Zoom...today vs yesterday

Zooms are lovely tools, and I would use them far more often if extremely high quality zooms were not sold for such a premium over reasonable quality primes. For all the prime lenses that I own for my various cameras I still couldn't afford something like the current gen Canon 70-200. I could keep saving up for that lens rather than buying relatively inexpensive primes, but I would rather be able to actually enjoy photography here and now, and I'll make do with my growing collection of prime lenses for various systems.

As far as zoom lenses being a hinderance to perspective considerations, I have to say that it is just as easily the other way around.

If all you have is a prime lens, then it is very easy to get into the mind set of "Get it 'right' in the camera", and "Fill the frame". Since you only have the single focal length at hand, framing thus relies on distance, and perspective in dependent on distance... Well, you aren't really thinking all that much about your perspective options now, and you've "Fallen into the trap" of allowing the lens to dictate the shot's perspective elements.

When using a quality zoom lens with a reasonably large range that fits within your target zone, then you become free to wander around and explore the scene. You can find the position that gives you the perspective and framing that you are looking for, and then you dial in the exact focal length that you need for that shot.

Compared to high end primes, Canon L, Pentax Limited Edition, Nikon ED, or Minolta/Sony G I think you can get a high quality zoom for song. A good used Minolta 70 to 200 2.8 is around $800 to $1200 , maybe less depending on condition. A used Sony Version is around $2000. A full range of primes to cover the 70 to 200 2.8 in Minolta/Sony A

85 1.8 G $729
100 2.8 $299
135 2.8 $289
200 2.8 G $2199

Once you get the really long primes, you can buy 3 Sigma 150 to 6000 for the price of one 600 4.0 G lens.

Of course you also have to consider some general specs when comparing zoom vs prime price. There are lots of inexpensive f/4.0 or slower telephoto zoom lenses to pick from, but it is rather unfair to try comparing the price of them to 2.8 or even 2.0 prime lenses.

In the old days, like the 70s there were many slower primes made to high standards, even 3rd party primes were all metal, for the money gave good value. Zooms on the hand were expensive. In 1970 the 70 to 210 Konica Zoom was over $400, much more than a 100 and 130 or even 200 4.0. In the 80's cheap zoom replaced cheap primes and became the kit lens. When AF took over the selection of primes dropped as the selection of prime lens dried up and cost rose. So if you are looking at cheap 4.0 prims then in Minolta I would look a the 70 to 210 F 4 beer can lens. I bought mine for $70.00. I can get a 50mm and 28 2.8 for less than a $100, but not much else.

Luckless said:

As far as zoom lenses being a hinderance to perspective considerations, I have to say that it is just as easily the other way around.

If all you have is a prime lens, then it is very easy to get into the mind set of "Get it 'right' in the camera", and "Fill the frame". Since you only have the single focal length at hand, framing thus relies on distance, and perspective in dependent on distance... Well, you aren't really thinking all that much about your perspective options now, and you've "Fallen into the trap" of allowing the lens to dictate the shot's perspective elements.

When using a quality zoom lens with a reasonably large range that fits within your target zone, then you become free to wander around and explore the scene. You can find the position that gives you the perspective and framing that you are looking for, and then you dial in the exact focal length that you need for that shot.

Click to expand...

No, the lens is not dictating the perspective. You are by virtue of where you stand.

True, but you are now putting more emphasis on where the viewer should stand to view your image/print in relation to the focal length of the taking lens and enlargement of the print. A complication of the issue.

I bought Three zooms for my Canon and i am not even sure why.....yes i am. They were dirt cheap.
Each one was about 30 bux with shipping included. There are all just about new looking. Not sure i have even had them all mounted on a body.
100-200 f5.6
70-210 f4.0
100-300 f5.6
I suppose that puts them on the slow side, but i imagine Canon figures you will be outside, and usually have pretty good light.
I am a beginner photographer, and do not generally shoot things that would require a zoom. But for 30 bux, if i only use it one or two times in the next 20 years, it will not be a big deal.
Those 3 zooms get bad mouthed a bit...maybe they deserve the bad rap, but i really do not know. Sometimes guys just repeat things they Hear/Read so they seem like they agree with all the other experts. I would imagine that any lens made by Canon would at least meet basic industry standards.?
Thanks

cliveh said:

No, the lens is not dictating the perspective. You are by virtue of where you stand.

