Zoom...today vs yesterday

[CMoore]

I have a few zooms for both my Canon and Nikon. Some are fairly wide...not sure exactly, somewhere in the 50-150 range maybe.? I never use them.
I am about to send some Nikon lens to get the AI conversion, one of them was a Zoom, but i decided there was no need to, as i do not use it anyway. So my Zooms sit on a shelf.
Fast forward to today's cameras, and Zooms seem to be Very Popular. On other forums i belong to (non photography related) when a guy asks (in the off-topic section of the forum) for a lens recommendation, the answers are always full of Zoom suggestions.
I guess that makes me wonder a few things:
Are Zooms of today "better" made than a zoom made circa 1975.?
Do you guys use a Zoom very often with your Film SLR.?
Thank You

 

[Alan Gales]

Years ago zoom lenses were crap. The major lens manufactures had very low interest in making them. That all changed with the emergence of the Vivitar Series One 70-210mm lens in I believe 1975. After the Vivitar came out the major lens manufactures scrambled to catch up. Also Tamron, Tokina and Kiron appeared on the scene.

I would say that the best computer designed zoom lenses of today are easily better than the zooms of 1975 although the original Series One Vivitar is still quiet good by today's standards. My daughter uses one on her Olympus OM-1.

I have a love/hate relationship with zooms. I much prefer primes but zooms can certainly come in handy. I've tried a couple zooms for 35mm but preferred primes. I have shot a lot of sports photography with Nikon D200 and D300 digital cameras and an 18-200mm VR lens which would be a 28mm to 300mm on a 35mm camera. For fast pitch softball I could shoot the girls in the dugout at the wide end and still get the pitcher, the infielders and the action at the plate with the same lens. For the outfielders I would have to crop a bit. I loved that zoom for sports!

I wouldn't worry about what other people use. If you prefer primes to zooms then that is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

My earliest zoom lenses — Olympus and Nikon (1977-78) got the job done for what I liked to do (earliest landscapes), but those Kodachrome slides, while evoking fond memories of my early endeavours, are frankly bloody awful against modern era zoom images.

I also used Tamron zooms with the redoubtable Adaptall mounts — entirely forgettable of that era (1980s) and in 1996 made the decision to buy Canon's EF 75-300mm IS lens. Ugh—! This horrible piece of clickety-clackety-burring, noisy rubbish took forever to focus, drained the camera's battery and had more aberrations than Donald Trump. It was after saving up for my first Canon L-series lenses that I realised paying more meant getting more optical performance. The difference really is noticeable, not imagined. The decrepit 75-300 was sold off for $15 and I soon had my first 70-200 f2.8L, even if I had to live off two boiled eggs for a month. This L-zoom is many times better again than the Nikon and Olympus zooms of the early 1980s. I had one Canon FD mount zoom -- a 35-105mm, often mentioned in passing here on APUG, and it was a stirling lens well suited to travel. This was c. 1987-88.

I still have the 70-200 f2.8L, joined a couple of years later by a 17-40 f4L and both of these are on a par with, or better than, prime lenses.

The simple answer to the question is zooms today are definitely very, very good and it is silly and nit-pickity to exclude them based on past performance or especially, the preferences and/or shooting experience of other photographers. You have to "find your own direction"; many will stick with primes over their whole life. Others will mix and match zooms + primes to get the right balance.

I think the 70s and 80s were a formative period in zoom design. Manufacturers didn't sit on their arses doing nothing when photographers were griping over poor optical performance. They got moving: Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Vivitar, Tokina... others still. I'd use any other zoom now with confidence. And I think the very best zooms today are those made by Zeiss, but these satin black beauties are for sɐɹǝɯɐɔ lɐʇᴉƃᴉp and certainly are not cheap ($3,000+).

 

[blockend]

Today's kit zooms are better than most old upmarket versions, and the professional varieties better than almost all old primes lenses. The optical maths are available at the click of a mouse, and manufacturing processes have removed the technical barriers. I still prefer prime lenses because I like the consistent viewpoint they provide.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I have shot a lot of sports photography with Nikon D200 and D300 digital cameras and an 18-200mm VR lens which would be a 28mm to 300mm on a 35mm camera.

Oh dear!
Not to admire that Fuji just discontinued another film.

 

[Alan Gales]

Oh dear!
Not to admire that Fuji just discontinued another film.

