Which lenses did you use with your 35mm film cameras?

[ann_overland]

<p>Lex, thank you!</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Zooms in general are much better now than in the film-only days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anyone with half a brain who has made over 1500 posts should be able to use the search engine and read any one of a billion primes vs zooms threads and get this information for themselves.</p>

<p><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00Ym8Y?start=10">modern zooms are very good, to the extent where the alleged superiority of primes may not be evident</a></p>

<p><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00ZLM5">Many modern zooms are better than the primes in their range.</a></p>

<p><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bDYa?start=10">If you shoot the same cameras with high end, modern zooms, the results will also be excellent.</a></p>

<p><a href="/pentax-camera-forum/00AMhk">I've tried a vast number of all kinds of lens brands just for the fun of it.The fact is that older prime lenses are generally low in contrast compared to modern primes OR zooms</a></p>

<p><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00BWMM"><em>whats the modern thinking on prime lenses vs. zoom? specifically wide angle lenses. example: 17-35 2.8 17, 18, 20 prime...</em></a><br /> <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00BWMM">I am sure that the new crop of f/2.8 zooms are every bit as sharp as the prime lenses that they replicate</a></p>

<p><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00b34n?start=10">Back in the 1970's and 1980's, you might need primes to get excellent qulity. Today's zooms are very good now.</a></p>

<p><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00b34n?start=10">I agree with Shun that a modern zoom will probably equal the IQ of most available primes at like apertures, and be slightly more versatile and cost-effective.</a></p>

<p>Ten minutes on the forum search engine. I didn't stop quoting because I ran out of quotes. There were dozens more. I stopped because it got nauseating reading the same question over and over again and reading the same answer over and over again.</p>

<p>There is nothing in this thread that hasn't been stated multiple times elsewhere in the forum in a much more indepth and useful manner. I can't for the life of me figure out what the point is.</p>

<p>On a certain level I feel like we are the subjects of a psychological experiment. Perhaps to see how many questions we will answer. Even the way the question is phrased makes me think the person knew what the answer was prior to asking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Those of you that have been using zoom lenses both on film and digital, are the zoom lenses much better today, or were they just as good back in the film days?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I mean why even ask that? Most neophytes simply asks why get a prime vs a zoom. The question asked here is so specific and the answer so predictable (and easily found) I just have to wonder why it was asked.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>I didn't ask about zooms versus primes, Jeff. Lex gave me very good help and answered my question.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>I didn't ask about zooms versus primes, Jeff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ann, that is obviously immaterial. Every single one of those quotes has two words in it "modern zoom." Obviously there is a reason for that and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why. And for the slow witted this quote spells everything out.</p>

<p><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00b34n?start=10" rel="nofollow">Back in the 1970's and 1980's, you might need primes to get excellent qulity. Today's zooms are very good now.</a></p>

<p>In your time here making over 1500 posts you mean to say you NEVER came across a thread discussing the improvement in zoom lenses over the years?! Not even when you used the search engine?</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>I didn't ask about zooms versus primes, Jeff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry I didn't have time to add this to my previous post but I have never met anyone who asks about modern zooms vs old zooms in isolation. That would be a very odd question. What thought process would even lead someone to ask a question like that?!</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>You don't understand my question, Jeff. Just let it go. Lex understood the question. I got a very good answer from him.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>You are in a thread about 35mm analog film cameras and lenses, Jeff.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>You are in a thread about 35mm analog film cameras and lenses, Jeff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No Ann. <strong>They are called lenses. They are not "analog film lenses."</strong> Just because someone brought a DSLR to market doesn't mean it transformed all the preexisting lenses into "analog film lenses." That is an artificial and erroneous designation that you made up to prolong this thread. All the lenses I use on my DSLR I use on my 35mm film camera. They are not "analog film lenses."</p>

<p>It's statements like yours that spread misinformation and confuse neophytes trying to figure all this stuff out.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>I did not write analog film lenses, Jeff. You did.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<p>Duplicate</p>

[ann_overland]

<p> </p>

[ann_overland]

<p>I got this zoom lens today, with the OM-10.</p><div></div>

[fred_haeseker]

<p>Among SLRs I like Nikons because they're rugged and the Nikkor lenses are excellent. I use a 24/2.8, a 35/3.5 PC (shift lens), great for urban landscape, a 50/1.4, a 105/2.5 and a 180/2.8. All have their purposes but the 24mm for some reason is a favorite. For street shooting I use a Leica rangefinder with a 35/2 lens, sometimes a 21/4 -- compact, light, inconspicuous and a fast shooter.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>Fred, which Nikon SLR camera do you prefer to use?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

It's the job i've been given, so here goes once again: unless you put them in front of or behind another lens to change what that other lens does, zoom lenses are prime lenses. There therefor is no 'prime vs zoom'.<br>Now, as you were!

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>Ann, I am the original and still owner of a Nikon photomic FTN. During its active years I had a 28-90 F2.8-3.5 Vivitar series I on it most of the time. Worked pretty well for most pictures but was a bit heavy.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>I wonder if you all had to use tripods more often when shooting film at ISO 100 and 200 and having no VR lenses. How did you all cope with those limitations? I have noticed that the OM-10 I just bough is about ready to jump off the table or out of my hands whenever I fire the shutter. That mirror movement is not exactly subtle!</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

Ann, had the same thought so I checked out when the noise (slap bang) was happening on my yashica FX3. If I used the self timer, the mirror would go up long before the shutter fired and if I braced myself I could take pictures down to 1/15 sec. The Nikon was so heavy that the weight fairly well damped mirror vibrations and camera movement but I rarely tried to go below 1/30 hand held. I think there are charts of camera vibration levels vs shutter opening on the web. Of course being braced is sort of like using a tripod but even in the dark ages we had high speed (Acufine) developer that would give an extra 2-3 stops to B&W film letting the shutter be moved up. Check out your Oly at slow shutter speeds and you may be surprised at its sharpness.

 

Cheers,

Randyc

[duane_creviston]

<p>Nikkor; 35-70 & 70-210 on my 8008 and sometimes a SB 22, and TMax. Still do still use it, with or without my D7000.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>Randy, I was thinking that I have to use the self timer quite a lot, both with and without a tripod.</p>

<p>That is the beauty of it, Duane, that the Nikon film cameras and the Nikon digital cameras share the same lens mount.</p>