was there ever a good slr zoom lens?

[jtk]

I don't think anybody's 35mm zoom lens was ever as good as their prime kit lenses, and certainly not nearly as good as their digital lenses.

I'm looking for something good for a gathering-dust Pentax.

 

[AgX]

You overlook that some kit-lens were plain triplets...

 

[Chan Tran]

Many of the digital lenses are 35mm lenses. Except for the E type lenses all Nikon modern FX lenses can be used on the F5 or F6. All Canon EF lenses can be used on Canon EOS film cameras. Modern zoom lenses can be sharper than some prime lenses.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Vivitar Series One (S1) 70;210 f2.8 -f4 lenses were superb, there were more than one version. I had the first which was stolen and now have the second,

As Chan Tran says modern DSLR full frame zooms are just as good with film bodies, However the use of non glass aspheric elements has been a game cjanger in keep prices of some excellent Zoom lenses affordable.

But going back to the pre Digital era there weren't many good zoom lenses in terms of performance compared to prime lenses. There was a superb Vivitar S1 Varifocal 28mm-80mm f2.8 lens, focus shifts with FL. Many s=zooms had focus shift over teir FL range.

Ian

 

[Pioneer]

The Vivitar Series One 24-48mm comes in the Pentax K Mount and is a very good lens, as is the Vivitar Series One 28-90.

Both of the above are very sharp and provide excellent alternatives to the marvelous Pentax Prime lenses if you need a zoom. The primary downside is their weight.

In fact, the Komine built Vivitar Series One 28-90 and 70-210 lenses make a great set for those wanting zooms for their older Pentax cameras. You would certainly have the focal lengths pretty well covered with some pretty nice glass. Image quality from those two zooms is certainly more then adequate. You will do a bit better using primes but you will certainly feel the extra weight in your camera bag.

Add in the Vivitar 2x TC and your reach is even greater. Though the image quality degrades a bit with the tele-converter I find it is often preferable to cropping while enlarging.

Interestingly I find that if I can get focused properly with these zooms the results are really spectacular. A good tripod, a sharp film like TMX100, and the Pentax Action Finder on the LX are wonderful tools for ensuring tight, sharp focus and astounding image results.

 

[blockend]

Modern zoom lenses can be sharper than some prime lenses.

Computer designed optics and modern construction methods have made it possible. The Canon 24-70 2.8 is the nearest thing to a universal lens, used by photojournalists, landscape photographers, artists, yadda. The other difference is in-camera digital processing.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

During the 80's when I was shooting Canon FD lenses, I bought only prime lenses because FD zooms were not as sharp as FD prime lenses. I bought my first DSLR 7 years ago which had a kit zoom lens and I was blown away how good they are.

 

[GLS]

A zoom will never be as good as the very best primes. Having said that, there are many modern zooms which are extremely high quality, with very little trade off as opposed to a prime (or primes).

I favour primes myself, simply because I like the compositional discipline they enforce. However I do own the 70-200 f2.8 VRII for my D810, and I've never been disappointed in the results it provides.

 

[film_man]

You just can't compare the zoom junk of the 80s with today's stuff. Bit like saying cars are unreliable and leak water in the rain because your reference point is some junk made by British Leyland in the 70s.

Modern top of the range zooms are superb and given that everything nowadays is designed for 83475682736482megagooglypixel sensors you will never see a difference between zooms and primes on film. Primes are just for smaller size and faster apertres.

 

[Luckless]

How reliably can you spot a print and tell if the photograph had been taken with a prime or a zoom?

There were plenty of poor quality zoom lenses made over the years, but there were also plenty of poor quality cheap primes made as well. - Compare apples to apples for a far better time.

 

[blockend]

everything nowadays is designed for 83475682736482megagooglypixel sensors

It raises the question of how much further suspended glass cells can go in resolving the scene? And whether any of it matters a damn in creating an emotional response in the viewer?

 

[Dennis-B]

Yes, the zoom lens is a compromise, since the range goes so far in some examples. For instance using a 28-200mm zoom is a real compromise, as is a 50-300mm. But when kept within reasonable power ranges (2x, 2.5x, 3x), the images are anywhere from good, to outstanding. Remember, too, that the camera adds a factor with the sensor, software, color balance, etc. That's another prime factor. With film, consider the color balance, especially with transparency films, and not as much with C41-processed films. The older zooms, especially those, were developed without the benefit of modern CAD/CAM equipment.

The zooms made today, even by the 3rd party makers (Tamron, Sigma), are superb, and their images are just fine. I use a Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6, and I've gotten some spectacular results on wildlife. I've used it on my F6, and it provided great results, especially at the longer end. While I was "locked in" @ f/5.6, the distance to the subject was a non-issue. I use a Sigma DG 70-200 f/2.8 on my Nikon F5 and F100, and it's never disappointed.

It would be great, if I could have all the Nikon primes from 20mm, to 500mm, but economics is a consideration. All my exposures now get scanned, and judicious use of editing, provide results I couldn't have gotten on traditional film printing and transparency conversion.

 

[jtk]

How reliably can you spot a print and tell if the photograph had been taken with a prime or a zoom?

There were plenty of poor quality zoom lenses made over the years, but there were also plenty of poor quality cheap primes made as well. - Compare apples to apples for a far better time.

