jack
Senior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by jack on Dec 27, 2012 17:53:31 GMT -5
I think we all realize that prime lenses are sharper (in most cases) and faster than zoom lenses. I have my fair share of both, but I always seem to be using zoom lenses for my picture taking. Zoom lenses fit the way I take pictures, whether it's informal family pics or vacation / travel pics.
What are your thoughts on this subject?
Jack
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Dec 27, 2012 18:30:21 GMT -5
I like Zooms on Digital compacts, great for most shots, but for film cameras nothing beats a prime lens. It is not just the performance, but the size and weight that is against a Zoom. They were after all invented for Movie Camera uses, where the focal lengths were smaller generally, and this keeps down the size small with the very short focal length involved with digital, like 6mm.
All the air to glass surfaces rely on multi coating, and aspheric surfaces etc., to make them work, but it would be better if the range was limited and higher definition and less fringing was offered, but then most members of the general public are not bothered with actual photographic quality, they want convenience, and as big a range as possible.
Mechanically the Zoom adds all sorts of slop and play, destroying the collimation of the lens, but again it does not seem to worry average users much. All the added parts means more to go wrong, and compact zooms do go wrong with monotonous regularity, especially where auto focus is built in to the lens itself, lots to go wrong!
Stephen.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Dec 27, 2012 18:39:52 GMT -5
Despite their drawbacks I much prefer zoom lenses. The weight of a zoom or, indeed, 3 zooms in my camera bag never bothered me. I can frame my pictures exactly as I want without doing a soft shoe shuffle back and forth. I have no qualms about the quality of zooms. I have only rarely enlarged anything beyond 8" x 10". Most of my photography was slides. A 4' x 4' image on a screen is a most impressive sight. I guess I am an "average user". That is just fine with me. I have never aspired to red or blue ribbons. Mickey  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2012 21:46:23 GMT -5
Most of the computer-designed zooms of today are probably sharper that the majority of primes from the film years. The main reason I still occasionally use a prime is to reduce weight and size.
|
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Dec 28, 2012 8:38:15 GMT -5
Yea, zooms it is for me too. Like Mickey says I can frame the way I want especially when there is no way to shuffle around with a prime. Very handy on a trip when you don't want to hold a group up by putzking around. Also like Wayne I use primes yhe odd time to cut down on weight and bulk.
Mind you some of the primes from the old manual focus days are still darn sharp on a DSLR but the same cannot be generally said of the zooms of that era. They just can't run with the modern zoom designs.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 12:06:24 GMT -5
One exception to the film zoom rule is my Kiron 70-210 f/4 in Nikon mount. It produces results with my D300 comparable to any digital zooms. Of course it's manual focus but that's OK.
W.
|
|
jack
Senior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by jack on Dec 28, 2012 13:13:12 GMT -5
Didn't Vivitar contract with Kiron to manufacture the 70's vintage Series 1 lenses? I've never had one myself, but have read glowing reviews of both the manual focus Vivitar Series 1 as well as Kiron prime and zoom lenses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 16:56:52 GMT -5
Kiron did build some of the Vivitar Series I but The Kiron lens has a better build than even the Series I. One of the reasons Kiron couldn't compete was because their lenses cost almost as much as manufacturer lenses--they didn't want to cut corners on quality.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Dec 28, 2012 17:53:43 GMT -5
Didn't Vivitar contract with Kiron to manufacture the 70's vintage Series 1 lenses? I've never had one myself, but have read glowing reviews of both the manual focus Vivitar Series 1 as well as Kiron prime and zoom lenses. I have the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm Macro Focussing Auto Zoom. I have used it extensively on my Canon FTbn and T90 for about 25 years. It is long and relatively heavy but I always felt its weight added to its hand held stability once I learned to brace my arms against my body. When it came out its 'Macro', its 1:2.2, came closer to true macro, which is 1:1, than any lens with its 3x zoom capability then on the market. Other than some slippage of the zoom which was corrected in minutes it has performed flawlessly. Unfortunately it is a Canon FD mount and none of the adapters from FD to any Pentax mount that I have tried were satisfactory. Mickey |
|
|
|
Post by olroy2044 on Dec 28, 2012 19:00:38 GMT -5
Having just recently obtained my first DSLR, my experience with zoom lenses on it is limited. The only "modern" zoom that I have is the 35-70 zoom from my film Rebel. While the results from that lens are acceptable, it is clearly out-stripped by my legacy lenses, including my Tamron AD2 80-210. When prime lenses are mouinted, the gap is even wider.
