spysmart
Established
I turned to the dark side this year
I turned to the dark side this year
I've used Leica M RF for the last 20 years and completely resisted all SLRs and especially zoom lenses until I felt I needed a DSLR.
All the forums showed many complaints of CA and soft corners in even the best Nikon and Canon lenses ... and the old school primes were often worse than the zooms.
The Olympus E lenses seemed to be the best around, but were mostly all zooms, but the tiny E1 viewfinder ruled Olympus out.
Then the Leica 25 f/1.4 arrived on the scene followed by the Olympus E-3 with a reasonably to good viewfinder.
As no wide primes existed, I reluctantly added the 7-14mm. I found I quite liked it
The 14-35 f/2 seems to be re-writing the zooms rules - superb resolution, distortion and contrast even wide open.
The E-3 +14-35f/2 weighs 1890g i.e. exactly the same as 2xM6 +28f/2 +50 f/1.4 and takes up the same space in the bag, so to accomplish the same job all is pretty much equal.
However, if Olympus had a 14 f/2.8 and 25 f/2, I would still prefer to go with 2 primes and two bodies.
I turned to the dark side this year
I've used Leica M RF for the last 20 years and completely resisted all SLRs and especially zoom lenses until I felt I needed a DSLR.
All the forums showed many complaints of CA and soft corners in even the best Nikon and Canon lenses ... and the old school primes were often worse than the zooms.
The Olympus E lenses seemed to be the best around, but were mostly all zooms, but the tiny E1 viewfinder ruled Olympus out.
Then the Leica 25 f/1.4 arrived on the scene followed by the Olympus E-3 with a reasonably to good viewfinder.
As no wide primes existed, I reluctantly added the 7-14mm. I found I quite liked it
The 14-35 f/2 seems to be re-writing the zooms rules - superb resolution, distortion and contrast even wide open.
The E-3 +14-35f/2 weighs 1890g i.e. exactly the same as 2xM6 +28f/2 +50 f/1.4 and takes up the same space in the bag, so to accomplish the same job all is pretty much equal.
However, if Olympus had a 14 f/2.8 and 25 f/2, I would still prefer to go with 2 primes and two bodies.
Attachments
Russ
Well-known
The quality zooms of today and not long ago, are very good. Actually, you'd be hard pressed to tell a print made from a prime or a quality zoom. Some of them equal prime lenses in sharpness, contrast, etc. Of course, I'm not speaking of the "superzooms." There are compromises to be made, in order to make them that convenient. I'll use primes or zooms. I just depends upon the situation at hand.
R
R
Attachments
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
In a perfect world I would shoot with my primes 100 percent of the time. Since this world is not perfect I only shoot with them 97.38 percent of the time.
dexdog
Veteran
I like zooms, and use them in all the time. The number one best thing about an SLR is the through the lens viewing that makes zoom lenses practical to use. The only modern SLR prime lens that I own is a 35mm, perfect when strolling around charming or otherwise interesting urban landscapes. For everything else, it's a zoom.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
With my RF cameras I use primes, of course. (Well, not quite "of course" in that I could get a zoom for my Contax G2 - but I'm not at all tempted.) With my dSLR my most-used lens is a long zoom (100-400) because that gives me the best set of tradeoffs for the wildlife photography (mostly birds) that I enjoy. At shorter focal lengths I prefer primes - but I also much prefer my RF cameras for most of the shooting I do at those ranges. But because I have a cropped-sensor SLR I'm restricted in my options for even moderately wide FOV primes. So I fill that niche with a 17-55 f2.8 zoom, which is a very good lens but also over-large and over-heavy for my preferences and way more expensive than I'd like. But sometimes I need it. Its probably my 2nd-most-used SLR lens, but 2nd by a very long way as I prefer my RF cameras for those focal lengths.
Which is the long way of saying I'm not voting in the poll as none of the options reflect my views on zooms or how and why I use them.
...Mike
Which is the long way of saying I'm not voting in the poll as none of the options reflect my views on zooms or how and why I use them.
...Mike
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
Zoom lenses are, in fact, a sign of the approaching apocalypse, along with the digital "beast" (0110010100000111001100101001110001010001010101010101111110001001010). I'll be photographing the rapture with my primes. I'll post the photos in my cave dwelling, in case you're still around.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I heard somewhere that 97.38 percent of all facts are made up....
(Am I the only one here NOT drinking???)
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
amateriat
We're all light!
Besides my Konica Lexio 70 p/s (28-70mm) the only other thing in my gear cupboard is the recently-acquired (and more-recently-repaired...the non-removable lens hood was somehow re-installed in the wrong position by someone) Sigma 21-35 for my Olympus OM-2n. I got it because it was the cheapest means, by far, to get as wide as 21mm on some camera of mine, and it turns out to be a rather nice lens, supposedly the first lens of its kind for an SLR (made way back in the late 1980s).
When I shot with SLRs all the time, this was the drill with zooms: I liked their convenience, generally speaking, but I demanded performance as close to primes as possible. This usually meant large, heavy, expensive zooms with relatively limited range: the last, and best, examples I had were Minolta's 28-70mm f/2.8 "G" series AF zoom, and their 80-200 f/2.8 APO AF. Both lenses were phenomenal, especially the 28-70. Equally phenomenal was their size and weight, which began to get on my nerves less than an year after buying them. These lenses, interestingly enough, were the linchpin that led me to ditching the big SLR system for RFs and a few choice primes. The OM-2/Sigma 21-35 combo is crazy-tiny compared to my Minolta 9xi bodies with one of these bazooka-class zooms bolted on, and works well for those instances when I need that combo for a given subject or project. For everything else, to paraphrase the TV commercial, there's my Hexars.
