Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by fractal, Feb 10, 2017.
Things You Didn’t Want to Know About Zoom Lenses
Interesting article and quite informative, certainly food for thought, thanks for the link.
I looked through that and thought the most interesting thing about it was the underlying but it does not really matter if lens x works for you its al good and the measurements count for nothing in the general scheme of things. I would say that unless a lens is a complete mess and has real issues along as it measures reasonably by modern standards it is going to be good enough, just we may find that one lens gives us something that we find special and that is what we are drawn to. I always thought it would be easier to design a great prime over a zoom as it is in itself a far far simpler piece of design, but I would bet that most people who use a prime or zoom out of choice do so as that is what works best for them and many will just get the best they can afford for whatever body they use.
The article is an perfect illustration of why Einstein said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Zooms are for tourists. I thought everybody already knew that ;~/
Until Camera manufacturers find a why to reduce the possibility of dust on sensors, zooms will always have a place in a photographers bag. Because no matter how hard you try and how careful you are, changing primes from one to another will always eventually attract dust.
this: "Unless the rating is 42. Then it would have a meaning."
I never use a zoom. My sensor is dusty all the time, I mostly shoot f2 and larger so I'm ok most of the time. I do rocket blow it a lot.
I wonder what the sales figures (ratios) are for zooms vs. primes? (Does Lens Rentals give any idea of the ratio of rentals for each time?)
Given that there are approximately equal numbers of both in any lens manufacturers range (both body makers and 3rd party lens companies such as Sigma), we can assume that a sufficient number of buyers are satisfied with the quality-convenience trade off that zooms offer. (And the cost of buying primes to cover a zoom range)
I would like to use primes, but don't own a single one. My zooms covering 17-300mm (FF) suit my photography habit (mobile, city and nature hiking, cheapskate).
Golfkacker : my range is 11-200mm with two primes : Sigma 30mm f2.8 and a Nikon 50mm f1.8. I have recently purchased an a7ll and will probably use the Nikon all be it with an adaptor and see what results I will be getting. I realise that the Nikon is not a Full Frame Lens and have adjusted the body accordingly. Test results will determine my future purchases.
I should probably be embarrassed at how many manual Canon lenses I've accumulated...both from film days back in the 80's, then some adds over the past 3-4 years. A lot are primes, but have to say that a couple of my most used lenses are Canon 24-35/3.5 and 35-105/3.5 zooms for their utility.
For example, yesterday I went back to a rough, dusty, outdoors environment around a rail yard to get some more shots of an old steam locomotive coming through the woods...put the 35-105/3.5 on the NEX7 and that was it. I did carry a Canon 20mm/2.8 along just in case but never used it.
I'm fortunate to have a set of primes and zooms, I find I use whatever my mood takes me.
Zooms are more convenient and allow precise compositions, primes on the other hand are generally smaller and lighter and require a different approach as you need to decide which lens will be best for a particular shot and then to some degree make the shot fit the lens, moving yourself as much as practical to get the composition.
I enjoy using both, I've found primes require more thought and contemplation and the results can be more satisfying.
I think I've seen that same article, under different bylines, three times in the last year. There are people that test lenses, and there are photographers.
I'm a prime shooter. I prefer their results, which to my eye are more satisfying and perceived to be sharper. That doesn't mean I don't own zooms. They have their purpose. A good lens is one that gets used and the photographer is happy with and most comfortable using.
I shoot mostly primes (MF) but use the FE16-35 for landscape work, but would love to have this replaced by 15mm, 20mm and 24mm primes (MF) when I can afford them.
Two "buts" in a sentence!
I enjoy shooting with primes. But I'm not getting rid of my zooms anytime soon.
Back when I stepped up from my Nikon 995 to a D80, I ordered the body along with an 18-200 zoom lens. It was like being set free as I finally had ONE lens that covered such a vast array of focal lengths I thought I'd never need any other lens. I had a few Nikon primes from my film Nikons, but they wouldn't be auto focusing or stabilized and I'd have to learn how to get the proper exposure settings too. All I really wanted to do was shoot pictures, so, I never put them on the camera. The 18-200 was/is a great lens as it allows me to get right up next to a car and still get the whole car into the frame, at least for the most part.
Then life happened and I find myself discovering that I've got a couple of primes hidden in the closet attached to cameras people covet. Long story short, Sony has come to my rescue with the Nex-7 and A7ii. I can shoot primes, zooms and not have to worry about shaking and can figure out the exposure easily and life is good.
Looking back now, that 18-200 was 'good enough', and still is for the most part. But the primes really do 'make' the photo just that little bit sharper, for the most part. And they're a lot easier to carry too!
That's been common knowledge for as long as I can remember. One must buy a high-end zoom to approach the sharpness of most primes and even then it's not guaranteed. Still, I am very happy with the performance of my two Sony zooms and do not expect them to be as good as my Sigma Art prime. That said, they are more than good enough for most subjects and certainly give me nothing to bitch about.
I have used some zooms that were crap, the worst being the old Canon EF-S 18-55 kit lens and the EF 75-300. Luckily for Canon buyers, they have recently greatly improved the former. The EF is a lens to own when you can't afford the much better 55-250 and it is better than nothing. Some of the basic kit lenses Canon sold with their EOS film cameras are even worse, in my experience. I have not had that experience with any Sony zooms but when I need top quality I always reach for my Sigma 30mm, which is outstanding for the price and sharper than one of Dracula's fangs.
Taken with NEX-6 and Sigma 30mm f2.8 DN Art. That's a dead Hydrangea.
That's sharp enough for me Dan. Nice colours too
I'm contemplating on a Sigma Art 35 + MC-11.
It's not as sharp as the original due to the downsizing on this forum.
That Sigma is probably the best lens I've ever bought for $200 and is now the best lens I own for the NEX. My other Sony has a fixed Zeiss T* zoom and it's impressive but I suppose it's easier to design when the lens is a fixed one. It's sharp from one end to the other throughout it's 50X range. Unfortunately, those Sony long-zoom cameras are a bit costly but IQ is really excellent for a small-sensor camera, as long as you don't pixel peep.