Confused about Zooms??

[dennykyser]

Although I am not new to photography, I am new to digital and I have seen the differance that good glass makes now. I guess when using film I got lucky when I purchased my 100 f/2.0 USM and had a super lens. Now I am trying to get equal quality for all ranges not just close portraits.

Is it corect that regardless of the quality of zoom, the primes are still sharper? I find it hard to see how a $169.00 28 f/2.8 can be as sharp as a $699 17-40 f/4.0 L

Also how can a 24 f/2.8 be $110.00 more than a 28 f/2.8 with a 10D Multiplyer of 1.6 would the 24 be that much better?

Is the increased prices of the zoom due to flexability?

Who would have guessed purchasing a Digital Camera would have lead to such an attention to detail. I cant believe now that with my A2E's Ellan II's and Elan 7E's that I was pretty content with the kit lens (28-90)

Or maybe its you guys pushing me to get better but I have to say my prints are looking better and better so thanks for pushing :lol:

[Tom W]

Although I am not new to photography, I am new to digital and I have seen the differance that good glass makes now. I guess when using film I got lucky when I purchased my 100 f/2.0 USM and had a super lens. Now I am trying to get equal quality for all ranges not just close portraits.

Is it corect that regardless of the quality of zoom, the primes are still sharper? I find it hard to see how a $169.00 28 f/2.8 can be as sharp as a $699 17-40 f/4.0 L

Its a good generalization to say that primes are sharper than zooms, though there are exceptions. Zooms are much more complex than primes. They need to vary magnification while maintaining the ability to focus and maintain a similar or exact aperture ratio.

Also how can a 24 f/2.8 be $110.00 more than a 28 f/2.8 with a 10D Multiplyer of 1.6 would the 24 be that much better?



It does take considerably more glass to get wider angles when you stray pretty far from the middle "normal" range. Notice that the 35 and 50 mm primes are about the smallest lenses in the lineup. As you go to longer lenses, you increase costs, and as you go wider, you increase costs.

Also, don't ignore the effects of supply and demand - it may just be that the 24 mm lens is in greater demand and thus the retailers (or Canon) can demand a higher price and get that price. If the lenses stop moving off the shelves, the price will drop. And if it drops so much that it cannot be sold a profit, they'll discontinue making it.

Is the increased prices of the zoom due to flexability?

See above.

Who would have guessed purchasing a Digital Camera would have lead to such an attention to detail. I cant believe now that with my A2E's Ellan II's and Elan 7E's that I was pretty content with the kit lens (28-90)

Or maybe its you guys pushing me to get better but I have to say my prints are looking better and better so thanks for pushing :lol:

Hey, they're pushing me too. At least that's my excuse. :D

Seriously, with film, you seldom get to look at a print larger than 4X6" and perhaps, occasionally at 8X10 or 8X12". With digital, you can look at your pictures at much larger magnification, and can easily see small differences in sharpness and such. Plus, your 35 mm prints were probably developed with some exposure and/or color correction applied automatically at the lab. We digital folks get to do our own.

[dennykyser]

Very well said and thanks.

I can see now why the 10D was so low in price they figure with all the accessories and L glass they will sell they can afford to.

Like some printers, they give them away to sell the ink cartridges.