Over the years are you still a large zoom user?

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by RaymondC, Sep 27, 2017.

  1. "Sorry Allen, Very pat, but not very credible, and a bit "one size fits all."

    Okay, a few thoughts..

    Jack of all trades but a master of non. Unless you spend serious money on a zoom it will be always inferior to a prime lens...simple physics.

    I was thinking of street photography and the zoom gives that far away look..
  2. 24mm/28mm is the weakest focal length for a zoom .

    Primes will always do better at any focal length.
  3. Its a case of convenience verses quality.

    Make your own call.
  4. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    You are right, except that with quality zooms and decent technique the differences are largely academic. Certainly, on a car trip, I could take all of my primes in a couple of large hard cases. It is much handier to take two camera bodies, a fast 50 and three zooms in a manageable ready to use camera bag.
  5. Of course the real quality is in the photograph regardless of lens or camera.

    But we all know that.
    Sandy Vongries likes this.
  6. "and decent technique the differences are largely academic"

    When I mess around in P/S to get the look...lens and camera matters very little.

    Put a zoom photo next to a Leica/Zeiss/Fuji prime lens and you will undestand.
  7. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    From lens to lens, from monitor to monitor what we see varies, and is, I suspect subjective. Certainly we all have our favorite tools. Wouldn't it be interesting to have a "Monitor Standard" so at least we all started at the same point. ;-)
  8. Massive different. post.jpg
  9. "Monitor Standard" so at least we all started at the same point. ;-)


    Most serious photographers use a Mac. I do.
  10. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    Though I prefer my 105 2.8 Micro Nikkor for flowers (a specialty pursuit to me) this just a good Nikon Zoom
    DSC_7802 (1000x666).jpg
  11. We can all live in the fantasy our zoom is just as good as a quality prime lens. Dream on.
    "Lord of The Rings" is my favorite.
  12. To be honest it looks *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* compared to what i have just posted, Sandy.

    Maybe its my Mac.
  13. Err not as good.
  14. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    Academic -- we all like what we like.
  15. Come on Sandy

    We are just looking at the quality of the lens not artisic endeavor.

    Its out of focus and looks gaudy.

    I sort of don't want to post this critic...you are happy with your photo ,and if anyone does not like it, they can go and take a hike. .

    I agree.
  16. Convenience with reasonable quality (for the intended purpose) at an affordable price and at a reasonable weight.
    Everything in life is a compromise.

    As a senior citizen, I no longer want to nor can carry the kind of weight that I used to carry when I was in college. Hence I have had to compromise down in terms of what gear I put into a kit. No more multiple heavy pro lenses, no multiple prime lenses, and heavy pro bodies. I have had to compromise down to prosumer or consumer grade gear, to get the weight down to what want to and can handle.

    I almost bought a Nikon 80-200/2.8 zoom, but decided that the weight of the lens was just too much for me to handle for any significant length of time. And it would end up sitting unused or very little used. If I were 15 years younger, I would have bought the lens.

    I use a 18-140 zoom on my D7200 (a DX/crop sensor camera). It is NOT a pro grade lens, but it is good enough for me and my parameters. The kit is in fact, a bit heavy, at the upper end of what I want to handle. Yes I would love a FX body and pro lens, but I do not want to carry the weight. Because a HEAVY kit would end up sitting at home, largely unused. In fact, just for curiosity, I did some research, and a D750 (FX body) + 24-120 lens is about a 35% weight increase over my D7200 + 18-140 lens.
    In fact I am looking in the other direction, at the even lighter D3400 + 18-55 lens for a 40% weight reduction, over my current D7200 + 18-140. I intend to use the D3400 as a lighter "tweener" camera, when I don't want to haul out the heavier D7200 kit. This is something that I had never thought I would do, but now I am seriously considering it. Getting old sucks, but that is life. At least I can still get out and shoot.

    I had a discussion with a student at the school that I help at. If you cannot see the difference, then it does not matter.
    When the image in the yearbook is only 2x3 or 3x4 inches, a 40MP camera with PRO quality glass (prime or zoom), will not give any practical improvement over an old 6MP mid level consumer camera and zoom. The small final image size and the yearbook printing process limits the quality of the printed image on the page and what you can see.
    On the other hand, if she were printing 16x20 or larger for a gallery exhibition, the parameters change, and she would want more quality, because there you can see the difference.

    So, bottom line is, is the lens and camera, good enough for the intended purpose and parameters?
  17. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher


    I love hasty generalizations pulled out from one's backside... :p

    Time for me to shuffle off now. Not being a 'serious photographer' I should take up lurking until I learn the right way to do all of this and earn the right to sit at the table with the adults--you know--the ones with the Macs... :rolleyes:
  18. PapaTango!

    Allen likes to fish with one of those lures that is big as your fist, has at least fifteen multi-hooks dangling at all angles, along with several shiny spoons and a few feathers for good measure. Even a fish has the sense to realize that this thing is not going to be the source of good nutrition (such lures are designed to catch noob fishermen at the store, not fish in the water).

    So why are you taking the bait?
  19. PapaTango

    PapaTango Itinerant Philosopher

    Julie, that is known as a 'trot line', and is often used with liver or cheese balls to dredge up things like catfish. It works because catfish are bottom dwellers, feasting on the detritus that falls into the mud. This includes fecal droppings from themselves and other fish. This is why some people will not eat them--and aptly call them 'turdwrasslers.'

    I have been fishing with trot lines since I was 6 or so--under the Wolf Covered Bridge on the Spoon River outside of Yates City, Illinois. Might say I am an expert on turdwrasslers. If they get too frisky when you pull the line up, a crack or two in the head with a short piece of pipe settles them right down... :cool:
  20. I learn so much from these forums! Now that is nutritious.

    I'm not going to venture into what your explanation means for my analogy re your role therein.

    I already knew that. And very handy to have in residence. :)

    [I almost used that green smiley, but I'm not quite there yet. Still sticking with your basic yellow.]

Share This Page