Zoom lenses - how much 'worse'?

[benjiboy]

The majority of viewers of your photographs couldn't give two monkeys f**ks whether they were shot with a prime or a zoom lens, but would be concerned with what they say, if anything.

 

[lxdude]

The majority of viewers of your photographs couldn't give two monkeys f**ks whether they were shot with a prime or a zoom lens, but would be concerned with what they say.

I'd be concerned with what the monkeys say, too.

 

[Athiril]

I assume it also makes excellent coffee and lays a golden egg at least every other day...
:munch:

UWA primes are terrible compared to the Sigma. Straight lines stay straight on the 12-24mm, even at 12mm.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

UWA primes are terrible compared to the Sigma. Straight lines stay straight on the 12-24mm, even at 12mm.

Which UWA primes have you used in order to reach your all-encompassing conclusion?

I've used ones made by Zeiss, Leica, Zeiss Jena, Mamiya, Nikon, Pentax, CV, Vivitar, Tamron, Tokina, Olympus, Canon, Arsat, Russar and probably several others: I seriously doubt I'd be impressed by the Sigma 12-24, also based on what I've heard about it from other sources.

You also previously mentioned CA, which is usually not a problem with UWA lenses used on film cameras (but is if used on sensors, which is how most of the online comparative "tests" are conducted).

 

[Clay2]

For my Nikon F2AS I only have two zooms, both 80-200mm. The Vivitar f/4.5 was all I could afford when
I bought it. It takes a 55mm filter. The Nikkor AIS f/4 takes 62mm filters. The Vivitar will do, it is tough,
has been dropped on concrete and I can't see any problems! The Nikkor is faster and a bit sharper,
But not quite as sharp as my Nikkor 200mm f/4 prime. If you want to travel light, take a zoom but test
it thoroughly first.
Best regards,
/Clay

 

[vpwphoto]

"performed as well as the Nikon 28-70."

I cant believe the sample range of these lenses. I had one that I only kept for a year as it was so soft. The one I have is good, but I guess I like switching between the 105 1.8 and 55 2.8 and the wide-open look each of those gives. I guess we are talking about "booka" now!

 

[vpwphoto]

Exactly.

like being forced to move and get in the right place,

Plus the camera with 28-70 or 80-200 is so darn heavey!

 

[PentaxBronica]

I think it depends on the lens. Zoom technology has moved on a lot, but in general with older lenses the shorter the zoom range the better the lens. I have a couple of Pentax-M zooms (35-70mm and 75-150mm) which give primes serious competition. Only snag is that they are a lot bulkier and heavier than the primes, so you have to consider the trade-off. Take the 75-150mm and have the flexibility, or the 135mm prime and get a similar focal length in a much smaller package.

 

[macrorie]

I am probably missing something here, but I can't imagine an answer to this question other than "it depends on what you are shooting and which lenses are being compared".

 

[narsuitus]

My first zoom lens, a Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5, had such horrible image quality that I sold it and did not use zooms again for decades. It was not until a friend gave me a modern zoom lens as a gift that I realized how much zooms had improved.

I now have four auto focus zoom lenses (Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8; 20-35mm f/2.8; 35-70mm f/2.8, and 80-200mm f/2.8) that produce images with quality that is equal to or better than my older manual focus prime lenses. For example, at f/2.8, the image quality my 80-200mm f/2.8 at the 180mm focal length is equal to my 180mm f/2.8 Nikon prime. At comparable focal lengths, my 14-24mm f/2.8 produces higher quality images than my 18mm f/3.5 and 24mm f/2 Nikon wide-angle prime lenses.

By the way, my zoom lenses did not replace any of my prime lenses. I still use both.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

My impression is that for the prices that still photographers are willing to pay, the design of zoom lenses usually involves a tradeoff between field curvature (i.e., soft corners) and barrel/pincushion distortion, compared to prime lenses of equivalent focal length. Since the 1970s, sharpness has been a more important feature in terms of marketing than low distortion for 35mm lenses, so modern zooms tend to be surprisingly sharp, usually at the expense of distortion at the extremes of the range, and usually they tend to be slower than equivalent prime lenses, because one way of reducing field curvature is to reduce the maximum aperture.

I currently have no zoom lenses, but the one I've found particularly useful was a 35-105/2.8 constant aperture lens, because it was good for event photography, where straight lines at the edge of the frame were not a big issue, and it's the kind of situation where you might be in a cramped space or shooting candidly from a fixed distance, and it was often necessary to switch quickly between a single portrait to a group of two or three or eight or more.

For motion picture budgets, there are zoom lenses that I suppose don't require such compromises.

 

[bobwysiwyg]

What? Only 48K?

 

[2F/2F]

It depends. Some zooms are very good optically. The occasional one will outperform a fixed-length lens in some areas.

However, I still don't like using them unless they are in the wide range, because they are too long and heavy and slow. The wide zooms aren't all that big, e.g. Canon 17-40 f/4 L.

