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.
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.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.
Shhh! It’s almost palpable how you’ve just driven awareness and speculation up. ;-)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.
200mm is about how long you want to go without a tripod on film.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?
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.
This is not my experience.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.
Pretty much what I wrote.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.
Problem is once you’re outside, where you’d use a slow, short zoom, you usually have the option of “zooming with your feet”.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.
Just to be clear ; zoom does not change perspective if you remain in the same spot.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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?