Zoom Lenses Aren't So Good

[willie_901]

I don't make the news, I just report it.

This recent article is a data-driven exploration of how well current zoom lenses compare to current primes.

The first 1/3 or so of the article describes how the lens' performance were evaluated.

The rest clearly shows zoom lenses do not compare well with primes.

Obviously the summary of the article is a generalization.

Clearly there are some primes that don't perform as well as some zoom lenses.

Of course zoom lenses are convenient. In 2017 many photographers are interested in convenience.

Additionally, many photographs won't significantly benefit from the differences between primes and zooms.

However the topic of zoom vs primes resurfaces from time to time and here's an objective comparison.

 

[Richard G]

I enjoyed that. What is the number 1.61803398? (I know what the two irrationals are. And 42.)

 

[daveleo]

........
...........many photographs won't significantly benefit from the differences between primes and zooms.

Yep

(...8...9...10)

 

[Nathan King]

You can crunch the numbers all you want, but it really boils down to the intended output. If your output is print and you're only enlarging to 11x14" the differences aren't going to be visible with a well designed zoom. Only those printing very large or requiring perspective correction really reap the gains of prime lenses.

 

[MikeMGB]

I think I read this same article in Amateur Photographer magazine about 40 years ago. 🙂

 

[zuiko85]

I like Roger's articles. But this is not news to any OT (old timer). The zoom vs prime, convenience over quality debate was raging in the 70's. There have been advances in lens design and construction ongoing for decades, But zooms, complex multi element, floating element zooms, have seen the largest benefit. Primes have improved too, but not as much or as quickly. He makes the point himself that the numbers mean little to the photographer who gets just what he wants out of his lens selection.
For a non artist like myself, who only dinks around with photography, and like old mechanical, metal, manual cameras because they are pretty and make nice sounds, well......if ya got em, shoot em. I have one old zoom in a half frame kit, a 50~90 f3.5 Zuiko for the Pen F (the real Pen F, Olympus should be shot for naming a digital 'Pen F'). I use it when I just cannot stand in the right spot and need a focal length between 38mm and 100mm. Otherwise it stays at home not because of image quality, but because it is so big and heavy. Stopped to f8 it is not bad for a mid 60's design.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

I enjoyed that. What is the number 1.61803398? (I know what the two irrationals are. And 42.)

φ («phi»).

Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

 

[Dogman]

Back at the newspaper where I worked during the 70's into the 90's, I was probably the first photographer to start using zooms on a regular basis. They weren't as good as primes but they were good enough for daily newspaper reproduction and making darkroom prints of a reasonably large size. They were also convenient. Making my work life easier was important. I wasn't interested in making great art and image quality was way far less important than just getting the picture. Today, high quality zooms are more than adequate for most of us. Even so, I've regressed and I've gone back to using primes for everything. They are definitely better and I'm more concerned with quality. Just getting the picture is not my primary concern today.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I took many good pictures with consumer grade zoom lenses, some of them were in use for local election campaign. My wife took excellent family portraits with zooms. Our daughter takes portraits of some known people with zoom lenses. And using zooms for paid job.

So, aren't so good for what? Charts? Or most of technical people aren't good on photography, so, they have to compensate it with charts? 🙂

 

[David Hughes]

I enjoyed that. What is the number 1.61803398? (I know what the two irrationals are. And 42.)

Hi,

Generally known as the classic answer (over the centuries) to the most natural aspect ratio; meaning 1:1.61803398

Look here:- http://www.creativebloq.com/design/designers-guide-golden-ratio-12121546

I have called it the golden sector for years...

Regards, David

 

[Huss]

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[JonB]

This article reminds me of the time I got into a fight with another photographer. He hit me over the head with a telezoom. When he saw that I was bleeding, he apologized profusely, saying "I didn't mean to hurt you! That's why I zoomed out and hit you with the soft end!"

Ba-dum-ching.

-Jon

 

[B-9]

Killed it Jon!

 

[Richard G]

φ («phi»).

Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

Thanks radi(c)al cam. And David. Now I just have to see how the square root of 5 can be a component of the definition.

OT (ON topic). I understood modern zooms were plenty good enough. Amazing the number of interviews I've read with very successful professionals who use two zooms as their main lenses.

 

[Doug]

Planning a trip to Cuba soon, I thought to take my Pentax K-3, and simplify things with a zoom. Convenient, able to respond quickly to changing and unexpected opportunities... Ordinarily I don't have much liking for zooms... slow, heavy, large, compromised IQ.