I also never really find myself wanting the ability to change focal lengths with a single lens. If I shot professionally on red carpets, stuck in one place all night, needing to provide a variety of images of each person, with practically no time to do it, while having to spend most of my energy fighting other photographers for eye contact, then yes, I would want a zoom. But for real life shooting, I never find myself wanting one. I honestly find carrying two or three cameras to be a more desirable route for myself.

When I shoot weddings, I usually have two cameras and four lenses. One camera is a borrowed 1.3x crop Canon body (Mk. II) with a 17-40 f/4 on it, almost always with flash. I usually set this lens to 24 mm for general wide shots throughout, and at the widest end for zone focused dance floor hail Mary shots. The other is a 1.6x body (10D, my own camera) with an 85 1.8 on it, almost never with flash. I also keep a 50mm 1.2 and a 100mm macro in a small bag on my person at all times. The 50 goes on either camera at night. The macro goes on either camera for detail shots. If things are ideal, and I was able to borrow an extra camera, the 50 goes on it at all times.

What would be the zoom equivalent of that setup on the 1.6x body? 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4? Big size and weight difference, not to mention the cost and the big loss of lens speed with the more affordable f/4 zoom. Having two or three cameras on me set up that way is actually easier for me than having a long zoom around my neck, and I get a faster and easier to handle and carry lens.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

What? Only 48K?

Think it needs a protective filter?

 

[blockend]

I am probably missing something here, but I can't imagine an answer to this question other than "it depends on what you are shooting and which lenses are being compared".

It was a general question based on a specific scenario - street shooting. The variety of answers confirms my suspicion that pragmatism and prejudice mix where zooms are concerned - some people swear by them some swear at them.

My original question may have been phrased more accurately but (even) less elegantly - in general are modern zooms technically superior to older models, are they sufficiently compact with wide apertures to balance well for instant street shooting and does anyone have experience of using them in that context? Brevity missed most of the detail out.
I shall have a go with my Nikon 28-80 because it's light and small and won't cost anything and compare with my primes.

 

[cooltouch]

In general modern zooms are superior to some older models. But many older models were built to a higher standard than many current models are, and were more expensive (in adjusted dollars or euros or yen or whatever) then than zooms are now.

For years, my favorite walking around lens was a Vivitar S1 28-90 f/2.8-3.5. It is still one of my all-time favorite lenses.

I have done a lot of tests of various primes and zooms over the past couple of years, and my conclusion is that the better zooms I've tried (most manual focus, most 20 years old or more), such as Vivitar S1, Tamron SP, Tokina AT-X, as well as Canon and Nikon hold up very well to their prime counterparts.

However, since you are referring specifically to street shooting, then I question whether a zoom is even something you need. For street shooting, I prefer to use a 35mm prime dialed up to about f/8 or so. That gives me sufficient depth of field -- and a wide enough field of view without things getting too distorted -- where I can just point the camera at the subject without even having to bring it up to my eye.

 

[Pumalite]

I prefer prime lenses; especially old ones, like the Nikkors. Sometimes I use zooms like the Olympus 35-105 or Carl Zeiss. For street photography I stick to a 35mm at f/8 or f/11

 

[moki]

This depends on so many things... modern zoom lenses, especially the "pro-class" ones like Canon EF with the red ring are great and don't have to hide from any prime. You may see a small difference under the microscope, but film, camera shaking, etc. are the greater limit there. Cheap kit lenses or superzooms like a 28-300mm (or even the 20x zooms on current digital cameras) are a different story, though. They're always a compromise of being universally useful against optical and mechanical quality.

I love primes for other reasons than pure optical quality or sharpness. Firstly, even the fastest zooms go to only f/2,8 and can't be compared to a 55mm/1,4 in low light or when you want very shallow DoF. Also the bokeh is usually nicer and there's less lens flare. I'll take a decent prime with 6 elements over a zoom with a dozen or more lenses any day because there'll always be reflections and more abberations, even with multi coating. And last but not least, I find primes better for my own style and creativity... and much more healthy as long as I can substitute any zoom with two healthy legs

For street shooting, I usually prefer the EF 28-105mm USM, though... the quality is good enough for me at f/8, it's got a nice universal range and very quite and fast autofocus. It's lovely for those moments, when you just want to take the picture without thinking too much or really doing anything but pressing the shutter.

 

[lxdude]

This depends on so many things... modern zoom lenses, especially the "pro-class" ones like Canon EF with the red ring are great and don't have to hide from any prime.

They couldn't anyway, being so big!

 

[moki]

They couldn't anyway, being so big!

That's what I was saying Also useful for self-defense and demolishing concrete walls...

 

[benjiboy]

That's another factor about zooms against primes is the size and the handling, I find sometimes that by the time I stop zooming to get the right image size and composition , the picture I had envisaged is gone.

 

[Markster]

Conversely, I often find by the time I have to swap out my FD lenses, the same is true, whereas I could have made the shot with a 1-touch zoom.