I'm sorry but digital is just better at sports photography. Also I could email the parents of the girls shots of their daughters. I no longer shoot sports since my daughter grew up and no longer pitches. I still shoot digital for Ebay auctions and some family snaps. I do prefer film and shoot 8x10 b&w, 4x5 color, 120 b&w & color and occasionally 35mm color slide film in my Stereo Realist. I hope that makes up for my digital indiscretions.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I hope you can see the sorry state of affairs when even members of the small film community also use Digi when they could be using film.
There's simply no excuse.
"If you don't use if, you'll loose it".
Simple as that.

 

[Slixtiesix]

As others said, the latest zooms are much better than ever before. Not all of them, but many. The better ones even surpass older/low budget prime lenses, at least concerning resolution. Maybe distortion and light fall off are a bit worse and they are still not as fast as prime lenses, but that´s it.

 

[Helinophoto]

Got to chime in here and say that, in Canon-land, the L-zooms smacks many (most) consumer-primes around with ease.
They are also often fast (2.8) across the range, though very heavy. ^_^

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

though very heavy.

Yeap, they are. They are also quite large.
I see many people using a L 24-70mm(?) zoom for street photography. I'll point out that they might be better served with something smaller, more discreet and above all lighter.

 

[AgX]

Got to chime in here and say that, in Canon-land, the L-zooms smacks many (most) consumer-primes around with ease.
They are also often fast (2.8) across the range, though very heavy. ^_^

Primes of the past or current?

 

[benjiboy]

Years ago zoom lenses were crap. The major lens manufactures had very low interest in making them. That all changed with the emergence of the Vivitar Series One 70-210mm lens in I believe 1975. After the Vivitar came out the major lens manufactures scrambled to catch up. Also Tamron, Tokina and Kiron appeared on the scene.

I would say that the best computer designed zoom lenses of today are easily better than the zooms of 1975 although the original Series One Vivitar is still quiet good by today's standards. My daughter uses one on her Olympus OM-1.

I have a love/hate relationship with zooms. I much prefer primes but zooms can certainly come in handy. I've tried a couple zooms for 35mm but preferred primes. I have shot a lot of sports photography with Nikon D200 and D300 digital cameras and an 18-200mm VR lens which would be a 28mm to 300mm on a 35mm camera. For fast pitch softball I could shoot the girls in the dugout at the wide end and still get the pitcher, the infielders and the action at the plate with the same lens. For the outfielders I would have to crop a bit. I loved that zoom for sports!

I wouldn't worry about what other people use. If you prefer primes to zooms then that is perfectly acceptable.

Kiron and Tokina actually made Vivitar 70 - 210 zoom lenses, Vivitar only comissoned and marketed them

 

[fstop]

To answer the original question.
Primes will always be faster and offer the edge in image quality, zooms offer convenience. If you have time to plan your shot and position yourself to achieve your desired composition then a fixed prime is the best option.
When you use a zoom pay attention to the focal lengths you use, if you use it zoomed out all the time, the a fixed prime would be a better choice.

I hope you can see the sorry state of affairs when even members of the small film community also use Digi when they could be using film.
There's simply no excuse.
"If you don't use if, you'll loose it".
Simple as that.

Its our choice of medium.
Ferrania backer? hahahah KS is a ripoff. kiss your money goodbye.

 

[Tony-S]

Kiron and Tokina actually made Vivitar 70 - 210 zoom lenses, Vivitar only comissoned and marketed them

As did Komine (considered the best) and Cosina.

 

[Tony-S]

Are Zooms of today "better" made than a zoom made circa 1975.?

That depends on the lens. My Canon FDn 80-200 f/4L is as good or better than most zooms manufactured today. My FDn 28-85 is also very good, but not as good as the 80-200. Is the FD 80-200 as good as the EF 70-200 (or other vendors' equivalents) lenses? No idea. But in the end, it's unlikely that for most people there'd be enough differences that you could visually discriminate them; you'd probably need some kind of measurabator instrument to know for sure.

I also have a Pentax M42 85-205 that isn't all that great, and a Tokina 70-210 (c. 1980s) that is pretty darn good.

Do you guys use a Zoom very often with your Film SLR.?

My FDn 80-200 and 28-85 get used as much as any other lens I own (8 Canon FDn primes).