I rarely spot prints because I don't print optically. Back when I did occasionally spot prints (due to caress film processing) I found the various Vivitars inferior to comparable Soligars...but of course they were both coke bottles.

 

[AgX]

The Canon 24-70 2.8 is the nearest thing to a universal lens,...

EOS range

 

[darkosaric]

My friend (a pro) has canon 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. That is sharp as it gets (I am nikon guy myself in SLR world). He uses primes 135 f2 and 50 f1.4 only for some background blur effects, not because they are sharper.

 

[AgX]

The other difference is in-camera digital processing.

Remember, too, that the camera adds a factor with the sensor, software, color balance, etc. That's another prime factor.
All my exposures now get scanned, and judicious use of editing, provide results I couldn't have gotten on traditional film printing and transparency conversion.

Guys, you overlook that this is a "100% analog forum".

 

[wiltw]

Lens tests by photozone.de have shown via MTF ratings (using the same camera) that the current EF zoom lens is very often higher resolution (higher MTF) than single FL Canon EF lenses launched 20 year ago.

 

[ic-racer]

I don't think anybody's 35mm zoom lens was ever as good as their prime kit lenses, and certainly not nearly as good as their digital lenses.

I'm looking for something good for a gathering-dust Pentax.

I used the Carl Zeiss 35mm lens system in the 1980s and, indeed, there was no zoom available maybe because zoom technology could not compete with the primes.

When I got into Nikon film cameras a few years ago, modern zoom technology was a real eye opener. I'd recommend checking out 35mm format zooms developed in the last ten years.

 

[blockend]

Guys, you overlook that this is a "100% analog forum".

It's on topic. One of the differences between old and new zooms is in-camera sharpening and other tweaks. That makes it more difficult to tell what's lens definition and what is processing. Canon EOS is one of the few brands that has a lens range to fit both film and digital cameras natively, so direct comparisons can be made.

 

[Johnkpap]

The good thing about zoom lenses is that the older ones eg Nikon Ai and Pentax M and A series can be bought for next to nothing, stoped down 2 or 3 stops and you will find it very hard to tell it is a zoom. One example is the Nikon AI 35-105 3.5/4.5 with macro, it was more expensive than a 105mm 2.5 new !! I bought a new in boxed example for $70.00 AU the other week and it’s very very good unless you enlarge corners of photos you would think I am you using a 100mm macro or a 105mm 2.5 you can not tell.

Both hose lenses would set me back over $500.00 and my photos would look exactly the same

Johnkpap

 

[Paul Howell]

Agree with all that has been said, a modern Pro level zooms along with a few of the older Series 1 and even Soligor CD lens and zooms made by Zoomar are very good, meaning as good as most primes. I've tested my Minolta and Sony G zooms, all can resolve Tmax 100 at 200 LPMM. Perhaps with a
60MP sensor you could see the difference between a prime and zoom. Testing a few of my older Zooms, like the Minolta 70 to 200 F4, a 30 year old lens, what I see is lower contrast.

 

[__Brian]

Most zoom lenses suffer from geometric distortion, barrel and pin-cushion, as you zoom across range.
Of course there are zoom lenses that are extremely good. The Vivitar Series 1 90~180 F4.5 is legendary. Random Example.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Series-1-V...541596?hash=item56c84aef5c:g:OZcAAOSwaQ9dQfma

My AF Micro-Zoom-Nikkor 70~180 F4.5~F5.6 is better than most prime lenses, early 90s vintage. But if I come across a Vivitar at a good price, I'd grab it.

 

[Luckless]

Canon EOS is one of the few brands that has a lens range to fit both film and digital cameras natively, so direct comparisons can be made.

Is it really all that few if you exclude companies that only made film bodies/Lines considered defunct long before Digital came along anyway?

Nikon has a bit of a mixed bag of interchangability between old film bodies and their newer cameras, but they still have a solid selection from my understanding.

Pentax has overlap with at least their 645 [if slightly off topic], and their 35mm K-Mount. But I may have been mislead on how back/forwards compatible things are there.

And there are a lot of options for fully manual lenses that can be adapted, which frankly is as good as native support when you get right down to core details.

 

[__Brian]

Most Nikon Ai series and newer (1978 or so) can be used on all of the full-frame digital Nikons.

My 1952 25cm F4 works on my Df using an N->F adapter. Almost all other F-Mount lenses made since 1959 can be used, and all Viso-Flex RF lenses. The exception are those F-Mount lenses requiring Mirror lock-up. Nikon lens compatibility for their SLRs is one of the best in the industry.

My oldest Nikon zoom is one of the original 43~86/3.5, single coated. Distortion is the major flaw, the lens is sharp enough stopped down a little. The distortion on the 35~105/3.5~4.5 AIS is as bad as the original 43~86.

If you want a good zoom at a cheap price, the Vivitar Series 1 70~210/3.5 is good enough to replace fixed-focal length lenses in the range.

 

[blockend]

Is it really all that few if you exclude companies that only made film bodies/Lines considered defunct long before Digital came along anyway?

I think so. Nikon only have the post-screw focus lenses for comparison, the (G?) type with a full range of contacts. Pentax manual K-mount is transferable, again lacking electronic connections. The EOS range is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that had fully electronically compatible lenses for film and digital bodies, unless someone can think of another? In my tests no film era lenses are as sharp as new designs, but that may not be for exclusively optical reasons.