True, but you are now putting more emphasis on where the viewer should stand to view your image/print in relation to the focal length of the taking lens and enlargement of the print. A complication of the issue.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I was referring to.

If you have an object that is X meters big, and you want to have that take up exactly 1/2 of the frame, then there is a fixed distance from that object that you have to be standing to achieve that with a prime. That distance doesn't care about any aspect of perspective with regards to anything else in the image, but if you're any closer to the object then it will take up more of the frame than you want, and if you back off then it will appear smaller. If you only have a 50mm lens on you camera, then there is only one location you can stand to achieve the overall composition within the frame of that primary subject.

Given how much the opinion of "Get it right in the camera, 'correcting' things in post means you're a failure of a photographer" gets hammered into newer photographers right along with things like Rule of Thirds, then a prime is a very good way for a photographer to find themselves failing to consider the impact visual perspective can have on their images.

Or they can consider perspective and general composition, and then reject a perfectly good scene as being impossible to photograph because no one makes a 77.8mm prime lens that would allow them to compose the image from the required location within the scene.


A zoom lens in and of itself has no ability to stop you from using your feet any more than a prime lens does. They're a tool: Adjust its possible settings as needed to achieve the task at hand.

CMoore said:

I bought Three zooms for my Canon and i am not even sure why.....yes i am. They were dirt cheap.
Each one was about 30 bux with shipping included. There are all just about new looking. Not sure i have even had them all mounted on a body.
100-200 f5.6
70-210 f4.0
100-300 f5.6
I suppose that puts them on the slow side, but i imagine Canon figures you will be outside, and usually have pretty good light.
I am a beginner photographer, and do not generally shoot things that would require a zoom. But for 30 bux, if i only use it one or two times in the next 20 years, it will not be a big deal.
Those 3 zooms get bad mouthed a bit...maybe they deserve the bad rap, but i really do not know. Sometimes guys just repeat things they Hear/Read so they seem like they agree with all the other experts. I would imagine that any lens made by Canon would at least meet basic industry standards.?
Thanks

Click to expand...

EOS AF or FD?

Luckless said:

That distance doesn't care about any aspect of perspective with regards to anything else in the image

Click to expand...

Yes it does.

When I was building by Canon F-1 (N) kit, the Canon FD zooms were not as sharp and were slower. I have only Canon FD prime lenses. I have a digital camera that has an 18mm to 50mm lens and the sharpness is very good. So my guess is that zoom lenses today are better than the ones sold 30 years ago. Am I right about this?

Paul Howell said:

EOS AF or FD?

Click to expand...

Sorry, i always forget.
In my head, Canon went from the FD straight to digital.

cliveh said:

Yes it does.

Click to expand...

If you need to be 5m from your main subject to have it at the size and position you want within the frame while using a given prime, then you are at 5m from the main subject. That fixes all the relative sizes and angles within the image because you cannot move from that 5m position without disrupting your size/position of the main subject. If the perspective within the image that you desire would require you to stand at 5.5m or 4.5m from it then you cannot capture the image with that prime without changing your framing of the main subject.

If you must step closer to the main subject, then it becomes too large with the frame because you have too narrow a field of view for your new position. If you must step back, then the main subject becomes too small in the frame and you will be forced to crop the image and sacrifice overall resolution.

A prime lens readily dictates the subject to camera distance, and therefore easily forces a photographer into a stance of "Letting things fall as they will" with regards to fore and background elements. This is contrasted by the ability of a zoom lens to be adjusted to the required angle of view required for a given position.

CMoore said:

Sorry, i always forget.
In my head, Canon went from the FD straight to digital.

Click to expand...

Canon started with rangefinders and Leica 39mm mount lens, then the FD MF focus lens, In the 80s the EOS EF AF lens which is the same mount used on the Digital bodies.

AgX said:

Computers are used in lens design since the mid-50s.
In the meantime not only computer aided manufacture but new lens materials emerged.

