Over the years are you still a large zoom user?

[Allen Herbert]

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.

[Allen Herbert]

To be honest it looks shit compared to what i have just posted, Sandy.

 

Maybe its my Mac.

[Allen Herbert]

Err not as good.

[Sandy Vongries]

Academic -- we all like what we like.

[Allen Herbert]

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.

[Gary Naka]

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?

[PapaTango]

Most serious photographers use a Mac. I do.

 

Seriously?

 

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:

[Julie H]

Seriously?

 

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:

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?

[PapaTango]

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:

[Julie H]

turdwrasslers

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 am an expert on turdwrasslers.

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.]

[Ed_Ingold]

There is an ancient Nikon zoom lens sitting on my bookshelf, a 43-86 mm. A lot has changed in the last 25 years. Zoom lenses can no longer be considered second class compared to prime lenses. Both have evolved, especially with the mirrorless revolution, to highly corrected, multi-element designs. Emphasis has been placed on minimizing aberrations which are hard to correct in post, such as chromatic aberration, astigmatism and coma. At the same time compromises have been made with regard to distortion. It saves cost and mass to allow 1% to 3% distortion, which (e.g., Sony) can be corrected to less than 0.5% in firmware. Vignetting, not an aberration per se, can be almost perfectly corrected.

 

Where once high quality lenses, such as the Leica Summicron and Zeiss Planar, kept elements to 6 or so, coatings and design have improved to the point that 14 or more elements have the same transmission. With more degrees of freedom, lenses can be designed to minimize internal reflections, hence sun spots and veiling flare. This is especially important with digital sensors, which are flat and highly reflective.

 

The difference in image quality between high quality zoom lenses and comparable prime lenses is subtle at best. Prime lenses tend to be a stop or two faster, but that is more important for subject isolation against a background, rather than light gathering. With ISO ratings through the roof, you can shoot outside in moonlight at f/2.8. This quality comes at a price, with high-end zoom lenses from Sony, Canon and Nikon well into the $2000-$3000 bracket. Still, I can carry three zoom lenses and cover focal lengths from 16 mm to 200 mm at half the cost and weight of the prime lenses they replace.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

[Sandy Vongries]

A lot has changed in the last 25 years

I believe the pre AI 43-86 on my shelf goes back to the mid / late "60's. At the time, though I haven't used it in a couple of decades, it came in handy.

[Rick Helmke]

This has been an interesting discussion and takes me back. I got into the news business my senior year in high school and made quite a few payments on my first F2/MD-2 and two Nikkor lenses.. Money being what it was my 'long' lens was a Sigma 80-200/3.5 macro zoom. I had access to some great glass through the 1000/11 mirror lens but a zoom was what I used most. I lost faith in them along the way but have picked up a couple of 80-200 Nikkors and a 300 recently and am enjoying them all over again. For portraits and such though the 105/2.5 is still superb. There are some things a zoom is never going to do as well. Last but not least is an 85-250 Nikkor KEH nearly gave me a while back. Manual focus and a great big honkin' bunch of steel, aluminum and all glass elements. It is 'hefty' to be sure but there is nothing else delivers images quite like it.

 

Rick H.

[Robin Smith]

24mm/28mm is the weakest focal length for a zoom .

No longer, this is just out of date and I suggest wishful/hopeful thinking from someone who has primes rather than zooms. I have a good recent prime 24mm with IS and it is not better than either my 24-70 or 16-35mm zooms, apart from its nice small size.

[steve_mareno1]

I stopped using zooms many years ago because I just got tired of toting them. If I needed one, I wouldn't mind carrying it, but not simply as a lens to have on a camera when I head out.

 

The zoom vs prime debate will probably go on as long as film vs digital, but I found the quality of the cheap zooms often "good enough", and the IQ of the more expensive (and fast) zooms to be as sharp as most any prime lens. For me, a fast 90 - 105 prime is a good walk around lens for most occasions, and a Leica R 90 Elmarit is affordable and will mount easily to my Nikon w/ an adapter. You really can't beat that lens for bokeh, sharpness and overall IQ, and it is quite compact (although heavy w/ all the steel and glass in it) because the hood slides in and out as needed. You can get in quite close w/ it as well. Not a micro lens, but due to the Leica's high resolution you can often crop your shots and still get a micro-like effect.

[Allen Herbert]

Allen Herbert said....

 

Most serious photographers use a Mac. I do.

 

Seriously?

 

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

 

Paps, they also use a Leica.

 

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? Julie.

 

Paps likes the taste of the bait;) Love him.

 

Its all about the photographer, little else, in the real world..