, and the L with the 25mm. Those two cameras with lenses mounted won't be a lot bigger than one SLR with an ultra-wide zoom, and you retain the ability to "zoom" by just switching cameras. (my preferred combination would be a 35 and a 21, but I see you have a 35 and a 25 anyway, and I don't know if you'd like anything wider).

There isn't too much difference in using - rangefinder or SLR, it's only the viewfinder that really counts, focussing isn't an issue with ultrawides. External viewfinders will be a bit brighter, although a good SLR viewfinder with an f/2.8 lens on it won't be dim either.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

The Canon 16-35/2.8 is a sweet lens. I'm sure the Nikon equiv is just as nice. The only downside is that as a SLR lens, it is large, heavy, intrusive. On the other hand, you only carry one lens for 16, 21, 24, 28, 35 ... so in the aggregate, it really isn't that large, unless you stick it in someone's face ;-)

 

[gbb]

So Tom, which do you use when? dO YOU NOTICE THAT THE COMPOSITIONS LOOK DIFFERENT WHEN USING DIFFERENT SYSTEMS? Which works best for street photo, which for indoor candids?

 

[Kin Lau]

I have a Sigma 15-30, not quite the same quality as the Canon/Nikon but pretty close. It's massive. The lense has a 82mm filter thread (for digital 1.6 crop, you cannot use front mounted filters with film) and just the lense itself is larger than my Bessa R.

 

[Kim Coxon]

I have the Pentax 15mm A* lens and the 18-35 Pentax zoom. There is simply no comparison anywhere in the scale other than if you are absolutely forced to take only one lens. All my primes in the same range see off the zooms.

Kim

 

[gbb]

The look I'm going for

The look I'm going for

Take a look at Boulat's piece on Hamas at www.viiphoto.com for an example of the look I'm going for. It's an excellent site also.

 

[Warren T.]

i don't talk about it much because it's part of my slr system, but I also have the Sigma 15-30mm zoom. It's very LARGE and heavy, but optical quality and build quality are excellent. I bought it for use on my Nikon D100, and it also happens to work great with my film slr's (Nikon F4s). The 15mm coverage on a film camera is very interesting.
I don't use it much because I prefer using prime lenses. My approach to composition is slightly different when using primes, and the primes are often way less bulky to carry. I subsequently bought a Tokina 17mm ATX that I've been extremely happy with.

--Warren

 

[John Camp]

I have Nikon F5s and a D2x and have shot a lot with the 17-35, which is a good sharp lens; but the whole feel is different than a rangefinder. I just hefted my R-D1 with a tri-elmar in one hand, and the 17-35 lens in the other, and the 17-35 seems almost as heavy as the whole lens/body combination of the R-D1; and anything you add to the 17-35 is ging to weigh even more. The point being that SLRs can do just about anything, but you *are* using a camera almost as big as an old large-format machine. You get in a crowd and people are thinking, "Whoa, there's a guy with a big camera and a big lens, why is he taking my picture?" The much smaller rangefinders are just subtler cameras...

If you didn't mind the in-your-face aspect so much, I think a 17-35 (which is f2.8) on an N90s (which is a light film body with most of the functionality of an F5) would make a decent street camera. On the digital side, the Nikon 12-24 (which gives you an effective 35mm equivalent of 18-26) mounted on a D200 (which is much lighter than the D2x while keeping most of the quality and function) would also work well, but the 12-24 is not as fast as the 17-35, and not as well-controlled at the wide end, though it is smaller and lighter.

I guess if you shoot like Gary Winogrand where you just go busting down the street, hammering away at everything, the SLRs would be okay; if you're more of an HCB type, where you try to blend in and snipe the photographs, a rangefinder would be better.

As a new migrant to rangefinders, I can't get over how tidy they are, and how easy to carry.

JC

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Take a look at Boulat's piece on Hamas at www.viiphoto.com for an example of the look I'm going for. It's an excellent site also.

For what it is worth, all VII's photogs, including Nachtwey use Canon zooms. Nachtwey in particular uses the 16-35/2.8, 50/1.4, and 28/1.8 . He doesn't seem to have trouble with the lens' size, weight.

I tend to use single focal lengths on RF for carry-around street shots, just for the smaller size and intrusiveness.

One tip I've found helpful for myself, I compose better using an external viewfinder. I think part of it is that the external VF isolates just the compositional element of it (as I've already taken care of focusing, exposure etc in the internal VF). cheers