Click to expand...

A book from Rochester Institute mentions that an analog computer (not digital) was designed by American Optical for use and the Institute of Optics, for a thin lens triplet design. But it was already recognized that it would take a digital computer to design complex optics. Until the IBM 7070 was installed in the early 1960s, stored program computations were not feasible, and programs for optical design purposes started to be written.
Automated lens design programs came into being in the 1970s.

So zoom lenses even in the mid-1970s were largely designed by manual computation and computer aided design did not really take off until sufficiently powerful became more commonplace and affordable.

But back in the 50s a company as Schneider would not crank out a new lens every three months and unless they offered toll-computing to others, they likely could run their computer weeks or months just for one lens. And they already had a digital computer back then.
Well, that is my assumption, not knowing much of optical computation workload.

You give far too much credit to computer sophistication of the 1950's.
In the US, the UNIVAC was the first commercially produced computer for relatively simple calculations, not complex scientific calculations, and it was launched in 1951. It was the second electronic computer produced in the US. None of the UNIVAC units produced between 1951-1953 went to any companies. The first units owned by companies were not installed until 1954, when 11 units were installed into companies.
The first fully operational electronic computer in continental Europe was created in Ukraine, in 1951. Separately, ERMETH was a computer developed in Switzerland from 1953 to 1956, one of the first electronic computers on the European continent.

You ommit the Zuse ones, employed at Leitz (1953 ) (ordered 1950)) and Zeiss and Schneider in the following years.



But still it would be interesting to know how long those early computers had to work until the design team decided to have reached a point to go into manufacturing.

Data for the Leitz one:
clock rate: 40Hz
Addition 0.1 Sek. , Multipl. 0,40 Sek. , Div. 0,75 Sek.

Paul Howell said:

Canon started with rangefinders and Leica 39mm mount lens, then the FD MF focus lens, In the 80s the EOS EF AF lens which is the same mount used on the Digital bodies.

Click to expand...

Also FL before FD and "FDn". EOS and EF mount began in 1987 with the EOS 650.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

When I was building by Canon F-1 (N) kit, the Canon FD zooms were not as sharp and were slower. I have only Canon FD prime lenses. I have a digital camera that has an 18mm to 50mm lens and the sharpness is very good. So my guess is that zoom lenses today are better than the ones sold 30 years ago. Am I right about this?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's correct. But, a digi camera is doing a lot of work for your lens "behind the scenes", irrespective of how good it is.

There are super-swank Sony Zeiss E-mount zoom lenses that will smack the pants of many competing primes, with no lip-service paid to prime-lens patois and rhetoric. But they do cost a fortune (±$2,000 starting point). I'm agreeable to pricey zooms; it's not just window-dressing, but constantly pushing the pinnacle of optical quality. None of the marque manufacturers have been sitting around doing nothing in terms of the quality of zooms.

AgX said:

You ommit the Zuse ones, employed at Leitz (1953 ) (ordered 1950)) and Zeiss and Schneider in the following years.

But still it would be interesting to know how long those early computers had to work until the design team decided to have reached a point to go into manufacturing.

Data for the Leitz one:
clock rate: 40Hz
Addition 0.1 Sek. , Multipl. 0,40 Sek. , Div. 0,75 Sek.

Click to expand...

I did a bit of research on the Zuse computers. While I was aware of Zuse, I learned of his patents being licensed by IBM and learned of his computer company, which was eventually purchased by Siemens.

http://www.horst-zuse.homepage.t-online.de/Konrad_Zuse_index_english_html/rechner_z11.html
The Z22, which came out in 1958 had electronics (vacuum tube) rather than relays, and it was the first 'stored program' computer.

Luckless said:

If you need to be 5m from your main subject to have it at the size and position you want within the frame while using a given prime, then you are at 5m from the main subject. That fixes all the relative sizes and angles within the image because you cannot move from that 5m position without disrupting your size/position of the main subject. If the perspective within the image that you desire would require you to stand at 5.5m or 4.5m from it then you cannot capture the image with that prime without changing your framing of the main subject.

