why NOT ZOOM?

[Bertram2]

i
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?
thanks

It is better no to be on the X or Y side but to take the right tool , which fits best to your task.
Most of them who insist the X side or the Y side is the right side have no clue of the "other" side, never tried it, or did not understand it at all. I don't know why some people always tend to this kind of childish fundamentntalism, maybe it's the crutch they need to limp through their heternomous life. They'd better grew up and learn trust in their own judgement.
It's a waste to time to let you draw into such a controverse, no matter what X or Y are.

I personally have kinda polarized my tools, there is the manual, mechanical and prime lens side for low light and not too dynamic objects (RF) and the AF, AE , electronic and zoom side for daylight, fast moving objects, and for no-time-to-change-lens places.

A zoom is not good for everything, same as all other lens types are not good for eveything. But sometimes it can be better than a prime, simply because it works where a prime would not have worked at all.

Tamron 28-300 @f6,3 and 300mm, Vino was about 20ft away and I stuck in the crowd like in concrete and could not come closer:

Alexander Vinokurov

bertram

 

[mac_wt]

When I scan negatives produced by the zoom on my EOS 300, I can see that the quality of this lens is not as good as most of the lenses of my rangefinders. (But I know that zoomlens is a cheapie, a lot cheaper than an Orion 15, jupiter 12, 8 and 9 combined. I don't want to think about the cost of an equal range in Leica glass)
The combo Eos 300 + Zoomlens is big! There are a lot of situations that I prefer the size of my Leica CL + 40 mm. (But this advantage dissapears when you mount a 135mm lens on a Fed 5 with an external viewfinder.)
There's allways a 'but'. The Eos 300 doesn't see much use these days.

Wim

 

[DougK]

The zooms which came with my Sigma outfit (28-80/3.5-4.5 and 70-300/4-5.6, I think) are outstanding lenses, very sharp and contrasty. The problem with the shots I get with zooms usually lies more with me than the quality of the lenses; I tend to get lazy about moving around to find the best shot.

 

[Doug]

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

The below is essentially that... with a 75mm on 6x7, about the same angle of view as 35mm on 35. 🙂

 

[Socke]

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

If it's well fed, a 24-85 at the wide end is ok.

 

[vincentbenoit]

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

I'm sure you know that perspective is essentially determined by subject distance, which is why moving your fat butt is a much better way to frame than just zooming with the lens... Unless you don't care about perspective, that is.

 

[vincentbenoit]

I'd rather be a primate than a zoomate.

 

[Socke]

I'm sure you know that perspective is essentially determined by subject distance, which is why moving your fat butt is a much better way to frame than just zooming with the lens... Unless you don't care about perspective, that is.

Sometimes a more or less compressed perspective is nice, too.

 

[vincentbenoit]

Sometimes a more or less compressed perspective is nice, too.

Sure, but my point was about zooms (i.e. variable focal length lenses), not telephoto lenses.

 

[TEZillman]

This may be more of result of using a combination of a prime and a RF than just the result of using a Prime lens, but I have found that, after about a year and a half of using a "standard" 35, 50, 90 lens combination, I can visualize a photograph in my mind with more accuracy.

With a zoom/SLR combination I tend to compose in the viewfinder and use the DOF preview to see the "end result". Since the depth of field changes with both the focal length and the aperture on a zoom and there's nearly an infinate number of possible combinations of the two, its difficult to work any other way. For some reason I also tend to work this way with primes on the SLR as well.

At this point I've become very comfortable with the 35mm. I don't "know" the 50 an 90 as well. This may not be any big deal to anyone else, but to me, I feel more in control with the RF and primes.

 

[ErnestoJL]

Zooms for RFs would be an interesting product (however not of my choice) as long as image quality isn´t impaired by the extra air/glass surfaces added in regard of a prime. It means a good one must be expensive.
The biggest problem should be on the technical side as long as the lens must be coupled both to the RF and to the finder itself (like any zoom APS), not to mention that they would only be made with bayonet mount.
Anyway the most important thing is the potential market that such lens would have, which may or may not encourage a maker to invest in R&D an later to manufacture it.

On the other side what I think would be of great advantage is to have a zoom finder, actuated by a lever inside the mount to change VF to fit lens coverage. This would avoid the complicated projected frames as well as making it easier to work as long as a tele frame wouldn´t be as small as the RF patch.
No doubt it poses another technical problem because both the finder and RF patch should be zoomed in accordance.

Ernesto.

 

[Socke]

Ernesto, that's the Contax G2 with Contax 35-70 Vario Sonnar. Only problem with the lens is the small aperture and the size.

