Zoom vs. Prime (Scorn magnet!!!)

I've been exposing myself to photography for about 3 years now. I

still cosider that I have a lot to learn. ... I still consider myself

a newbie. I will always seek to lean more about photography. ... I

will always consider myself a newbie. I would like to thank the

posters in this forum for all I have learned and much I have yet to

learn.

 

Down to the point.

Zoom vs. Prime lenses.

I've read many posts in regards to this subject. All have heaped

scorn on zoom lenses. Some of these posts have included pictures that

were not much help due image translation issues due to posting on the

internet. I have taken many photographs with a zoom lens I consider

quite good. Almost all the photographs that came out screwed up I've

traced to errors encompassed by my camera strap.

I want to show myself the problems with zoom lenses. I have a Minolta

SRT with a 50mm and 200mm prime as well as 28-105mm and a 70mm-200mm

zoom lenses. I want suggestions as to what subjects and contitions I

should use to best demonstrate the reported probles with zoom lenses.

High-end zoom lenses are the equal of corresponding prime lenses in sharpness and distortion, but are expensive. They are designed for performance, with little regard to cost (or weight). Consumer-grade zoom lenses are convenient to carry and use, but somewhat less sharp and with considerably more distortion than corresponding prime lenses. You get what you pay for.

Primes are less expensive than their counterpart in zooms. How so you ask? A 2.8f prime lens costs a lot less than a zoom 2.8f with the same coverage. I started with the cheap primes, then moved to the expensive zooms.<br>

<br>

You won't find consumer level zooms with 2.8f. Maybe that's why there's so much scorn. Only pro-lenses get that fast.<br>

<br>

If you want to test. Use a tripod and a shutter release with mirror lockup. Take pictures with vertical lines. Look in the corners.<br>

<br>

Also, try searching for lens testing:<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_ideas/Photo_p001.shtml?from=Home" target="_blank">http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_ideas/Photo_p001.shtml?from=Home</a><br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.rickdenney.com/mother_lens_test.htm" target="_blank">http://www.rickdenney.com/mother_lens_test.htm</a><br>

"All have heaped scorn on zoom lenses."

 

Well, understand that a lens is a really precise system with a huge variety of uses and

compromises. Zooms are more complicated, and so are harder and / or more expensive

to build. What's the cliche, "light, cheap, and fast - pick any two!"

 

That said I really like my Canon 20-35 and 28-135 zooms. I have used and sold many

others, and only have primes besides. With my R-D1, the Cosina Voigtlander wide primes

beat all the Canon ones I have used, and the medium and longish lenses are roughly on

par, however the often cheaper Cosina Voigtlander lenses I have are built and perform as

well or better than Canon L lenses.

I asked a similar question while looking at Nikon lenses in the old Ken Hansen shop. The salesman pointed out that the zoom I was holding covered the focal lengths of four prime lenses. He noted that Nikon made a zoom that costs roughly the same as <em> one </em> of the four lenses it replaced, and it made a zoom that costs roughly the same as the <em> sum </em> of the four lenses it replaced. He wanted to know which zoom was I talking about...

<i>I've been exposing myself to photography for about 3 years now.</i>

<p>

What you do in your own home is your business, but please don't post the results here.

<p>

Expensive zooms are fine. Their limitations relative to primes are mainly more flare shooting into light, and sometimes higher distortion shooting straight lines. Cheap zooms can give lower contrast and less sharpness than primes, though you may have to be discriminating to see it. You won't in 4x6 prints.

<p>

If the difference doesn't show up in the work you do, why do you care?

It depends on the lens and camera system. For example, in Olympus I use primes only; in Canon, a combination of zooms and primes.

 

Even the expensive top of the line zooms cannot compete with a fast prime.

Pretty much what's already been said. Personally, I use primes for several reasons. The primes I use most often are as fast or faster than the f/2.8 of the fastest and most expensive zoom lenses. I'm too cheap to spring for an f/2.8 constant aperture zoom lens. Consumer grade zoom lenses are just too slow for the lighting conditions I'm often forced to work with. Barrel and pincushion distortion are also issues with these lesser grade zooms if you tend to print nearly full frame.

 

Those issues aside, I still believe that a top quality prime lens will deliver a better image than an equivalent zoom lens and I ran a test to find out if this was true. I made the same set of photographs with the same tripod mounted camera body with the same exposure on the same roll of Ilford FP4+ using a borrowed Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S lens (set at 50mm) and my own 50mm f/1.8 AI Nikkor. The film was developed in XTOL 1+3 for 15 minutes at 68 deg. F. At first glance, there were no glaring differences between the two sets of photographs. Both sets of images were extremely sharp with very good definition of fine details. Only when I examined the shadow areas very closely did I notice any real difference. Darn it all if the cheap prime lens didn't deliver more density in the shadow areas of the film. The extra shadow detail carried over onto the final print as well, telling me that there is indeed a substantial difference.

The scorn is heaped on consumer grade zooms.<p>For those who have never used a constant aperture zoom made by Cano-Nikon-Pentax-etc., you've simply denied yourself the plessure of shooting excellent lenses, superior optics and quality build.<br> Constant aperture zooms kick much butt and within the same zoom range, are only "slower" (<i>by fractions of stop</i>) than a similar range "pro" (f/2.8) zoom, and at 1/3rd the used or new price.<br>There is little quality difference today between an f/4 or f/3.5 constant aperture zoom and its "pro" kin.

The biggest problem with zoom lenses is that they have distortion at both ends of the range. Only in the middle are they sharp. To get a zoom to use only on the middle range seems to be self defeating to me. I have a sigma 28-80 which I got mostly for the macro capability. I also have a canon 75-300 which I am gradually replacing with prime lenses. I bought the two zooms because my wallet prevented me starting with a bunch of primes.I have used quite a few of the russian ( Ukranian ) lenses and some of them are quite good, fast, and sharp.

Michael :P