Zoom Zoom...

Okay, I see a lot of references to "crappy zoom" lenses throughout

this sight. Yet, I also read a number of positive remarks regarding

various zooms. And, this difference of opinion isn't allocated to a

particular brand either--some Minolta zooms seem to be frowned upon

along with third party brands. But, again, the same number and

variety of brands are lauded by photographers.

 

So, what constitutes a "crappy zoom"? Is it simply a small maximum

aperture frequently associated with camera kits? Or are there other

elements to look out for? I'm asking because I have no experience

with zoom lenses, and would like to gain some knowledge about them

before considering a purchase. (I'm talking about AF, Maxxum-style

zooms here.)

Thanks a lot.

A lens is 'good' when it delivers pictures of the quality you expect and want. A lens is 'crappy' when it doesn't do that.

 

Come to think of it, I never had a single prime lens that that didn't fall in the first category, save for some that were very old and clearly faulty, such as full of fungus or lots of oil smeared over the inner lens elements.

 

Regarding zoom lenses, I had mixed experiences. My first zoom was a Minolta MD 75-200mm 4.5, which I purchased new in the mid 80's, still have, and still consider to be awesome. My next zoom was a Minolta MD 35-70mm 3.5-4.8. That one was the worst lens I ever had. Even 4x6 prints were noticably unsharp, especially when the lens was used near close focus, which I did a lot. Another disappointment was Minolta's AF 24-85mm 3.5-4.5. I could never get scans of pictures I took with this lens to look as sharp as the ones I took with my other lenses. Other zooms I have been happy with are a Sigma 35-105mm 3.5-4.5, a Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm 2.8-3.5, a Minolta MD 28-85mm 3.5-4.5, a Tokina RMC 25-50mm f4, a very old Tokina 100-300mm f5 (up to here all Minolta manual focus mount), and the brand new Canon 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 kit zoom lens on my brother's Digital Rebel.

 

In a nutshell, there is no easy way of telling a crappy zoom lens from a good one, unless you are familiar with the particular model of lens in question. Even if you do, sample variation might play a role, but if you ask here about lenses you are interested in, people might be able to give you an idea.

I get the impression that it's become fashionable to dismiss all zoom lenses as "crappy".

 

I am quite certain that many of those who post this opinion are entirely sincere; and of those, there are doubtless some who really have good reason to believe this is true -but I strongly suspect a significant percentage of these naysayers are simply repeating what they've heard.

 

There is so much variability in quality between lenses -even between two theoretically identical lenses that differ only in serial number- that it's far too much of a generalization to say that you will always get better pictures with a prime than a zoom.

 

Again, I'm sure that this view is not without basis, but it is my opinion that the whole zoom-bashing thing is overdone.

 

When I shoot 35mm, I want convenience. That means a zoom. (Well, okay, three: 19-35, 28-105, and 80-400. Which all fit into my modestly sized camera bag and can be carried) If I really want sharpness and detail, I'm going to use my MF or LF equipment.

 

I find epinions.com and photographyreview.com, in addition to this website, to be good sources for review info.

It's hard to come up with general rules for what zooms are good and what aren't. Search here and look at the lens performance surveys at photozone.de.

 

In terms of Minolta AF (Maxxum) "standard" zooms, Minolta's 24-85 f/3.5-4.5, 24-105 f/3.5-4.5, 28-70 f/2.8, 28-85 f/3.5-4.5, 28-135 f/4-4.5, and 35-70 f/4 are all generally well-regarded, and the various 28-80's and 35-80's (and according to some, the 35-70 f/3.5-4.5) are not well regarded. Every lens has strenghts and weaknesses.

 

As to general rules, sharpness, low distortion, reasonably large maximum aperture, large zoom range, small size/weight, and low price cannot all be had together. Very few if any Minolta (or Canon or Nikon) "pro" zooms (typically constant f/2.8) are not at least good; very few of the relatively recent "kit" zooms (typically 28- or 35- to 80, 90, or 100) that come with the camera body are good. And then there is a large range in the middle.

<P>When zoom lenses were first introduced for still cameras, there were some really bad examples put on the market. They had vignetting, ghosting, severe flare and general unsharpness. This gave all zooms a bad reputation which they have had to fight. They still get the blame for bad photos in many cases where it's the photographer at fault.</P><P>Most zoom lenses are complex, with many elements, so assembly and alignment is very intricate, and there may be scope for a good deal of variation in quality from one example to another. Thus some zooms carry a bad reputation though there are many users who find them perfectly satisfactory. I suppose what this all boils down to is, you have to try before you buy. If the results are good, the lens is good.</P>

The fact of the matter is that when you are working in cramped

quarters, e.g. a wedding, it's usually better to get a well-framed

shot than an ultimate-sharp shot. Nowadays there are many great

zoom lenses that perform nearly as well as primes. The Minolta

24-50/4 AF is one of them, as is (probably, I don't own one yet)

the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di.