the most ubiquitous focal length on the used market

[David Lyga]

MattKing said: "For many, many people, whether or not a lens exhibited higher resolution, better overall contrast, better acutance, more accurate colour rendition or any of the other technical measures of quality was relatively unimportant."

Unfortunately , MattKing, this evinces the sad story of marketing in the 'informed' USA. During the Soviet period Russia had a plastic (Bakelite?) camera that took 35 mm film and, at a camera show a few years back, I bought one for $5. As much as 'for the downtrodden Soviet masses' that this camera was directed towards, it still had a fully adjustable aperture and a selection of shutter speeds. I was rather surprised with the relatively high sharpness of the slow f4.5 lens. Yes, we did have our Argus 35mm 'brick'.

But what did actually SELL? Compare, within the same era, what the USA offered cheaply to its poor masses: cameras similar to the Kodak Hawkeye or Brownie or Instamatic 100: all utter garbage as far as quality was concerned. Why? Because much of the American public is amongst the most mentally lazy on Earth and, time and again, Kodak catered, and Japan had to learn to cater, to the quest for utter convenience (ie, little 'need' to exercise the brain) over sparse demand for either build quality or optical precision amongst this 'genre'. (Perhaps the 'point and shoot' era should be renamed 'point and don't bother to think'.) Of course, the more esoteric thinkers (many, admittedly, here) got what were truly great cameras like the early SLRs, but, back then, the cost was formidable and a genuine impediment towards attaining a vehicle allowing real photographic quality. The latter day obsession with the Holga (complete with 'trendy, artistic' light leaks) continues and confirms, with aplomb, this dire 'thought' process. - David Lyga

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have a 28-80 2.8 Tokina and one day want to upgrade it to the Nikon. That range is very nice.

me too my 24-80 nikkor gets the most use despite it's poor opticalperformance, which makes me go back to the primes in that range until I look for something more con venient again.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

David,
the best cameras are not the most expensive or the ones which require the most thoughtbut the one that works for you and fits into your budget. not everyone is rich or has unlimited fundsor feels freeto 'steal' from the family budgetto satisfies his own wants.

 

[David Lyga]

I know Ralph, but today, one can easily buy the more expensive ones for little money. The digital revolution has brought about this happy circumstance. - David Lyga

 

[Markster]

It seems to me there's a certain sentiment that zooms are bad. I, and seemingly many people in this thread, disagree.

The difference between a good prime (not GREAT, which costs half your life savings) and a good zoom at the same settings is not very noticable. For most people you would be hard pressed to put two photos side by side and make a blind taste test (so to speak) and put your finger on which was the zoom and which the prime...

(by "good" I mean not the bottom of the barrel crap lenses that will always have problems, but nothing that breaks the bank either. Good middle range gear.)

IMO, and mind you I could be wrong but this is honestly what I feel, the one area where a prime will be better is under intense scrutiny, using much higher magnification than average. This is useful for primes where you have to then blow up your own prints to get the original framing you wanted. But.... a zoom removes that need (for the most part). With a zoom you can get the exact framing you need the first time. Your quality is still good enough to blow a photo up after the fact to make larger prints.

I have a decent 50mm (stock Canon, nothing bad, nothing great) that I used a lot. I have a 28mm I also used a lot. The problem is the framing of the shot I want. Having to choose the lesser of 2 undesirable shots to get what I want. I find my main choice these days is a Sigma 35-70mm f2.8 and it saves a lot of time I used to spend swapping out parts. Not the best, not the worst. Good mid-range quality glass. I'd challenge folks to find a flaw in the pictures taken with it -- a flaw that wasn't user error, mind you -- compared to my 50mm.

 

[MattKing]

David:

I think you may think that I am older than I actually am .

Most of my retail experience was in the mid to late 1970s and very early 1980s. Think of the heyday of the Canon AE1, the Pentax ME, the Olympus OM-1 and the Minolta SRT 101s, not to mention excellent rangefinders like the fixed lens Canons and Konicas.

They sold like hotcakes (particularly the AE-1s). But people still bought longer telephotos and zoom lenses based on how much closer they made things look.

MattKing said: "For many, many people, whether or not a lens exhibited higher resolution, better overall contrast, better acutance, more accurate colour rendition or any of the other technical measures of quality was relatively unimportant."

Unfortunately , MattKing, this evinces the sad story of marketing in the 'informed' USA. During the Soviet period Russia had a plastic (Bakelite?) camera that took 35 mm film and, at a camera show a few years back, I bought one for $5. As much as 'for the downtrodden Soviet masses' that this camera was directed towards, it still had a fully adjustable aperture and a selection of shutter speeds. I was rather surprised with the relatively high sharpness of the slow f4.5 lens. Yes, we did have our Argus 35mm 'brick'.