 

[Bertram2]

When I scan negatives produced by the zoom on my EOS 300, I can see that the quality of this lens is not as good as most of the lenses of my rangefinders.
Wim

What zoom do you use with the EOS 300 ? iI does not make much sense to speak or argue about the optical quality of zooms as long as we don't say which kinda zooms are meant and to which kind of "quality" we refer to :

Distortion ? Resolution ? Contrast ? Vignetting ? Flare ?
And do we speak about wides, telezooms or "superzooms" from wide to tele ?
And very important do we speak about fast or slow zooms ?
And do we speak about pro stuff or "prosumer" stuff ?

Many very different issues ! Zooms do not exist in a way that would allow to judge them as good or bad in general. Last not least the question must be how large the enlargement factor is intended to be for the prints. For me personally the acid test is the projected slide, if that's o.k the zoom is o.k. For me at least.
Especially for slides they are perfect., allowing a 100% perfect crop before the button is pressed.

One thing is for sure tho, they are not thought to sit on the a*** while shooting,
form the reasons Vincent has described y. Wheelchair photography cannot work ! 😛

bertram

 

[ErnestoJL]

That´s right Socke!
All zooms are a trade between focal lenght and max. aperture, not to mention the size of the lens. I guess the Vario Sonnar is the only one made for RFs. And is very expensive too.
But who would complain if the VF of an RF shows exactly the lens coverage?
Instead of having several selectable frames (tele frames are way small), the VF shows what the lens sees with same size, keeping all the benefits of an RF (size, weight, easier focusing in dim light) with (some) benefits from SLRs.
I would like to see a future Leica, Bessa, or ZI coming with such a finder.

Ernesto.

 

[Kin Lau]

Instead of having several selectable frames (tele frames are way small), the VF shows what the lens sees with same size, keeping all the benefits of an RF (size, weight, easier focusing in dim light) with (some) benefits from SLRs.

Something I've wondered about... I do know that some of the Canon LTM rangefinders have variable mag for the VF... I believe it's 50/100/135.

 

[mac_wt]

What zoom do you use with the EOS 300 ? iI does not make much sense to speak or argue about the optical quality of zooms as long as we don't say which kinda zooms are meant and to which kind of "quality" we refer to

Sorry, I thought it would be clear I was only talking about my own gear, not in general.

The only zoom I own is the one that came with my Eos 300 kit. I found it described on Photo.net as:
"Avoid the kit! The zoom lens bundled with the kit is of abysmal quality. Get the body alone and a cheap prime lens..."
When I look at the scans I made from negatives from the Eos 300, I have to agree (see attachements). I guess my main complaint is about resolution?

I do believe that there are much better zoom lenses out there.

Wim

 

[jaapv]

The below is essentially that... with a 75mm on 6x7, about the same angle of view as 35mm on 35. 🙂

I have a feeling there is a fence somewhere outside the FOV in that shot... 😉 And maybe yours too,Socke?Or a safari-vehicle involved? This one started snarling as soon as I walked within 15 m. She didn't like the idea of me approaching the Buffalo she and her sisters had killed..... I guess this smiley :angel: would have been my selfportrait after using a 35 😱

 

[Wimpler]

For SLRS...

I do own a few older zoom lenses. A vivitar series 1 (somewhere around 70-200mm f3.5) and a clone of it (a panagor lens, I think panagor was one of the companies producing some lenses for vivitar...). I also own a pentax K-mount zoom (which is slower).

I only use them when I am shooting outside, don't need to have something compact (they are not small) and do not have the possibility to change lenses. I own good 200, 135, 105mm primes which are faster, smaller, better quality, ...

I don't care about framing. Just crop...

 

[James Burton]

The only zoom I own is the one that came with my Eos 300 kit.... I guess my main complaint is about resolution?

I got a 28-85 zoom with my EOS-300. I guess I kinda liked it. But even cheap primes blow it out of the water. Now that I havn't used it for 4 years, the aperture blades stick ;-). Don't expect to see a new thread soon "has anybody freed aperture blades on EOS 28-85 zoom".

James

 

[gns]

I think I've posted my feelings about zooms before, so at the risk of repeating myself...

I would never want a zoom lens! Not because of quality or speed or size, but because it would just be too damn much to think about. It's hard enough to take a good picture with just one focal length! I don't need to be thinking about adding more possiblities. I don't even want more than 1 prime!

Actually, I have a zoom on my Panasonic LC-1. But I've super-glued the barrel to one focal length 😛

Gary