So I bought a new Pentax 20-40 (f/2.8-4) zoom. Well, I'm disappointed all over again! It is not large or particularly heavy, and its modest zoom range is adequate... but it's slow particularly at the long end and the image quality is noticeably not up to my Limited primes. The center sharpness goes "off" slightly at longer FL. Slight acceptable barrel distortion even at the long end, moderate and mostly acceptable at the middle, and way too much to ignore at the wide end, ugh. I would be shooting some old Cuban architecture... 🙁

Out of curiosity I dug out an old 90's kit zoom, Pentax 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 and tried it on my Pentax K-1 full-frame camera. Mostly shooting in the hour or so before sunset the lens was mostly wide (not so wide!) open and the results were pretty bad optically. Closed down not so bad, but the camera increases ISO only as a last resort, ha ha.

I will stick to primes, thanks, and will take to Cuba a Leica M with 50 and 28mm. 🙂

 

[john_s]

Interesting article, and it doesn't surprise me. I have a Nikon 75-300 consumer zoom bought new 25 years ago and I did get some nice snaps of the new babies and toddlers. But even then, judging 4"x6" colour prints (film of course), it was not at all good at the long end. Today, I would take such a lens back. Now the decision of what to do with it. I wouldn't sell it to someone unsuspecting, and I don't want to use it, and I can't bear to drop it in the bin.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I guess it depends what you want to photograph and how carefully you chose the lens. I've had one or two that were so-so, being my usual polite self, but also more than one or two that are brilliant* and make me wonder why I bother with primes.

Of course, I'm not planning to do posters with them but almost 12" x 8" (meaning A4) suits me nicely.

Regards, David

* Konica, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax and Tokina (edit; and all 1980's to 199's vintage).

 

[Huss]

This thread is kinda funny. A year or so ago there was a thread defending the Nikon 43-86 zoom, which is one of the worst lenses Nikon made. And now we have a thread that is essentially the complete opposite, all zooms suck! (even the high end ones)

😉

 

[Prest_400]

Planning a trip to Cuba soon, I thought to take my Pentax K-3, and simplify things with a zoom. Convenient, able to respond quickly to changing and unexpected opportunities... Ordinarily I don't have much liking for zooms... slow, heavy, large, compromised IQ.

So I bought a new Pentax 20-40 (f/2.8-4) zoom. Well, I'm disappointed all over again! It is not large or particularly heavy, and its modest zoom range is adequate... but it's slow particularly at the long end and the image quality is noticeably not up to my Limited primes. The center sharpness goes "off" slightly at longer FL. Slight acceptable barrel distortion even at the long end, moderate and mostly acceptable at the middle, and way too much to ignore at the wide end, ugh. I would be shooting some old Cuban architecture... 🙁

Out of curiosity I dug out an old 90's kit zoom, Pentax 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 and tried it on my Pentax K-1 full-frame camera. Mostly shooting in the hour or so before sunset the lens was mostly wide (not so wide!) open and the results were pretty bad optically. Closed down not so bad, but the camera increases ISO only as a last resort, ha ha.

I will stick to primes, thanks, and will take to Cuba a Leica M with 50 and 28mm. 🙂

I'm thrifty and learned on primes, plus my m43 has a single prime being the cheap option. So zooms are something of a "novelty" to me., and quite convenient as a fact. If I have one, I'm used to work as if it was a set of primes instead of a continuous choice (newbies not moving).

I used a 28-80 that came with my classifieds Nikon F80 to shoot carelessly in summer. Convenient but well, distortion and not-so-sharp. Some $70 later, a 50mm 1.8 replaced the zoom. Still, the 8x12" from the zoom look perfectly fine.

The advantage of digital here is that distortion and vignetting can be corrected easily and ISO capabilities compensate slower lenses.

Whenever I get another digital camera in the future, it very probably will have a normal 24-80 ranged zoom. Just to hedge convenience as I often prefer to shoot (Medium Format) film. I like the approach of Fuji and their kit 18-55 2.8-4; seems a nice quality option.

OT, but I use phone a lot to do snapping. I believe phone cameras may have reacquainted the laypeople to use primes... Until I see them "zoom" by digitally cropping.

Pro-level zooms, without variable aperture, f2.8 behemoths may be as good as a cheap prime in some ways; plus, there's stopping down that equals.

 

[Corran]

My Pentax 55-100mm and 90-180mm lenses on my Pentax 67 are at least as sharp as the primes, including the legendary updated 55mm and 200mm lenses.

My 14-24mm f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S lenses on my Nikon D800E are at least as sharp at moderate apertures as equivalent primes.

IMO zooms are convenient but are bulkier/heavier and sacrifice speed compared to primes, and that's it. Performance differences when shot normally are practically nil, with perhaps the biggest differences appearing when the zoom is shot wide-open compared to a prime at the same stop, which is 1-3 stops down for the prime usually.

Also any test that uses flat scientific test charts is slightly flawed due to potential issues with field curvature, which admittedly may be more of an issue in a zoom.