But what did actually SELL? Compare, within the same era, what the USA offered cheaply to its poor masses: cameras similar to the Kodak Hawkeye or Brownie or Instamatic 100: all utter garbage as far as quality was concerned. Why? Because much of the American public is amongst the most mentally lazy on Earth and, time and again, Kodak catered, and Japan had to learn to cater, to the quest for utter convenience (ie, little 'need' to exercise the brain) over sparse demand for either build quality or optical precision amongst this 'genre'. (Perhaps the 'point and shoot' era should be renamed 'point and don't bother to think'.) Of course, the more esoteric thinkers (many, admittedly, here) got what were truly great cameras like the early SLRs, but, back then, the cost was formidable and a genuine impediment towards attaining a vehicle allowing real photographic quality. The latter day obsession with the Holga (complete with 'trendy, artistic' light leaks) continues and confirms, with aplomb, this dire 'thought' process. - David Lyga

 

[Hatchetman]

The most recent Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II is astoundingly good, but yes, it is a brick in your bag.

This lens will get you shots that would otherwise be impossible. Try shooting a kids play from 20 rows back with a 50mm Summicron. Sharp, but not very useful.

 

[benjiboy]

This lens will get you shots that would otherwise be impossible. Try shooting a kids play from 20 rows back with a 50mm Summicron. Sharp, but not very useful.

It's like taking a knife to a gunfight

 

[benjiboy]

I worked in photographic retailing in the 70's and 80's, and as far as I recall the most popular lens after the 50mm standard lens was the 135mm.

 

[Fixcinater]

This lens will get you shots that would otherwise be impossible. Try shooting a kids play from 20 rows back with a 50mm Summicron. Sharp, but not very useful.

Indeed, especially with the image stabilization factored in.

Sometimes there is no substitute, not a mono-pod, not a tripod, not a rock that would get you the same shot. Horses for courses.

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm trying to understand if you're only speaking of older 70-200 range lenses, or new ones as well, the new ones are absolutely fantastic. The one I have is one of the best of course Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II, but I did own the 70-200 4L for a short time and it was also good, and the original 70-200 2.8L IS and it was also really great. My lens has very little if any CA and produces really sharp imagery, certainly no "fog" as you said.

My 3 most used lenses are the 70-200, the 50 1.4 and the 50 2.5 macro. However I think in the PAST perhaps the 70-210 range was the most common of the zooms, but now, it's certainly the 24/28 to 70/80/105) range lenses that are the most popular by far. Especially in the professional market, the 24-70 2.8 lenses are a must have in your kit, they are relatively sharp (I know nikon's old version isn't but I hear their new one is, and canon's old one was better but not perfect and their new one is supremely better but way too expensive for me to care hah!).

Especially now, why? because the IQ of these lenses is at a level that it doesn't really matter so much the difference for most people between a super expensive sharp prime, and a super expensive relatively sharp zoom. Heck my 70-200 is sharper than one of canon's prime 100mm's ...

So... I would say that back then, the IQ of shorter focal lengths was significantly better with Primes, but that for most people who wanted that farther zoom range, the 200mm prime was MUCH more expensive and probably not better enough to spend the extra money when they could get a decent one in zoom.

 

[Charles Wass]

I can't say I don't own one, because 80-200mm lenses sometimes come free when you buy a body. Personally I don't find the combination (zoom + telephoto) very useful.

What lens might "come free" I guess depends on the age of the camera. In the last year or so I've bought a number of manual focus Canons. In nearly all cases a lens came too and they were all primes. If had bought AF models no doubt they would all have been zooms.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

No, it's not normals any more, so it seems. It is the ever present, and ever annoying due to the prolificity (sorry spell check, but that is, indeed, a legal word), of the constantly available 80 - 200, or thereabouts. Why? - David Lyga

I don't buy or use zoom lenses. Ever.

 

[David Lyga]

No Stone, I do agree with you that the newer zooms are utterly fantastic. I am certainly not 'putting down' these lenses but I had wanted to remark that they, now, are amongst the cheapest in the used market. Honestly, maybe that is because they are so bulky and, in some cases, heavy. Certainly, those are formidable concerns, but, also the number of them in the used market adds to this price pressure. (All facets of a given product come into play here.)

von Hoegh: You have your reasons for not wanting zooms and those reasons might not conform to, or confirm, mine. I do like primes, usually better, but there is much to say about the real quality of these newer zooms. And the older ones were good too, if you knew the best focal length to use and were not too greedy with the faster aperture stops. - David Lyga

 

[darinwc]

Really, Kodak and the like catered to the 'simple folk' by making the cheapest, simplest camera possible.

