Any champions of WA zooms?

I usually have a specific use in mind and the few WA zooms I own cannot replace the primes I have.

The posting was not clear as to whether the question was referring to the technical capability of a zoom, or the artistic process of using them. And the answers have covered both areas. Technically, a modern zoom is probably as good as a prime, but rarely as fast. But I have to give the winning vote to the comments about composition. I have the Zuiko 28-48mm and a couple 35-70mm (including the legendary f3.6), and rarely use any of them. You should be viewing the world for the lens(es) you are carrying and look for compositions that work well for that lens. Nothing marks a snapshooter faster that standing in one place, zooming the lens in and out.

It would be very difficult for most people to pick up subtle differences of a prime vs a zoom, for what has already been said that the quality of zooms is now on a par with primes. The wider a zoom is, the more technically challenging it is for designers to correct for aberrations, very especially at the wide angle end (e.g. the Five Aberrations of Siedel). Some aberrations will be corrected beautifully, but within a cost restraint, others must remain; this is true for even the costliest lenses from Nikon and Canon. The better corrected the aberrations are, the more astronomical the cost. Barrel or pincushion distortion is still very common even on expensive ultra-wide to normal zooms, including my non-rectilinear 17-40 Canon.

The best experience, if it is within reach, is to use both types of lens and enjoy the benefits (and attendant drawbacks) of either. If there was a zoom from, say 45mm to 105mm for my 67, I would probably use it, though I the mind's eye tells me such a zoom would be costly and very heavy — as with anything of the MF Pentax stuff. I'm taking my EOS1N and sole 17-40mm zoom with me on a mini-roadie from tomorrow — no prime on it this time. And of course, occupying most of the back seat will be the heavy-hitter Pentax.

I've always thought that something like a 40-120mm f2.8 zoom would be the ideal walkabout lens. I always find 80-200mm (ish) lenses too long, but a 35-70mm isn't quite long enough so you end up lugging two about (or more likely going back to a 28/50/120mm triple as the size and weight is about the same).

Pentax made a K mount 45-125mm but only for three years. It's supposed to be a decent performer and I do keep my eyes open for one at a sane price, it's a bit slow at f4 but that range would cover a lot of shooting.

PentaxBronica said:

I've always thought that something like a 40-120mm f2.8 zoom would be the ideal walkabout lens. I always find 80-200mm (ish) lenses too long, but a 35-70mm isn't quite long enough so you end up lugging two about (or more likely going back to a 28/50/120mm triple as the size and weight is about the same).

Pentax made a K mount 45-125mm but only for three years. It's supposed to be a decent performer and I do keep my eyes open for one at a sane price, it's a bit slow at f4 but that range would cover a lot of shooting.

Click to expand...

They did!? I want one!!
(well, maybe I don't: I do have enough trouble carrying 3 primes about, and so we turn full circle and address the issue of prime weight vs zoom weight... )

thuggins said:

The posting was not clear as to whether the question was referring to the technical capability of a zoom, or the artistic process of using them.

Click to expand...

Tim made a good observation. This post/poll was not clear.

When I voted, I selected “I use them equally/they both inspire me.” However, I ignored the last half of the statement and responded only to the first half. The reason I ignored “they both inspire me” is because using a lens for inspiration is not consistent with my shooting style. Rarely do I select a lens and then search for images to shoot with that lens. Instead, I envision an image and then select a lens to help me capture that image.

I would not have been able to vote if the statement had been based solely on inspiration.

thuggins said:

The posting was not clear as to whether the question was referring to the technical capability of a zoom, or the artistic process of using them. And the answers have covered both areas. Technically, a modern zoom is probably as good as a prime, but rarely as fast. But I have to give the winning vote to the comments about composition. I have the Zuiko 28-48mm and a couple 35-70mm (including the legendary f3.6), and rarely use any of them. You should be viewing the world for the lens(es) you are carrying and look for compositions that work well for that lens. Nothing marks a snapshooter faster that standing in one place, zooming the lens in and out.

