Ah! Photography Journalism

Ah, Photography Journalism! Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of

mine.

<p>

I was reading an article in Shutterbug. It was the July issue. It

was by Joseph A. Dickerson and titled Format Selection, Bigger

is Better�Or Is It? Speaking of 35 mm zoom lenses he says

[p80], "Are they as sharp as fixed focal length lenses? Probably

not. But today�s zoom lenses are so good that the difference is

negligible, unless of course you�re trying to compare 35mm

images with 4 x 5 images".

<p>

It hasn�t been my experience. The one I have used most lately is

the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF. It may not be the best zoom in

the world [i have no way of knowing] but it isn�t all that cheap. It

does a good job but doesn�t compare with Nikon or Leica

primes in the same focal length ranges. Even I can tell the

difference.

<p>

Why do they publish this stuff? Of course, the author may be

technically superior to me, in which case I would be wrong. I am

more than willing to accept that possibility. :)

<p>

What is your experience?

<p>

Art

As long as one is shooting color print film (not Velvia, Kodacrome,

nor high-definition B&W), which is how the vast majority of pictures

are made, then he is correct -- the quality of the image is

determined by the film not by the lens, either prime or a high

quality zoom.

Art, I think you may be misunderstanding the sentence "that the

difference is negligble". I use a 35-70 F4 Leica and I can tell the

difference between it and my primes, as you can with your

Nikkor. But are you going to buy a print of mine (I sell through a

local gallery) ?:-). Probably not. Am I going to buy a print of

yours? I doubt it. I've found that the only people who notice

these differences are other photogs. I think what authors like Mr.

Dickerson mean is that to the buyer, whether it be a fine art buyer

or a newspaper, that the difference is not really noticeable

enough to make a difference.

Thanks Bill:

<p>

<b> As long as one is shooting color print film (not Velvia,

Kodacrome, nor high-definition B&W), which is how the vast

majority of pictures are made, then he is correct</b>

<p>

I would think that a good jounalist would have added those

qualifiers if that is what he meant. He didn't add them. I have no

idea what the reference to 4 x 5 meant.

<p>

Art

I would even argue with that statement, about film resolution as the

determining factor. In Shutterbugs own report, this month, of high

speed color films, the few resolution figures they quote are in

excess of what many/most lenses deliver. I think more to the point is

to not believe what you read in Shutterbug--I don't even glance at

their digital column anymore, so filled is it with dumb errors.

Bob:

<p>

<b> I think what authors like Mr. Dickerson mean is that to the

buyer, whether it be a fine art buyer or a newspaper, that the

difference is not really noticeable enough to make a difference.

</b>

<p>

You could well be correct. My peeve is that isn't what he said. It is

common in these kind of articles. I think that he should have

been more accurate in his presentation. As I said, it is my peeve;

just like I don't like lenses with focusing tabs. Another personal

peeve not shared by others here. <FONT COLOR="red">

:)</FONT>

<p>

Art

Art, this is a pet peeve of mine. The whole purpose of

photography (in my mind) is to end up with worthwhile

photographs (which are going to be different for different people),

and to this end some writers write with this is mind. There are

lots of articles for all the techies that worry that this lens has

.0000005 less lpm resolution than that lens, or that this camera

records at 3.25 million pixels, whereas that one does 3.3.

I have kind of a funny feeling, going by all the slightly fuzzy

photos, many of them famous that Bresson (for example) took,

that he really didn't give a good gosh darn ;-) if he was using the

highest resolution lens at his disposal. Sometimes I actually

want to hear a writers personal, gut feeling instead of a recitation

of MTF graphs.

Bob:

<p>

I agree with you. My point had to do with accurate journalism. I

guess that is an oxymoron. <b> <FONT COLOR="red">

:)</FONT> </b>

<p>

Art

Ok, all that can be so subjective, quality of zooms vs. primes vs.

4x5, when I think in the reasons I use a leica rangefinder, it is not

it´s lens sharpness (I shoot Tri-X), things I like of my leicas are:

compactness, lens speed, finders, ergonomics, weigth, image roundes,

flare control capabilities of lenses, durability, able to be repair;

so if they make a SLR zoom to be 10000000000% sharper than my

summicrons, I´m still with my leicas. By the way what oxymoron and

pet pevee mean?