My mother-in-law still only uses single-use cameras. Even though I gave her a nice olympus and she was also given a casio digital.
She actually has understandable reasons for this.
1. Single-use cameras are cheap. She doesnt have to worry about loosing it or breaking it.
2. Always ready. as long as she has one, she knows its ready. She doesnt have to worry about charging the battery or buying film or batteries etc.
3. Simple. No fussing with zooming, modes, or even turning the camera on or off.

Kodak always wanted to make photography available to everyone. Even though many of their cameras we would consider junk, they fulfilled a certain role. They were certainly better than many junk/fake/toy cameras dumped on the public.

-Getting back to the discussion about telephoto zooms. Many manufacturers were just out to make a buck. A picture on the box of a soccer player or giraffe would make the buyer think they could take pics like the pros. Hey that is still pervasive now. But the reality is that even with the best equipment, the output can still be junk. Trust me i know.. I have thousands of $ into equipement and most of my work is crap, at best mediocre. But most people dont even want to think about it. Auto everything? great. And the real good equipment is priced way out of reality for most consumers. $200.. um ok, whats the next level up? $2000.. um...

MattKing said: "For many, many people, whether or not a lens exhibited higher resolution, better overall contrast, better acutance, more accurate colour rendition or any of the other technical measures of quality was relatively unimportant."

Unfortunately , MattKing, this evinces the sad story of marketing in the 'informed' USA. During the Soviet period Russia had a plastic (Bakelite?) camera that took 35 mm film and, at a camera show a few years back, I bought one for $5. As much as 'for the downtrodden Soviet masses' that this camera was directed towards, it still had a fully adjustable aperture and a selection of shutter speeds. I was rather surprised with the relatively high sharpness of the slow f4.5 lens. Yes, we did have our Argus 35mm 'brick'.

But what did actually SELL? Compare, within the same era, what the USA offered cheaply to its poor masses: cameras similar to the Kodak Hawkeye or Brownie or Instamatic 100: all utter garbage as far as quality was concerned. Why? Because much of the American public is amongst the most mentally lazy on Earth and, time and again, Kodak catered, and Japan had to learn to cater, to the quest for utter convenience (ie, little 'need' to exercise the brain) over sparse demand for either build quality or optical precision amongst this 'genre'. (Perhaps the 'point and shoot' era should be renamed 'point and don't bother to think'.) Of course, the more esoteric thinkers (many, admittedly, here) got what were truly great cameras like the early SLRs, but, back then, the cost was formidable and a genuine impediment towards attaining a vehicle allowing real photographic quality. The latter day obsession with the Holga (complete with 'trendy, artistic' light leaks) continues and confirms, with aplomb, this dire 'thought' process. - David Lyga

 

[Pioneer]

I primarily work with primes, particularly in the 24-80 range, but I find that zooms are useful in certain circumstances. As Stone has already mentioned, some of the newer model zooms are actually quite exceptional. But even some older glass can be very useful. I own and use two of them, both from the Vivitar Series One group. The first is the ubiquitous 70-200, which is really quite a good lens though heavy. These are very inexpensive and it seems everyone wants to get rid of theirs on e-bay. I don't really understand it either because it is one of the best school play zooms I have ever owned. The other is a bit harder to find, but a truly wonderful lens, the 90-180 flat field macro zoom. This is a very handy lens and I use mine a lot, actually more frequently than the 70-200. It produces magnificent macro pictures.

 

[darinwc]

I think the tele zooms are so common on ebay right now because no one wants them.
There were many craptastic marketers. Promaster, Albinar, Quantaray, to name a few. Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, and Vivitar also put out some craptastics, but some very good glass as well.
These lenses were not made to last, and many are not working or are not up to spec.

But right now, no one wants to lug a shit pipe around on their neck and the serious photographers pay for the better glass. And even pocket sized cameras have 5x zooms these days. There is just no place for these low-grade tele zooms anymore.

 

[StoneNYC]

No Stone, I do agree with you that the newer zooms are utterly fantastic. I am certainly not 'putting down' these lenses but i wanted to remark that they, now, are amongst the cheapest in the used market. Honestly, maybe that is because they are so bulky and, in some cases, heavy. Certainly, those are formidable concerns, but, also the number of them in the used market adds to this price pressure. (All facets of a given product come into play here.)

von Hoegh: You have your reasons for not wanting zooms and those reasons might not conform to, or confirm, mine. I do like primes, usually better, but there is much to say about the real quality of these newer zooms. And the older ones were good too, if you knew the best focal length to use and were not too greedy with the faster aperture stops. - David Lyga

I think the poster above me made a comment about "catching soccer kids", I think this may have something to do with it, if you think about it the people that were buying a lot of the zooms back then were both professionals AND the everyday man, but all of the people relied on film to shoot everything, now most the people who are shooting film are shooting it because of its artistic quality and so the usefulness of zoom lenses for an artist who's working a lot slower and is more precise about getting a sharp image would rather have a prime than a zoom lens. The only people who are using zooms now, are mostly shooting Digital...

