Zoom Lenses Aren't So Good

[Paulbe]

Ya know--the title of this thread is misleading. Roger goes out of his way to say that today's modern zooms are perfectly capable of making great pix---but that for ultra critical stuff--a prime maybe better. Never did he say zooms aren't so good. Please read the entire article. Roger is a straight shooter in a land of fan boys...

 

[Doug]

Yes, the big Pentax-67 55-100 is a great zoom. I've used it also on Leica S and it performs impressively well. Constant f/4.5, 95mm filter size, weighs 1210g / 43oz / ~2.7lb so this weight and bulk discourages casual carry-around use! And, B&H price in 2007 was $1600...

 

[Ronald M]

Zooms meet or exceed quality required for many many photographers myself included depending on end use.

I still keep the primes and use them regularly.

 

[splitimageview]

If you don't want to read the article, here is the key point:

So What Does It Mean?

For practical photography not much really

 

[kb244]

In a nutshell I've generally found, when comparing Prime to Zoom in the same price bracket, primes are generally :
- Faster
- Lighter
- Smaller
- Sharper
Than their equivalently priced zooms.

The zooms make more sense to me if I need :
- to mount/carry only one lens (or two) without limiting my focal length options (but limits my aperture options)
- do not have the option to move my physical position for re-framing (ie: if I need to change my FoV quickly)
- or want a focal length that's not covered in between certain primes.

 

[Rob-F]

And just when I thought my 28-105 and 70-180 Nikkors were pretty good compared to my primes.

 

[farlymac]

I've had some zooms that were just junk, and others that I think highly of. And as for the 43-86 Nikon, it's the early version (lens data inside the filter ring) everyone hates, not the second one (lens data outside the filter ring). I've had the first one (but not the second one), and I didn't like it one bit.

I could see a big improvement when I started using Tamron SP AF zooms way back when. Event photography kind of demands the flexibility a zoom will give you for framing your subject in a hurry.

But I will usually go with a prime when I can take my time.

PF

 

[kb244]

I've had some zooms that were just junk, and others that I think highly of. And as for the 43-86 Nikon, it's the early version (lens data inside the filter ring) everyone hates, not the second one (lens data outside the filter ring). I've had the first one (but not the second one), and I didn't like it one bit.

I could see a big improvement when I started using Tamron SP AF zooms way back when. Event photography kind of demands the flexibility a zoom will give you for framing your subject in a hurry.

But I will usually go with a prime when I can take my time.

PF

I do event from time to time, and my solution for the most part has been to wear two bodies with two different lens.

I've considered getting a zoom for my mirrorless, but all the ones I could justify the price of were no less than f/3.5 ~ f/4 on the wide side which to me is just a stop too slow. And remember, image stabalization only stabilizes your handling, not the subject's movement. (meaning I would rather f/2.8, over f/4 Stabilized).

On the film side, primes all the way for me, especially as I have nothing new enough that would actually benefit from the likes of a zoom (it would actually slow me down quite a bit).

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

When you don't know what to expect a zoom is the ideal or, better still, two bodies and two zooms: ideal for air shows, f'instance.

OTOH, if you are doing something very specific then a prime would be ideal.

And, BTW, some of my zooms are better than some of my primes and vice versa but then this is a very vague topic at present, just vague zooms versus vague primes...

Regards, David

 

[Solinar]

This is just a Nikon perspective - and - the term measurable.

If I could go back in time via a red phone booth - which was 1980 for me - one selling point for primes was to gain a couple of stops of aperture. Plus there was the fact that whatever focal length prime would undoubtedly out perform a consumer grade zoom at f/4 to f/5.6, (I'm referring to fall off in image quality towards the corners).

Now with regards to measurable goofiness using a test chart. - You'll find some on more than a couple of my AF Nikon primes that I'm now using. - My 28 and 35 focal length definitely need to be stopped down a bit to clean up the corners - especially the 28. Barrel distortion - it's there on the 28 D, not so much on the 35 f/2 D or a 50/1.4 D - but I'm sure the brick wall test show some.

Here's my point - with regards to measurable fall off and distortion - I know it's there from pixel peeping on a computer, but I don't really notice much in an 8x12 print, while standing at a normal view distance.

 

[raid]

I used mainly two zoom lenses for about 10-15 years during my travels. I used them each on cameras with cable release and placed on a solid tripod. If needed, a sandbag was used to anchor the tripod during windy days. Large sized lens hoods were used too. I picked my zoom lenses very carefully to be the best that I could afford to buy. Angeneuix 70-210 and Canon FD 28-50; one zoom on each camera, and I was set. There would be in a side bag a fast 50mm lens for dark scenes without a tripod, and a 24mm lens for "extreme wide angle" views.

The resulting slides with ISO 50 were good enough for good looking 16x24 enlargements. I did not want larger prints.