That being said however, my Tokina built Series 1 70-210 is an excellent performer. Too bad it is Minolta MD mount and not particularly amenable to adapting to other mounts. It does live on one of my SRT202's and is still in regular use.
My favorite lens of all time is my Komine built f3.5 200mm Vivitar prime lens, in M-42 mount. It turns in outstanding results on any camera I hang it on, from my Spot F, to K-mounts, Canon FD, Minolta MD and Canon EF. I don't know if it just my example, but I would pit its results against those from any lens I have ever used. So far, I have used my prime lenses much more than my zooms on the 20D.
Roy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 21:06:47 GMT -5
Roy: I also have the Tokina manual focus 80-200 f/2.8 AT-X lens. Was a lot cheaper than the Nikon f/2.8 zoom and is built like a tank. It's darn near as sharp as the Kiron. I have used it on occasion in front of a Kiron 4-element 2x adapter with good results on the D300 )on a tripod).
The D300 has a mode where I can dial in the specs of a variety of MF lenses--sort of tunes them to the camera, which is nice--one of the main reasons I hang onto it. I used my old D50 more because its lighter and more compact but doesn't have the features of the D300--and less megapixels. The sharpest Nikkor zoom I have is the lowly 18-70mm that was standard issue on the D70. Very sharp. I had one, sold it and almost immediately bought another. It's a really nice length.
W.
|
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Dec 28, 2012 22:54:42 GMT -5
You know there is another area that can effect both primes and zooms from the pre digital era and that has to do with colour fringing. Not all suffer from it but both my 24/2 Kiron and Tamron 300/2.8 af show it quite a bit. I am guessing the more modern coatings are better for digital use. Both lenses are still sharp though.
You want a real eye opener, you should see the performance you can get out of Nikon's latest model 70-200/2.8 coupled with their latest 2X converter. Simply amazing and I'll bet the other makers are right there too. I would bet they at leasr rival shanking the TC201 2X onto an old 180/2.8 ED prime.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Jan 1, 2013 17:05:40 GMT -5
I have the 180 2.8 ED AF and you're right Bob, it does suffer from color fringing. At 2.8 and 4, in some shots, it is almost unusable because it is so bad. I can correct most of it using Lightroom or photoshop but it is still sometimes prevalent.
My experience with lenses is that I also prefer primes most of the time. For various reasons stated before, size and weight being the main two but, sometimes I love to have a zoom for the versatility.
Andy
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Jan 2, 2013 20:57:27 GMT -5
I like zoom lenses on P&S cameras, but I prefer prime lenses on film cameras. Some cameras also had an interesting design "inbetween" ( like an old Minolta AUTO Tele, I have ). You could switch between two prime lenses instead of having a real zoom lens ( 38 mm and 60 mm on this Minolta for example ). Actually an interesting concept, because I would say, people are mostly fine with 38 mm for land-/cityscapes and 60 mm for portraits/close ups on a full frame camera ... for daily life purposes or as a walk around camera. Nobody really needs all the fine graduations inbetween and special purposes need special lenses anyway ... or as I said, a zoom on a P&S can come handy, covering everything from macros to super telephoto ... within certain quality limits of course ... but a large zoom lens on a bulky SLR/DSLR wouldn't be my choice  |
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jan 2, 2013 22:52:28 GMT -5
Berndt,
I have to respectfully disagree with you on almost all points.
I am just too tired to present a rebuttal at present.
Mickey
|
|
