why NOT ZOOM?

[ivzhao]

in another forum, i recommmand a guy to start with a cheap zoom (Canon Rebel XT+ kit lens) but shift to primes once he finds out his "eyes"/taste. and that post started out a sort of chaotic disscussion about prime v.s. zoom.

i am on the prime side because i believe that primes can train my eyes, and give me more interactions with the subjects. but why NOT zooms? what's bad about them?

i am really confused now. and can any body give me some histocal background of the zoom lens, like why dont companies like Leica and Contax make more zooms.

thanks

 

[dostacos]

unless you spend major $$$$$ most have a floating fstop that heads towards f5.6 many times, at any given size they are a compromise comapared to a fixed length lens.

The convience of 1 lens at a place like a ZOO where you may want something in the 28-30 length and the next exhibit the 70mm range is nice, though 2 bodies with a 28 and a 75 would do the same

 

[dmr]

At the risk of sounding like a heretic here ... I love a zoom. I shot with primes only for 15 years (normal + 28 and 135) before I got the zoom for the Pentax and I admit I was hooked.

The lack of the zoom is probably the reason that a rangefinder will never be my primary carry-everywhere camera. (Before anybody jumps on me, I'm not trying to foist zooms on anybody else. What works for me may not work for you. Jeesh, if everybody did things my way, the world would be a very boring place!) 🙂

My guess why the people like Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, and the FSU folks do/did not make zooms for rangefinders is twofold, first, that there would be a mechanical nightmare trying to couple the zoom lens to a zoom rangefinder, and second, demand. People who shoot rangefinders don't demand zooms, they mostly prefer primes. Lots of the P&S cameras, including the Olympus Stylus (my carry-everywhere camera) do have coupled zoom viewfinders, so the mechanics are obviously do-able if zooms would sell.

That's my take on it, and yes, I've wondered about this before myself.

 

[Kin Lau]

There is a sort of a zoom for RF's. The Leica Tri-Elmar and Dual-Range Summicron have multiple focal lengths in one lense. But the range is not large tho. The pricetag is suitable large tho.

Zooms are currently the most versatile, and for the price, probably the best bang for the buck. Most are quite sharp when light is good and f8 is your friend.

Go indoors, turn off the flash, and primes rule. Even f2.8 can be a little too slow indoors. There isn't much I can't do indoors with my Digital Rebel 350D/XT and 35/2. My Leica IIIa + 50/2 Summar or Bessa R + 50/2 J8 are also great combos.

 

[Nikon Bob]

For me a zoom lens is great when I can't control where I can shoot from so I own a few for my SLRs. The only drawback for me is that a very good fast zoom is bulky/heavy and not something I want on the camera around my neck all day while walking around. I also don't like to carry a flash so primes on an RF inside work better for me there as Kim Lau has said. In the end you use what works in the circumstances you are in. The zoom vs primes is an old debate and can spark heated comments on the order of film vs digital, hope that does not happen.

Bob

 

[pvdhaar]

Another option for a dual focal length lens is the Konica 21-35/3.4-4

 

[st3ph3nm]

Apart from the obvious points made above - I think all of which I agree with - I believe there's a fair amount of leftover prejudice from the old/cheap zooms of the seventies and eighties. Even a name brand 28-70ish zoom from that period wasn't going to hold a candle to the same name brand primes, optically, unless you were willing to fork out a whole lotta money. Way more than buying a couple of good primes. That situation has changed somewhat over the last 10 years, however, I think.

Besides, wouldn't work on a Canon RF, nohow! 😉

Cheers,
Steve
(all, of course, imho)

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I don't like telephoto lenses and and I don't like slow lenses. Zooms are generally both.

Once every year or so I use my Zuiko 28-48 on my Olympus SLR when nothing else will do the job.

 

[Photar]

There is a sort of a zoom for RF's. The Leica Tri-Elmar and Dual-Range Summicron have multiple focal lengths in one lense.

If I understand correctly the DR-Summicron is not a zoom. The dual refers to two ranges of focussing, normal and close-up. You are right with the Tri-Elmar, of course, which is a phantastic and extremely compact lens.

Go indoors, turn off the flash, and primes rule. Even f2.8 can be a little too slow indoors

Absolutely agree! So called fast zooms are not very useful indoors. I found my perfect combination with a zoom and an additional fast prime.

 

[Doug]

The only non-SLR interchangeable-lens camera I'm aware offering a zoom lens is the Contax G2, with the single 35-70mm model. Of course it has a zooming viewfinder too. Quite an interesting bit of gear, technologically.

