Zoom--->

[Bill Pierce]

I recently listened to a fellow photographer deride zoom lenses for their inferior sharpness. I’m not sure he was correct. When zooms for still cameras first appeared, I think that was true. And it didn’t stop them from being incredibly useful in certain situations. For a news photographer, it sure beat adding several long lenses to your already too heavy gadget bag (and the rendering of the finest possible detail was rarely the crucial element in many good news pictures - even in large exhibition prints).

I think today, while the best zooms may be expensive and may even show some slight variation in performance over their zoom range, the final image quality, screen or print, is not going to be perceptively different from a fixed focal length lens. Both lens types are at a point where the weak point is you and I with our slightly misplaced focus or camera shake.

That said, I still use fixed focal length lenses more often than zooms. Why? They clearly beat zooms in certain other qualities that are important to me. They are smaller, lighter, faster and CHEAPER. (And for those reasons, they are more fun.)

As always - your thoughts, especially if you disagree with me

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I compared Canon nifty fifty (plastic bayonet) with 70-200L F4. While nifty-fifty was sharper, L zoom was superior in color rendering.
Yet, I had 18-56 IS lens on 500D. Plastic bayonet, plastic barrel zoom lens. It was sharp. In 2009.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/GbujMAZkyL5qTWdg6
And little sign on the blade:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/PQNW6Z5UGjmDfL9C9

This old lens is crap on film Nikon, but not bad on digital.

 

[Timmyjoe]

For work, it used to be 24-70 & 70-200. Two bodies, two lenses, travel light. Lately been trading the 24-70 for a 20-35 as I found I don't use the middle range of the 24-70 as much and like the wider option of the 20-35. Hard to find a 20-35 with the same image quality as the current 24-70 and 70-200 though. Probably because the 24-70 & 70-200 are newer designs and developed for digital sensors. The 20-35 is from the early 1990's and not up to the same image quality.

Wish Nikon would develop an new 20-35.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...

Wish Nikon would develop an new 20-35.

Best,
-Tim

Time to switch to Canon. 🙂


https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20-35mm-f28.htm

 

[Dogman]

I think you're right, Bill.

The last couple of years I worked as a PJ (when dinosaurs roamed) I mainly used Nikon Series E 36-72mm and Nikkor 80-200mm zooms. Most photographers at the time were using primes only but these two lenses were good enough for all my routine assignments. Of course I also kept wider, longer and faster primes in my car if needed.

Today I have several zooms for digital Nikons and one for the Fujis. Yet I prefer using primes. They're smaller and faster and less complicated. As I get older, I've found I really don't want to carry around a big, heavy, high speed zoom very often. Primes are a lot more comfortable for my arthritic joints. But if shooting outside or in really bright indoor light, the smaller and slower and variable aperture zooms can produce really nice results as well. Whatever works, works.

 

[retinax]

https://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172709
https://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171719
https://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172280
Dear Bill, you're a mod, kindly merge these threads? :angel:

 

[Out to Lunch]

During my working life, I spent many years in places that attracted photojournalists: they all used zooms. Today, I am retired, and almost all the working photographers that I've met use zooms. As an amateur, I like both: the Fuji 2.8/16-55mm and the Zeiss 2.8/28mm are my favorite lenses. Happy New Year! Cheers, OtL

 

[James24]

Wish Nikon would develop an new 20-35.

They did. But they called it a 17-35. 🙂

 

[zuiko85]

Customers wanted zooms, and that is where the bulk of R&D money has been spent. The well worn and well understood primes for 35mm from 21mm to 200mm had already reached at least ‘good enough’ when the optical designers, with the newfound glass formulas and the help of computers turned their attention to bettering zoom lens performance.
Not that primes have not improved, they may have, but incrementally. Zooms however have had a much greater leap in quality in the same time period.

Edit; Improvements in lens coating have certainly helped designers get away with many more air-glass interfaces too.

 

[kshapero]

I use primes for serious stuff, artsy stuff and zooms for casual, travel and having fun. I have no idea if this makes any sense but this is what I do.