So it's not that there are more zoom lenses that exist in total in the world, it's just that the usefulness of the primes for people still shooting film means that they are holding onto those lenses but they are selling the zoom lenses that they don't need because that guy going to a soccer game has his Digital zoom rather than the film zoom.

I own a total of 2 Zoom lenses that are made for film, one of them was my fathers, and I never shoot with it, in fact I don't think I've ever used it maybe once when I was 13? I might consider using it for a party for fun if I wanted to shoot with film, but usually if I do that I use my autofocus film camera which attaches to my fancy zoom lens for digital, anyway, the other one I have is a 70-210 that was given to me by an antique shop they just couldn't get rid of them, the guy had all these different Canon lens parts and couldn't sell them for $10 a piece and had them for over two years so he handed me the basket and said "oh you're a photographer here take anything you want I just want to get rid of them" and I've also never use that lens, I took it because I thought hey that might be valuable and maybe I'll use it someday, but frankly it's probably never going to happen.

Anyway it's a thought they could be right it could be wrong, but I figured I'd mention it.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

von Hoegh: You have your reasons for not wanting zooms and those reasons might not conform to, or confirm, mine. I do like primes, usually better, but there is much to say about the real quality of these newer zooms. And the older ones were good too, if you knew the best focal length to use and were not too greedy with the faster aperture stops. - David Lyga

In 35mm, the range I most use is 35mm to 105mm; I never take action pictures, or pictures in any other situation where rapid framing/change of focal length is neccesary. Zooms have a max. aperture, size, and weight penalty, as well as the performance penalty. Show me a zoom which gives the same image quality as my Nikkor primes, with no weight or aperture penalty, and I might consider it. As of now, such a lens doesn't exist.

 

[David Lyga]

You know, von Hoegh, you might be wrong. Newer zooms can match this sharpness more times than not. But, the price you pay for such low cost quality is, as you already stated, 'weight' and 'slow'. And, yes, they can be somewhat cumbersome. - David Lyga

 

[StoneNYC]

In 35mm, the range I most use is 35mm to 105mm; I never take action pictures, or pictures in any other situation where rapid framing/change of focal length is neccesary. Zooms have a max. aperture, size, and weight penalty, as well as the performance penalty. Show me a zoom which gives the same image quality as my Nikkor primes, with no weight or aperture penalty, and I might consider it. As of now, such a lens doesn't exist.

My Canon zoom is pretty damn sharp, however it certainly wouldn't match the weight requirement that you're talking about, of course it is going to be heavier because of all the additional glass in order to hit all of those ranges, however if you added up a 70 and 80 and 90 and 100 and 135 150 and 180 and a 200mm and put them altogether that would be much much heavier

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My Canon zoom is pretty @#!*% sharp, however it certainly wouldn't match the weight requirement that you're talking about, of course it is going to be heavier because of all the additional glass in order to hit all of those ranges, however if you added up a 70 and 80 and 90 and 100 and 135 150 and 180 and a 200mm and put them altogether that would be much much heavier

But I typically carry 35, 50, 105. Sometimes just a 28 and a 50. Often just one lens, usually the 35/2.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

You know, von Hoegh, you might be wrong. Newer zooms can match this sharpness more times than not. But, the price you pay for such low cost quality is, as you already stated, 'weight' and 'slow'. And, yes, they can be somewhat cumbersome. - David Lyga

Show me one that can match the performance of my 50/2 nikkor-H and/or my 105 Nikkor, preferably at both focal lengths.

 

[David Lyga]

von Hoegh: I did say "more times than not".

Perhaps, in this instance, your Nikkors knocked out the competion. - David Lyga

 

[E. von Hoegh]

von Hoegh: I did say "more times than not".

Perhaps, in this instance, your Nikkors knocked out the competion. - David Lyga

I agree that modern zooms have improved a great deal as far as resolution, contrast, and distortion go. I have an 80s 35-70 Zuiko that's part of my late father's Olympus gear, and while it's competent, and could be useful under certain conditions - say snapshots at someone's birthday party - current zooms are better. I prefer the simplicity and superior handling of primes for some of the same reasons I prefer cars without ABS and with manual transmissions. Don't like electric windows either.