the most ubiquitous focal length on the used market

[David Lyga]

von Hoegh: I fully understand and actually agree with you about well structured simplicity. It's just that I avoided zooms for years and years just because of that and a few years ago I was forced to take a couple of zooms as it was part of a deal. I was stunned with the sharpness. And, what is even more amazing to witness is that the build quality of the old zooms was great and the new zooms, which perform far better, are made like plastic throwaways. - David Lyga

 

[Shootar401]

I guess I'm the minority here. I sold off all of my zooms and went back to primes. 28, 50, 135, 200 and 300 to be exact. I haven been happier and I enjoy shooing more. Can't tell you why though.

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

I would rather have the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AI-S than the newest 70-200 VRII version. Neither would be used often but the former would at least make me look and feel like a Terminator, plus It's much better looking too.

The only zoom I have is the Tamron 24-135 f/3.5-5.6, used once in a blue moon with my F100. It's a quite nice lens actually so long as it's not sunny and there is enough light so I can stop it down two stops.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I guess I'm the minority here. I sold off all of my zooms and went back to primes. 28, 50, 135, 200 and 300 to be exact. I haven been happier and I enjoy shooing more. Can't tell you why though.

I can. Zooms suck.

 

[benjiboy]

There's no law that you can't own both primes and zooms, I own both and find zooms invaluable for precisely framing my compositions when shooting slide films, and if you take care and buy some of the better zooms they produce very acceptable results.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

There's no law that you can't own both primes and zooms, I own both and find zooms invaluable for precisely framing my compositions when shooting slide films, and if you take care and buy some of the better zooms they produce very acceptable results.

There's no law saying I have to use zooms, either. See my earlier posts for my reasons.

 

[pen s]

Often, on a casual walk, I'll carry my Olympus Pen F with the 38 f1.8 mounted and stuff the 20 f3.5 and 100 f3.5 in a small case. I actually have the 50~90 f3.5 Zoom for that camera but compared to the 100 it is large and heavy so is left in the camera drawer at home.

Occasionally however I'll see a shot where the 38 is too short, the 100 too long and I cannot back up or go foward to frame what I want. Thats why I keep that zoom around. I'll return with a tripod and the zoom so I can get the framing I want. With a 18X24mm negative you sure don't want to crop to adjust composition.

 

[Karl K]

There are truly phenomenal lenses available in the 80-200mm/70-210mm range on the used market today for a pittance.
One of the reasons is the proliferation of the DSLR with the APS-C sensor. The 80-200/70-210 focal lengths become too long for portraiture and thus there is the temporary glut on the market. As DSLR full-sized sensor cameras begin to drop in price, which has already started to happen, those "forgotten" lenses will start to become more popular again. These slower-aperture lenses were fairly easy to manufacture (in the f/4-f/5.6 range) and the computer-designed formulas from the late 1980's and early 1990's are incredibly sharp.

 

[snapguy]

Somewhere along the way, I think in the 1960s, the 135mm lens for a 35mm camera was touted to be the best thing since portholes on a Buick fender or tail fins on a Cadillac. I always thought it was to short for a real telephoto and to long for a portraits. Then the 70-200 or so zoom showed up and it was great. I always use a prime lens for portraits if I can but sometimes you are in a hurry. Some older zooms are pretty slow and those are what, I think, you find in the thrift shops.But you never know what treasures are out there.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Somewhere along the way, I think in the 1960s, the 135mm lens for a 35mm camera was touted to be the best thing since portholes on a Buick fender or tail fins on a Cadillac. I always thought it was to short for a real telephoto and to long for a portraits. Then the 70-200 or so zoom showed up and it was great. I always use a prime lens for portraits if I can but sometimes you are in a hurry. Some older zooms are pretty slow and those are what, I think, you find in the thrift shops.But you never know what treasures are out there.

Ditto.
On the wide side I feel the same about the 24mm, my lineup jumps from 20 to 28. The 24 is either too wide or not wide enough, something in my vision just refuses to see that way.

 

[2gman]

When I returned to shooting film after a 20 year lay off I picked up a nice nearly mint F-100. My first lense was a 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 the next and the one I use most of the time is a AF-D 80-200mm F2.8. I wouldn"t be without the 80-200, it's simply too nice a lense.

 

[Spicy]

zooms are:
-well made
-fast
-lightweight
-cheap

choose two.

 

[Russ - SVP]

My TAMRON SP 24-135 is my go to lens. It handles just about anything I want to shoot.

 

[Russ - SVP]

I have and use that same Tamron. I find it to be very good.

 

[John Koehrer]

zooms are:
-well made
-fast
-lightweight
-cheap

choose two.

Fast & cheap!..................