 

[DWThomas]

With my Canon FD series my goto all purpose lens was the 35-105 mentioned upthread. On most of my "newer" gear I don't even own primes, except for my Bronica SQ-A for which zooms were very limited and very expensive. Of course I also shoot some older gear where the lenses don't interchange -- that's real-l-ly prime! I just came back from a major wandering around the country with two fixed lens film cameras (and a high end digi-P&S) and occasionally found myself missing a zoom -- walking forward or backward doesn't work well on canyon rims, for example. I've not gotten into "super-zooms," but I find, for my uses -- especially travel -- a modest 3:1 zoom is a very useful tool. As a traveler I am loath to carry a bag with 15 pounds of lenses and be swapping them as something is happening in front of me. For studio or pre-planned photo projects, a bag full of stuff is OK, but not for hiking or wandering in unfamiliar cities. But that's all just me, YMMV, etc, etc.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Do you guys use a Zoom very often with your Film SLR.?

Nearly all the time I use AF zooms.Most use AF, that is why MF zooms on ebay are so cheap IMO.
In reply to Ricardo, some subjects like sports photography and model photography would be very expensive to shoot on film and I don't use film for these.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Years ago zoom lenses were crap. The major lens manufactures had very low interest in making them. That all changed with the emergence of the Vivitar Series One 70-210mm lens in I believe 1975. After the Vivitar came out the major lens manufactures scrambled to catch up. Also Tamron, Tokina and Kiron appeared on the scene.

I bought a Vivitar 70mm to 200mm zoom in the early 1970's just a few before the Vivitar Series I zooms can out. The Vivitar pre-Series I zoom lenses were just ok, not great and did not have the contrast of the Minolta MC/MD lenses.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm sorry but digital is just better at sports photography.

Of course it is, because it does not require any photographic timing skill that film photography does. Just as relieving oneself on a fence with a stream rather than one shot. Jus' sayin'

 

[MattKing]

The difference between most 40 year old zoom lenses and most modern zoom lenses comes down to computers - computer aided design and computer aided manufacture. The computer made it possible to design and manufacture at much higher quality, for reasonable cost.

Older zoom lenses tended to be lower in contrast, but as they were often used with slide films and projection (inherently higher in contrast) the reduction in contrast wasn't as important.

Older zoom lenses were more likely to have "sweet spots" - a smaller range of focal lengths where the performance was better compared to the larger total range available from the lens. If you got to know your lens well, you could adapt to that.

I still like my 1970s 75-150mm Zuiko two touch zoom, but only under particular circumstances.

 

[Vilk]

[...] Just as relieving oneself on a fence with a stream rather than one shot. Jus' sayin'

you mean i've been doing it wrong all those years??

 

[AgX]

The difference between most 40 year old zoom lenses and most modern zoom lenses comes down to computers - computer aided design and computer aided manufacture.

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

 

[narsuitus]

Are Zooms of today "better" made than a zoom made circa 1975.?
Do you guys use a Zoom very often with your Film SLR.?

Back in the early 1970s, I purchased my first zoom lens, a Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5. Its image quality was so poor that it soured me to zoom lenses for decades.

At the beginning of the digital revolution, I received an auto focus Tamron 28-200mm lens and an auto focus Nikon film body (N70) as a gift from a colleague who was abandoning film for digital. The excellent performance of this lens on my Nikon film cameras (F2 and F4) changed my negative opinion of zoom lenses.

I later purchased 4 auto focus zooms (14-24, 20-35, 35-70, and 80-200) to use on my film cameras. The zooms did not replace my primes. I use the primes when I need light gathering and I use the zooms when I need focal length flexibility.



Nikon zooms by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[MattKing]

Computers are used in lens design since the mid-50s.

This is true. Except that the computers (and software) used in the 1950s had the capacity of 1950s era computers and software. They were also very expensive.

 

[fstop]

Nearly all the time I use AF zooms.Most use AF, that is why MF zooms on ebay are so cheap IMO.
In reply to Ricardo, some subjects like sports photography and model photography would be very expensive to shoot on film and I don't use film for these.

There are situations where you just can't beat the capabilities of a DSLR. Sports and wildlife especially.

Photography is making an image, how its made is up to the person doing it just how it gets done.I have options to make an image, I can use a pencil,paint,film,digital imaging both photography and digital graphics.
Film is just a medium like any other, criticizing someone for using water colors instead of oil paint is ridiculous. Film vs digital, color vs b&w.Format vs format its up to the artist to determine what they want the image to look like.

What counts is the image is made.

btw the internet is a digital medium...