Minolta Primes vs. Zoom

Hello all,

 

I just bought a XTSI with a 28-80 minolta zoom. From all I've read, I should have

gone with a prime lens to start, like the 50/1.7.

 

Now I have to convince the wife that we should sell our new lens, which she sees as

more versatile, to get several more lenses that will be a burden to carry.

 

Could someone please articulate for her and I the real benefits of getting a couple

really good primes instead of our basic zoom?

 

Thanks,

John

If you are happy with the present lens's results, then stand pat. If, for some reason, the results are not what you'd expect, THEN I'd suggest going the Primes route. It's quite possible that for your needs, your wife's assessment is correct. But I'm sure that you don't want to tell her that. Primes are generally slightly sharper, and contrastier, with less distortion than zooms. They are also noticeably (like 2 f-stops) faster. But if YOUR zoom is not presenting you with results that are inadequate for your needs, then the versatility of such a lens makes it a better choice for YOU.

It all depends on what subjects you intend to photograph and how big you intend the final prints to be.

 

I think the quality of the 28-80 zoom is not going to be on a par with the quality of the 50mm prime lens but that does not mean you will notice a significant difference in the prints produced. A significant difference is only going to be evident if you take your pictures with a tripod mounted camera and print them at 10 x 8 inch or greater. It also depends on the subject, being able to frame a shot from 28mm to 80mm is more likely to get you a good picture than shooting at 50mm and having to crop the end result or leaving out foreground detail that the 28mm could have captured.

 

I would stick with the 28 to 80 zoom and then when you know what sort of pictures you take with this camera, maybe invest in a good quality prime, but by then you will know whether you need say a 24mm because you shoot everything wide angle, or a 100mm plus because you shoot everything at the telephoto end.

That should have said "invest in an additional" lens.

 

Keep the zoom as a general purpose lems.

Hello again,

<br/>

<br/><b>Thanks for the advice!</b> Still more questions though...

<br/>

<br/>What is the <i>tangible</i> benefit of having a faster lens? What specific

situations will having a lens that is 2 f-stops faster allow me to shoot that I wouldn't

otherwise?

<br/>

<br/>Also, how dramatic is the difference between 28mm, 24mm, and 20mm lenses?

I find myself enjoying wide angle photos the most, and would like to go wider than

28mm. Has anyone seen examples online that show the difference perspectives of

these lenses?

<br/>

<br/>Thanks, John

It sounds as if the 28-80 zoom is a much better choice for you than the 50mm if you like wide angle shots.

 

Whether 2 stops makes a big difference depends on what you shoot. If you like to shoot landscapes with the camera mounted on a tripod then a faster lens won't make a lot of difference. If you shoot ambient light with a handheld camera, then it could make the difference between getting a good photo at 1/60 sec and a not quite so good photo at 1/15 sec, with the lens wide open. A faster lens is also of benefit when shooting with a flash, goes that little bit further. Having said all that, the biggest difference with having a faster lens comes when using a telephoto because you need to use much faster shutter speeds than with a wide angle.

 

The difference between a 28 mm and a 24 mm as a very rough guide is the same as the difference between 28mm and 35mm which you can check using your zoom, ie not a lot but enough to make it worth having if you like wide angle shots. Anything wider than 24mm, then you are talking very expensive. Best way to see the difference is to go down to the local camera store and do a comparison.

 

If you can return the 28 to 80mm zoom since its new, you might consider a 24 - 85 (I think this might be discontinued) or a 24 - 105 which replaces it, these are not too far behind the primes in sharpness. They are not cheap though (quality is significantly higher than the 28-80 bundled with cameras though)- check a few prices.

The differences between wide angles gets greater the wider you get, (ie the difference between a 50mm or 55mm is almost nothing, but between a 24m and 28mm is quite a bit.) The only way really to tell what you like is to try them out. I prefer a 24 over a 28, but sometimes 24 is too wide (glad I have the 24-105). My favorite lens I own is my Minolta 20mm, but I don't shoot it very often because it usually too wide, but with the right subject it can't be beat.

It depends on where you are willing to make sacrifices -- Minolta's 28-80 zoom is

quite the consumer model, meaning its quality isn't that hot. If this doesn't bother

you, and you never find yourself needing the speed of a 1.7 lens, then I wouldn't

bother switching.

 

I like zooms. I think they're much more versatile, and thus I make use of them more

often. I have Minolta's 50mm f1.4, which is an excellent lens, but all I ever use it for is

macro work. I find that Minolta's 24-105 is what's stuck to my lens 95% of the time.

(Sigma's 50-500 is there that last 4%)

 

However, 24-105 will cost a little more than twice your camera, but it is what makes

the pictures, not your camera. : ) (by the way, the results with that lens are absolutely

superb.)