 

[richard_l]

The only non-SLR interchangeable-lens camera I'm aware offering a zoom lens is the Contax G2, with the single 35-70mm model. Of course it has a zooming viewfinder too. Quite an interesting bit of gear, technologically.

You've heard of the song, "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" Well, the Tri-Elmar would be a 28-50 zoom if it could, but it can't (Leica M limitations), so it is a triple focal length lens.

 

[Poptart]

The zoom allows me to sit on my fat butt and still get the shot framed the way I like it.

 

[eskorpid]

I guess there isn't right or wrong for using a prime instead of a zoom. After all, it depends on what kind of photography you are doing. Different photographers have different needs. Certainly zooms offer flexibility when distance from the subject is not a predictable factor. Personally I only use a single 50mm lens and what I find facsinating is that my eye has been trained so that I can pre-visualize the frame before looking through the viewfinder with an accuracy of about 90%. I just lift the camera and shoot with very little adjustment.
I have to admit though that when taking family photos at parties I use my Tokina 28-70/2.8 . . . it's just more flexible
. . . for my personal B&W work I only use my M3/Cron combo.

cheers

 

[James Burton]

The last thing I need when shooting is one more variable to get wrong. I am inept at the best of times 🙂

Actually after I bought a prime for low light, I just found that I didn't need the zoom, didn't miss it, and the reduced flare, weight, size & increased resolution of the prime increases my number of keepers on the spot. I do however really like the telephoto zoom (70-300) and the same goes with the Lumix FZ-20 I bought - these make great shots on the long end.

A zooming viewfinder in a RF would be good. I figure if the film P&S viewfinder cameras can zoom (for very little money) why not have an adjustable magnification VF in a proper RF. e.g. My Wife's Canon Sureshot something-or-other has a zooming VF. Doesn't need to to be electrically controlled or coupled to a zoom lens.

Thanks,
James

 

[lubitel]

I have nothing against zooms, but I hate the 3.5-5.6 thing. I find myself using 50mm 1.8 on my Rebel XT more often. Even works in some low light situations (with iso 400 or 800). If I had a wide angle prime with 2.8 or so I would forget about the zoom.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I use a 70~180 Micro-Nikkor zoom at work, great for the D1x with flash.

At home I still use the 43~86 F3.5 AI series zoom on the F2a; again flash or outdoors.

And the 1970 80~200 F4.5 Zoom-Nikkor is easily as sharp as the 200mm F4 AI series lens.

But zooms are not good for existing light shots; too slow. They are nice for in-camera cropping, to make maximum use out of the negative when you can't get closer or have time to change lenses.

 

[Socke]

Primes are cheaper, lighter and more compact. They typicaly have less distortion, less aberations and less vignetting than zooms.
Zooms are more usefull in tight quarters where you can't move much for framing and with a modern standard zoom, say 28-105ish, you cover the most used focal lengthes in one. For travel photography this isn't a bad thing, for 20 years I was very happy with a 35-70/2.8 and a 75-150/4 where I used the short zoom for 80% of my shots.

When I want the best negative, I take a prime or two to a place I know. When I don't know if there is an opportunity and what kind of picture I may find, I take a zoom.

The exception are rangefinders, the Contax G2 with a lens is smaller than my 17-35 zoom for the dSLR alone! I have the two lens belt pouch from Contax so I can have the G2 with one lens on my shoulder and another two lenses on my hip and I'm prepared for 90% of what I may find.
Since I have a 2nd body I often go out with a 28/45 or 35/90 combination.
I find this more comfortable to cary than a SLR with a zoom in this range.

 

[jaapv]

Primes are not cheaper if you try to cover the range the zoom-lens covers, Socke. For instance, if I have to replace my Canon 100-400 with a 400, a 180 and a 135 I will be out of pocket by at least double the price and my wife will have to act as porter for my gear. They are also great if you are locked to a fixed position for shooting, for instance a press gallery or a safari vehicle. The framing of a fixed lens would be out for 90% of the time. Having said that, I do agree with your post. I sold off all of my other zoom lenses, just keeping the above. But this is SLR talk of course and really has no place in this forum. 😉

 

[Socke]

Some more OT SLR talk 🙂

A friend just did that, he bought a 300/2.8 and a 400/2.8 plus TC1.4 and TC2 because he needs more reach and fastest possible shutter speeds.
But he shoots rally and racing. Focusing is much faster on the primes than on the zoom.

Luckily I'm not tempted, those lenses won't fit into my car and although I don't do Macro I want lenses which focus slightly closer than 17 meters 🙂

 

[jaapv]

Would you really like to take my avatar using a 35 mm prime? 😉