was there ever a good slr zoom lens?

[jtk]

If one needs zoom one needs zoom. I occasionally need it. Today's are very good...probably will not get wobbly as quickly as film zooms. I prefer fast lenses for their focus advantage.

I like Sieffs work from two or three decades ago...among the best back then. Today is blessed with many others.

 

[markjwyatt]

It could be a "fundamentalist stance " or it could be a scientific fact that they were calculated to work best on digital sensors rather than film, I personally have no idea.

...or an engineering consequence.

 

[summicron1]

I have the 28-70 Leitz Elmarit (I think) that was actually made by Sigma, I believe, but it a really good zoom lens, I've gotten many really nice sharp images from it.

I think the Leitz quality control counts.

 

[Helge]

The modern zooms championed as being “as good as primes” in this thread and elsewhere are generally fast (for a zoom) and therefore heavy and expensive lenses.
Most of the mainstream zooms and kit lenses however, still hover around the same optical quality that has characterized zooms for decades.
Zooms of the same optical quality as the best of today, would also have been possible to make thirty to fifty years ago, if photographers back then would have tolerated trading off speed, reach and/or lightness of primes or the compromised zooms of then.
Zooms started to get good in the late seventies though, and real good in the eighties.
One canonical example is Minoltas Beercan 70-200 f4, based in previous MD designs from the same decade. It can still stand up to comparison with lenses of the same basic specs, from the last few years.

 

[eli griggs]

So, how do the late 1980's - 1990's Tamron Adaptall II and Sigma type zooms do on average and are there any 'gems' among them or avoid at all cost?

Did Tamron make any primes for its mobile based mounts?

 

[AgX]

Yes, Tamron made Adaptall primes.
(17mm, 24mm, 28mm, 90mm, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm, 500mm)

 

[darkosaric]

Just to add: in some special situations you really need zoom, some effect cannot be made with prime lens. I use it when I want to make some illusion of movement, or similar, not everyday effects:

 

[AgX]

Also when in no time you have to adapt to various situations, as in a crowd.
There are several reasons to chose a zoom-lens, other than the common "one-for-three".

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The modern zooms championed as being “as good as primes” in this thread and elsewhere are generally fast (for a zoom) and therefore heavy and expensive lenses.
Most of the mainstream zooms and kit lenses however, still hover around the same optical quality that has characterized zooms for decades.
Zooms of the same optical quality as the best of today, would also have been possible to make thirty to fifty years ago, if photographers back then would have tolerated trading off speed, reach and/or lightness of primes or the compromised zooms of then.
Zooms started to get good in the late seventies though, and real good in the eighties.
One canonical example is Minoltas Beercan 70-200 f4, based in previous MD designs from the same decade. It can still stand up to comparison with lenses of the same basic specs, from the last few years.

Of course it ought to be mentioned that Minolta had a top class optical facility and made top lenses in general. As their cameras never got accepted by the pros, to the level of Canon and Nikon anyways, lenses were not seen as such gems they actually were. To day with revival (hopefully long lasting) of film shooting, new to it should go after MD / Rokkor lenses as they are still on cheaper end of the spectrum.

 

[Helge]

Of course it ought to be mentioned that Minolta had a top class optical facility and made top lenses in general. As their cameras never got accepted by the pros, to the level of Canon and Nikon anyways, lenses were not seen as such gems they actually were. To day with revival (hopefully long lasting) of film shooting, new to it should go after MD / Rokkor lenses as they are still on cheaper end of the spectrum.

Shhh! It’s almost palpable how you’ve just driven awareness and speculation up. ;-)
Pentax M glass is also in the same league or category, though some of it’s virtues could be said to be almost opposite to the Minolta lenses.
People seem to be fixated on A, original K or the older M42 stuff, while the M type lenses are most often exactly as good or better with tighter construction and are smaller.

 

[Smaug01]

This thread is incomplete without my two cents' worth:

Lens selection is a choice of compromise. Do you want clear, fast optics that aren't too heavy and are willing/able to take the time to swap lenses? --> primes. Will you miss shots if you take time to swap lenses often? ---> Zooms.

These days, zoom lens quality is really good. A LOT better than in the 80s. But they're still big & heavy, compared to primes.
I try to use primes for street photography sometimes, but am constantly missing shots. The ones I DO get look great. I tried a Tamron 28-300 f/4.5-6.3 the other day. Didn't miss a single shot, but anything over 200 mm was very fuzzy. I'd have been better off shooting at 200 mm and cropping into it, it was so bad. Some kind of hybrid approach would probably be good. Maybe a 35 mm prime and a dedicated telephoto zoom?

 

[Helge]

Only thing to look out for with older zooms, is whether they are turn zoom or push/pull.
Push/pull have almost invariably gotten completely loose today, due to degradation of foam and rubber bushings/brakes.
While turn to zooms hold up far better.
Extreme zoom creep or looseness might not be a complete dealbreaker though.
It’s just something you need to be aware of and make the seller aware of. You can get some quite spectacular lenses that are loose, where you just have to control them thightly while you use them.
Has anyone found a good fix for loose zooms BTW?!