If you must step closer to the main subject, then it becomes too large with the frame because you have too narrow a field of view for your new position. If you must step back, then the main subject becomes too small in the frame and you will be forced to crop the image and sacrifice overall resolution.

A prime lens readily dictates the subject to camera distance, and therefore easily forces a photographer into a stance of "Letting things fall as they will" with regards to fore and background elements. This is contrasted by the ability of a zoom lens to be adjusted to the required angle of view required for a given position.

Click to expand...

A zoom lens allows you to disguise your position between camera and subject, but not affect perspective.

AgX said:

But still it would be interesting to know how long those early computers had to work until the design team decided to have reached a point to go into manufacturing.

Data for the Leitz one (1953):
clock rate: 40Hz
Addition 0.1 Sek. , Multipl. 0,40 Sek. , Div. 0,75 Sek.

Click to expand...

The first computer for Zeiss Jena was GDR built and had similar characteristics as the Leitz one.
It was stated to reduce lens-design-time to 1/10.

wiltw said:

...
The Z22, which came out in 1958 had electronics (vacuum tube) rather than relays, and it was the first 'stored program' computer.

Click to expand...

What about this:

http://curation.cs.manchester.ac.uk/computer50/www.computer50.org/index.html?man=true

In this context the first computers are of interest that actually ended in the optical industry, and the result they had on optical design.
It seems that the first models just were used to save time and effort, not to step on higher grounds so to say. But information on this is very scarce.
Today Zeiss promise to be able to offer custom designs within 3 days.

I bought my first zoom back in 1982. It was a Korean-made Albinar 80-200mm f/3.9. I got lucky. That zoom was surprisingly sharp and contrasty, so I started out with a decent respect for zooms. At this same time, I bought my second prime (my first was the 50/1.8 that came with my camera). It was also a Korean-made Albinar, a 28mm f/2.8, and it was a POS. So, I had mixed feelings about primes. But I was still very green when it came to photography. Fortunately I wised up fast.

My outfit was Canon FD and at that time, Canon did not make a 28-anything zoom. I wanted one with that focal length on the wide end, and short tele on the long end, so I bought a Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5. That was a very good move because that particular S1 lens was, and still is, one of the best 28-short teles ever made. My next zoom purchase was a Soligor 85-300mm f/5, another POS. I ended up trading it for a telephone answering machine that didn't work most of the time. After a lot of thought and research, I replaced that Soligor with a Tamron SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4. Another good move. That Tamron was a great lens and it had an incredible macro mode, getting all the way down to 1:1.5.

So for years, my "walking around" outfit was a Canon F-1 with the Vivitar 28-90, Tamron 60-300, and an FL 19mm f/3.5 I'd picked up at a camera show. As far as primes went, I'd also bought a Canon nFD 24mm f/2.8, 100mm f/2.8, 200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4, and a Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror. Oh, and I'd also picked up a Vivitar macro 2x teleconverter, just to round things out. I was pretty well set back in those days.

Fast forward a few decades. These days I have a nice collection of Tamron lenses, both zooms and primes, almost all of which are SP, focal lengths ranging from 17mm to 500mm. I like them a lot. I also own decent sized Canon FD and Nikon manual focus outfits, but both are light on Canon and Nikon zooms. I own a few Vivitar S1 and Tokina AT-X zooms in C-FD and Nikon F mounts, but only one each name brand zoom for Canon FD and Nikon (a Canon 70-210/4 and a Nikon 80-200/4.5).

I've become very picky about zooms over the years. If I end up with a zoom that is not sharp or weak in the contrast department, I get rid of it. So, all the zooms I own now can rival most primes in image quality.

As for AF, I also own a Canon EOS 35mm camera (and a Canon DSLR) and I own a few EF lenses, plus I also own a couple Nikon AF cameras (a N80 and an F4) and I have two AF Nikkors, a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 D ED, and a 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 D. Both the EF and AF Nikkor zooms are quite good and I'm happy with them. It seems these days that D-series AF Nikkors are not all that popular, but I prefer them. The two I own have adequately sized, rubberized focusing collars that are well damped, so it's easy and comfortable using them as manual focus lenses. IOW, I can use them with my F2s and F3 and they handle quite naturally.