- Barrett
When I shot with SLRs all the time, this was the drill with zooms: I liked their convenience, generally speaking, but I demanded performance as close to primes as possible. This usually meant large, heavy, expensive zooms with relatively limited range: the last, and best, examples I had were Minolta's 28-70mm f/2.8 "G" series AF zoom, and their 80-200 f/2.8 APO AF. Both lenses were phenomenal, especially the 28-70. Equally phenomenal was their size and weight, which began to get on my nerves less than an year after buying them. These lenses, interestingly enough, were the linchpin that led me to ditching the big SLR system for RFs and a few choice primes. The OM-2/Sigma 21-35 combo is crazy-tiny compared to my Minolta 9xi bodies with one of these bazooka-class zooms bolted on, and works well for those instances when I need that combo for a given subject or project. For everything else, to paraphrase the TV commercial, there's my Hexars.
- Barrett
Attachments
Axel
singleshooter
Yes, a bit...
From my point of view zooms are not "the devil". But I try to avoid using them whenever I can. My felt comfort with a prime is much greater. A few settings less to control give me more room to watch the subject I want to photograph. It feels like I am part of the scene with a prime while I feel more as a silent watcher with a zoom.
I don´t know if there is one picture I could not take in the past because of having a prime attached to my camera instead of a zoom.
But I remember some situations where fiddling around with a zoom (and nevertheless remarking as "too short" or "too long" at the end) held me from getting my shot.
My short answer is that I don´t like zooms but, like flashlights, there might be situations where they can be helpful.
Regards, Axel
Last edited:
spysmart
Established
Yes, a bit...
But I remember some situations where fiddling around with a zoom (and nevertheless remarking as "too short" or "too long" at the end) held me from getting my shot.
I can remember all too often missing shots due to fiddling around changing prime lenses :bang:
Last edited:
Joe
Established
my first camera was an argus brick, bought at a junk shop with money I saved from doing yardwork. Shortly thereafter I was given a canon SLR with a zoom lens, and even as a sixth grader I knew it sucked compared to the argus.
jky
Well-known
Tamron 17-35 for the D300, but I much prefer the 24mm f2.8 (36mm fov)... wish Nikon had a faster 24mm prime (AF)!
Igor.Burshteyn
Well-known
started from zoom lens, subsequently added 15 lenses for different camera systems all of them are primes. Will I use zoom? Occasionally, when situation demands. What stops me from using it more it's size&weight. Optically zoom I have is pretty decent one (minolta AF 28-135mm), I could compare it to the primes. But when I travel I always pack OM body with a few prime lenses. Do I loose photo opportunities with prime lenses versus zooms? Probably. But carrying whole day long OM/50mm prime feels like fun, while 800si/28-135mm feels like body building work.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
I recently retired from the photo biz and I sold off all my Nikon equipment, including some really nice primes- 180 2.8, 50 1.4, and 85 1.4- and purchased a Lumix L1 with the Leica 14-50 zoom and added an Olympus 40-150 zoom. The images with the Leica zoom are superb and the Olympus zoom is not too shabby either. I am extremely happy with this rig.
Kent
Finally at home...
Zoom and AF if I need to be quick, primes and MF if I have the time to think.
M
M like Leica M6
Guest
Depends on what you photograph.
For landscapes, where I often need a wide range of focal lengths I really prefer zooms so that I can avoid carrying many lenses - I cover 24 to 200mm with two Canon lenses, both with IS, so I can often leave my tripod at home. With tele lenses I really prefer zooms because walking vs. zooming is often not possible. A 70-200 IS is wonderful as long as you don't use it as an adipose portrait lens. For much longer focal lengths there not so many choices, and none of them are affordable, especially with the costly IS. So, I still use my Novoflex 400 and 600 and a 2x converter. Very sharp lenses, and incredibly cheap these days.
For other general photography I find that primes in the wide to normal focal lengths are easier and do not disturb my photography, 35 and 50 are my main lenses and, of course, there are not so many zooms for my M6 and Canon Vt deluxe.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I've used Leica M RF for the last 20 years and completely resisted all SLRs and especially zoom lenses until I felt I needed a DSLR.
All the forums showed many complaints of CA and soft corners in even the best Nikon and Canon lenses ... and the old school primes were often worse than the zooms.
The Olympus E lenses seemed to be the best around, but were mostly all zooms, but the tiny E1 viewfinder ruled Olympus out.
Then the Leica 25 f/1.4 arrived on the scene followed by the Olympus E-3 with a reasonably to good viewfinder.
As no wide primes existed, I reluctantly added the 7-14mm. I found I quite liked it
The 14-35 f/2 seems to be re-writing the zooms rules - superb resolution, distortion and contrast even wide open.
The E-3 +14-35f/2 weighs 1890g i.e. exactly the same as 2xM6 +28f/2 +50 f/1.4 and takes up the same space in the bag, so to accomplish the same job all is pretty much equal.
However, if Olympus had a 14 f/2.8 and 25 f/2, I would still prefer to go with 2 primes and two bodies.
Just want to let you know that I'm drooling over your E3 setup
dmr
Registered Abuser
Not to be a total snot here, but ...
... there's no valid answer for those who use zooms more than 2% but less than "more often" than primes!
There really needs to be an answer for those who use them when and where appropriate, when they are the correct tool for the job.
I know this is still primarily a rangefinder club, and zooms and rangefinders just don't mix well.
... there's no valid answer for those who use zooms more than 2% but less than "more often" than primes!
There really needs to be an answer for those who use them when and where appropriate, when they are the correct tool for the job.
I know this is still primarily a rangefinder club, and zooms and rangefinders just don't mix well.
bottley1
only to feel
when you are in Iceland in the middle of winter, and a stiff breeze is coming off the waterfall, the last thing you want to do is change lenses......