 

[Helge]

This thread is incomplete without my two cents' worth:

Lens selection is a choice of compromise. Do you want clear, fast optics that aren't too heavy and are willing/able to take the time to swap lenses? --> primes. Will you miss shots if you take time to swap lenses often? ---> Zooms.

These days, zoom lens quality is really good. A LOT better than in the 80s. But they're still big & heavy, compared to primes.
I try to use primes for street photography sometimes, but am constantly missing shots. The ones I DO get look great. I tried a Tamron 28-300 f/4.5-6.3 the other day. Didn't miss a single shot, but anything over 200 mm was very fuzzy. I'd have been better off shooting at 200 mm and cropping into it, it was so bad. Some kind of hybrid approach would probably be good. Maybe a 35 mm prime and a dedicated telephoto zoom?

200mm is about how long you want to go without a tripod on film.
It’s possible to shoot longer but it gets hairy.
As I said previously the zoom lenses today that are better than older zooms, are a completely different animal.
They are big and expensive and still relatively slow compared to primes.
Not something that would have flown in the film exclusive days.

 

[abruzzi]

But they're still big & heavy, compared to primes.

I think this is primarily due to the obsession with fast zooms. For example my Pentax-F 35-70mm ƒ3.5-4.5 is pretty tiny, any you don't feel like you have a zoom on there. If I needed a 35-70mm to be ƒ2 or even ƒ2.8 fast, it would be a much larger lens, but I don't shoot wide open that often, for 3.5/4.5 is fine as a general purpose lens.

 

[Smaug01]

I think this is primarily due to the obsession with fast zooms. For example my Pentax-F 35-70mm ƒ3.5-4.5 is pretty tiny, any you don't feel like you have a zoom on there. If I needed a 35-70mm to be ƒ2 or even ƒ2.8 fast, it would be a much larger lens, but I don't shoot wide open that often, for 3.5/4.5 is fine as a general purpose lens.

I agree. ^

For this reason, (and also cost!) I choose slow (but optically good) zooms. For example, the Zuiko ones for my E-M10 III.

 

[AgX]

Push/pull have almost invariably gotten completely loose today, due to degradation of foam and rubber bushings/brakes.
While turn to zooms hold up far better.

This is not my experience.

I once had the choice between several samples of same zoom model. I choose the sample with a scratch on the front lens, as this sample had the least damping on the zoom, what I find very benefitial at fast working.

There is too much bias at this thread.
As said there are varius reasons to prefer a zoom lens over a prime (and for the contrary).

And as my example with the scratched lens shows:
What one owl owes to another is its nightingale.

 

[Helge]

This is not my experience.

I once had the choice between several samples of same zoom model. I choose the sample with a scratch on the front lens, as this sample had the least damping on the zoom, what I find very benefitial at fast working.

There is too much bias at this thread.
As said there are varius reasons to prefer a zoom lens over a prime (and for the contrary).

And as my example with the scratched lens shows:
What one owl owes to another is its nightingale.

Pretty much what I wrote.
There are people who'd hate the barrel clanking around randomly though. There is a reason after all, why the damping was implemented in the first place.
The worst is if the damping material has not deteriorated evenly, which leads to uneven, bumpy movement of the slider.

 

[Helge]

I think this is primarily due to the obsession with fast zooms. For example my Pentax-F 35-70mm ƒ3.5-4.5 is pretty tiny, any you don't feel like you have a zoom on there. If I needed a 35-70mm to be ƒ2 or even ƒ2.8 fast, it would be a much larger lens, but I don't shoot wide open that often, for 3.5/4.5 is fine as a general purpose lens.

Problem is once you’re outside, where you’d use a slow, short zoom, you usually have the option of “zooming with your feet”.
The difference in perspective look between a fifty moved a few paces back or forth, versus actual 35mm or 70mm is negligible.
But when you are inside, where the ability to zoom these short amounts could come in handy, you often need the speed. Even if you are using flash, 2.8 or bigger gives more ability for the ambient light to get through.

 

[abruzzi]

zooming with you feet might work in some instances, but not always, so it’s nice to have. Also, the perspective changes when you zoom. The fast zoom may be useful for some, but not much for me since I never shoot indoors.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

zooming with you feet might work in some instances, but not always, so it’s nice to have. Also, the perspective changes when you zoom. The fast zoom may be useful for some, but not much for me since I never shoot indoors.

Just to be clear ; zoom does not change perspective if you remain in the same spot.

 

[Helge]

zooming with you feet might work in some instances, but not always, so it’s nice to have. Also, the perspective changes when you zoom. The fast zoom may be useful for some, but not much for me since I never shoot indoors.

Unless you are shooting details or objects close up, the difference in perspective is going to be slight from a fifty.
You’d have to go to a 28 or 85 to really get something significant.