> unless of course you�re trying to compare 35mm

images with 4 x 5 images".

<p>

I suspect what he meant to imply was that differences between zoom and non-zoom lenses would perhaps be significant if the photos were enlarged to the same _size_ that many large-format photos are enlarged to, say, 16x20.

<p>

Unfortunately that's not what he wrote, so we're left to guess.

Actually, my experience with Nikon is that my 17-35 2.8 AFS was every

bit as good as the fixed 20 and 24 and significantly better than the

35. However, I agree that my 35-70 2.8 never quite met the mark of my

fixed 50, and nor was the 80-200 2.8 AFS nearly as sharp as the fixed

85 or 180.

<p>

At any rate, I'd be willing to bet that Joe Dickerson doesn't even

shoot a full roll of film a month... I once knew a writer for an

outdoor sporting magazine, way back when I sold sporting goods. He

often wrote these incredible product reviews for new outdoor

products. I remeber this one article where he gave this newly

designed tent a stellar review -- I mean if you read the review, you

wanted to run out and buy this tent even if you didn't need a tent.

Anyway, a month or so later I saw the tent he reviewed sitting in his

study -- It was still packed in the original factory-sealed box -- he

had never even opened it up! I asked him about it and he said

something to the effect of, "I don't get paid to trash our

advertiser's products. If I tested it and said I didn't like it for

whatever reason, I'd never get any other free stuff to test and might

be out of a job."

<p>

What is it they say in Misouri besides "Show me!"??? Something

like "Believe none of what you read, little of what you hear, and

only half of what see with your own two eyes!"

<p>

Cheers,

Personally, I don't put much weight to anything published in

Shutterbug (especially "articles"). The only reason to buy it is if

you're looking for used gear.

Jack:

<p>

It is actually Missouri. <b> <FONT COLOR="red"> :)</FONT>

</b>

<p>

No Offense taken.

<p>

Art

In the words of Dan Quail, "... and I'm a world-class speller!"

<p>

Sorry!

Comparing zoom with primes has to be specific, and you must know what

is the strength and weakness of your zoom and prime. Is every one

knows his zoom that well ? What is its best performance focal

length ? what is its best aperture ? What is the best aperture for

prime ?

<p> Some of the current zoom lenses, at its best focal length and

aperture, beat out many primes at their best.

Roberto:

<p>

I'll take a stab at these since nobody else has...

<p>

Pet Peeve = A regular happening that irritates you or tics you off.

<p>

Oxymoron = a humorous or witty combination of contradictory words,

such as "government intelligence" or "inexpensive Leica" :-)))

Martin:

<p>

You are probably correct, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of a

zoom. <b> <FONT COLOR="blue"> :)</FONT> </b>

<p>

But this is an aside. My original point had to do with these

articles. It seems that they are paid for a certain number of

words. Doesn't seem to make much difference what the words

are. Only the number counts.

<p>

<b> <FONT COLOR="red"> End of Rant; for good.</FONT> </b>

<p>

Art

Yes there is a current feeling promulgated by most photo magazines

that somehow lenses are simply a question of taste - they are all

good. Magazine promote this idea all the time. A recent review in

Amateur Photographer "tested" the Tamron 28-200. One part of the

review said that it produced "acceptable 8 x 10", but later on it said

that is all you wanted were 5 x 7s then it would be fine. One is left

to wonder what is meant. By not being at all precise the review is

rather useless, but I suppose it does not offend Tamron. However, I

would love to know what "acceptable" really means in the context of a

consumer photo magazine - I suspect many of us here would say "lousy".

<p>

Whilst I am willing to accept that a photo is an individual thing and

that few consumers care what lens made the shot - the real thing is

comparisons. A shot taken on a Tamron may be acceptable but comparing

it to the same shot taken with a 35mm Asph it should appear pretty

poor - once one sees this the Tamron ends up on the scrap heap.