Click to expand...

Allow me to quote myself:

jakeblues said:

I understand that zooms make some people into lazy, bad photographers, but this is not what I'm asking about.

I'm asking if anyone uses a zoom lens that probably has used to use primes extensively in the past, knows different focal lengths intimately (and thus knows how different FL's control perspective), has an artistic goal in mind, and primarily uses a zoom lens to accomplish his ideas.

Click to expand...

Poisson Du Jour said:

They did!? I want one!!

Click to expand...

They made it from 1975-77 in the original SMC Pentax series of K mount lenses, it's not particularly common as it would have been pretty expensive and most people would have just bought a 135mm prime to go with their 50/55mm kit lens. It apparently carried on from '77 until '84 with lower-case "smc" rather than "SMC" on the rim, there are also some with and some without an additional focus scale to be used with the matching close-up lens.

I didn't realise that it was one of the lenses which survived after the rest of the K series lenses were withdrawn. There were a small handful, some of which had new finishing rings with "smc Pentax-M" instead of the older SMC Pentax and some of which just got the lower-case smc lettering. I usually try to stick to the original K lenses as they hold their value well and suit my preferred bodies (either a KX, K2, or M series with a winder for balance).

There was an SMC Takumar version too for those using either screw mount bodies or other systems with an adapter.

Ian Grant said:

I use both, while I prefer a prime in some cases a zoom is more practical.

Ian

Click to expand...

In agreement: I find myself "working harder" (i.e. moving around a lot more, exploring different angles, positions, etc.) when using primes. That said, my 80-200 ED Nikkor is always in the Domke.

PentaxBronica said:

They made it from 1975-77 in the original SMC Pentax series of K mount lenses, it's not particularly common as it would have been pretty expensive and most people would have just bought a 135mm prime to go with their 50/55mm kit lens. It apparently carried on from '77 until '84 with lower-case "smc" rather than "SMC" on the rim, there are also some with and some without an additional focus scale to be used with the matching close-up lens.

I didn't realise that it was one of the lenses which survived after the rest of the K series lenses were withdrawn. There were a small handful, some of which had new finishing rings with "smc Pentax-M" instead of the older SMC Pentax and some of which just got the lower-case smc lettering. I usually try to stick to the original K lenses as they hold their value well and suit my preferred bodies (either a KX, K2, or M series with a winder for balance).

There was an SMC Takumar version too for those using either screw mount bodies or other systems with an adapter.

Click to expand...

Most, most educational. And I still want one!!
Actually, it's a long time ago isn't it? I didn't start out in photography until 1979 (with, of all things, a Russian Zenit E, which my dear dad objected most severely to: "bloody communist crap! Take it back and get a refund, now please!". I did that. Came home with an Olympus OM10.)

Most of my favourite cameras are older than I am...

My Dad bought a new K2 in about 1978, I turned up four years later and bought my own K1000 in 1996 or so. Judging by the serial number I think it's probably from about 1979, really doesn't look its age! Still got it, haven't used it for ages (as frankly with KX/K2/MX to pick from when I want something hefty and mechanical why would I?)

The other desirable one from that original series is the 120mm f2.8, if you can find one. Goes from slightly soft wide open to sharp enough for architecture when you get down a couple of stops, thanks to the focal length you can shoot at 1/125 without shake and f2.8 gives you a bright viewfinder to work with. I had mine out today on a black ME with matching winder (the first generation one with six AAs) which fits the hand beautifully.

What I did think about (as I was doing my usual drive to a beauty spot, hop out, take photos) was that if I was trying to get a bit further down the paths than others bother to go I'd want to take a prime just for the reduced weight! To get the same image quality as the K 28mm f3.5 (my first choice for landscapes, very little distortion and sharp as they come) you'd need a pretty special zoom, which invariably means big and heavy.