Zooms or primes

Primes give better quality,but is the loss of marginal image quality

against zooms worth bothering with them.

It depends.

On what!

on you

Take a look <a href="http://www.axelf.com/Superwides">here</a>.

And <a href=http://www.vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten-lens.htm>here</a>.

Nikon zooms were considered abit poor until the 80 to 200mm F2.8 arrived. Those who have ever used an early 1960's 43 to 86mm zoom will second my statement.

Despite having an L zoom and a surprisingly good Tokina 28-70 2.8 lens I got cheap, I use my 50mm 1.4 a lot, as well as my 100 2.8 macro. And that's just in EOS. I only have primes for my Nikon, and I love it dearly.

 

Its horses for courses, if you need the speed, a prime will be the best option; if you need a specialty lens like a good macro, a prime will be better. If you need a versatile lens that u plan to use either with flash or in bright light or on a tripod, zooms can have their advantages. Primes are also smaller, lighter and simpler. Fewer optical elements mean less flare etc, and they eat up less light.

<I>Is it worth bothering with them?</I>

 

<p>I think the question should have read: "Given the size, weight, small maximum apertures, cost, softness and lack of clarity of zooms, is it worth bothering with them?". For me, in most cases, the answer is no, unless I'm extremely pressed for time (such as in a wedding).

<i>Nikon zooms were considered abit poor until the 80 to 200mm F2.8 arrived.</i><br>

Rubbish. Nikkor zooms have, on average, always been as good or better than any of their competitors.

<p>

<i>Those who have ever used an early 1960's 43 to 86mm zoom will second my statement.</i><br>

Trotting out this 1962 design, without question the poorest Nikkor zoom ever, but also one of the first, if not the first, production "wide angle-tele" zooms for 35mm cameras, is hardly representative of all pre-80-200/2.8 zooms.

<p>

Great Nikkor zooms that predated the 80-200/2.8:<br>

35-70/3.5<br>

50-300/4.5<br>

75-150/3.5<br>

80-200/4.5<br>

...among others.

The 43-86 f/3.5 was re-designed in 1975, a decent performer, but an out of date range. Lens was discontinued to be replaced by 35-105 zoom in 1981.

Many of the new 28/35mm-70/80mm zooms are ASPH etc.do these extra features not bring the quality near to primes.I have never tried them but i would imagine the gap is closing.

Sure, zooms are better now. Some of them are even up to "as good", given certain caveats.

 

In almost no case will a zoom have the same or lower linear distortion than the equivalent quality prime. In almost no case will a zoom have the same or lower flare than the equivalent quality prime. If you find an exception to either of these you've found a particularly excellent zoom and a particularly poor prime.

 

Since both linear distortion and flare bug the heck out of me, and would show up prominently in much of my work, zooms are very much a mixed blessing for me. I use 'em when I need to, and use primes when I can.

 

There is a LOT more to lens quality then simply resolution. It's those other areas zooms have the most trouble with. TANSTAAFL

It all depends on what you will be shooting, and whether you care about any imperfections.

 

My compositions tend to have many horizontal and vertical elements. If I shoot such compositions with (for example) the zoom on a Coolpix 990, which has noticeable barrel/pincushion distortion at the wide and tele ends, I get annoyed. On the other hand, shooting with that same camera/lens at things that do not have horizontal/vertical lines gives very good results.

 

Flare? It matters if you'll be shooting against bright light sources. I normally don't do that, so I don't care.

 

Don't worry about the lens wars. Just go out and take pictures.

Good Nikon zooms do not include those on their coolpix cameras. One reason why the coolpix line is not taking the world by storm.

After the competent, but not outstanding, little 28-80 zoom that came with my N80 broke earlier this year, I researched zoom replacements and made the decision to stick with primes until I was ready to put out the cash for the 28-70 f2.8.

 

I typically travel with my 20, 50 and 70-300. But, I recently started to question if the constant changing of lenses (maybe 30-40 times a day when I'm on the road) isn't going to end up being very costly in terms of the stress put on the camera and lens' mounts.