Difference between Zoom and non-Zoom lenses?

[Kirik]

OK, I didn't even know some lenses didn't zoom; that's all I've ever used! Please help me understand what the difference is between, say, a 200mm f/2.8 L and a 70-200mm f/2.8 L? Does that mean that you can zoom in and out at all?? Meaning, you would have to move your body closer or farther from the subject?

Thanks

[kawter2]

it would be the same as getting a 70-200 zoom and supergluing the lens at it's closest setting.


Thats all you get

[Cadwell]

Ummmm.... well one zooms from 70mm-200mm and the other has a fixed focal length of 200mm... :P ;)

The non-zoom (or prime) should be better optically than the zoom as designing a zoom lens to cover a range of focal lengths forces some design compromises.

So... it's a trade-off between optimum optical performance in the prime and the convenience of having a range of focal lengths in the zoom.

[Kirik]

it would be the same as getting a 70-200 zoom and supergluing the lens at it's closest setting.


Thats all you get

I don't get that...

Are you saying there's no adjusting the distance of the lense at all; i.e., if you want a closer shot, you have to move your location closer? If you want a farther shot you have to go farther away? There's no zoom ring at all?

[OviV]

it would be the same as getting a 70-200 zoom and supergluing the lens at it's closest setting.


Thats all you get

I don't get that...

Are you saying there's no adjusting the distance of the lense at all; i.e., if you want a closer shot, you have to move your location closer? If you want a farther shot you have to go farther away? There's no zoom ring at all?

On the 200 2.8, no, there is no zoom ring. It is 200 MM. You must use your feet to "zoom" in or out. You would buy a 200 MM 2.8 if you will primarily be shooting at this focal length and want the best optical performance.

Ovi

[Kirik]

Wow... that would really suck! I realize there's supposedly a bit better images in non-zoom, but geez. what a pain. That was my "intuitive guess" about the meaning on "non-zoom"

[Andy_T]

Wow... that would really suck! I realize there's supposedly a bit better images in non-zoom, but geez. what a pain. That was my "intuitive guess" about the meaning on "non-zoom"

Y'know ... in the old days, people even had to calculate shutter speed and aperture from the readings of a light meter :shock:

The advantage of prime lenses is that it is a lot easier to construct a prime lens with good optical capabilities than a zoom lense. It will be a lot lighter, give sharper images and have a larger aperture (thus allowing faster shutter speeds and more creative DOF control).

The first zoom lenses were constructed in the early 60's by Nikon and the image quality in the beginning was obnoxious. The only advantage was that they are more convenient than prime lenses.

This is a very common compromise you have to make in photography ... comfort or picture quality. Investing a lot of money in expensive lenses certainly helps to a point :lol:

If you don't want to change lenses or move your a** at all when doing a photo shoot, get a 28-300 'hyper-zoom'. Picture quality, however, is poor :?
If you want to have moderate comfort and half decent image quality, you can get 2 'consumer' zoom lenses like the 28-80 and the 70-210. If you are able to spend more money and want very good image quality, you go for the 24-70/2.8L and the 70-200/2.8L or 70-200/4.0L lenses that are a lot more expensive but also provide image quality that's a lot better.

If sharpness, colour rendition and a large aperture, however, are most important for a certain assignment, many photographers will use prime lenses (e.g. a 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2.0L and 200/2.8 ).

The best example why a prime lens can male a lot of sense also to a 'normal' shooter would be the great Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 (80$) lenses. Take a look at this test: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

The picture quality of these lenses will clearly blow away the kit lens and there is no way to get such apertures with a zoom lens. If my math is correct, then a 50/1.8 lens captures about 3 times as much light as a 50/5.6 lens. This means that you can use a shutter speed of 1/200 vs. 1/60 in a critical low light situation ... might be the difference between a sharp or a blurred photo :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Olegis]

Wow... that would really suck! I realize there's supposedly a bit better images in non-zoom, but geez. what a pain. That was my "intuitive guess" about the meaning on "non-zoom"

It's not just that. Primes are often lighter and smaller than zooms, they cost much less and give superior optical performance, sometimes better than that of the best L zooms.

For example - I have a very difficult time to distinguish between the quality of images made with my 70-200 f/2.8L (about $1100) and those made with 100mm f/2.8 Macro (about $450).

[neil_r]

Wow... that would really suck! I realize there's supposedly a bit better images in non-zoom, but geez. what a pain. That was my "intuitive guess" about the meaning on "non-zoom"

This is just a hunch, but I guess that if you were able to get a consensus and come up with the best 100 photographs ever taken, the number taken with a zoom lens would be in single figures.

As ever always open for debate :)

N

[Andy_T]

This is just a hunch, but I guess that if you were able to get a consensus and come up with the best 100 photographs ever taken, the number taken with a zoom lens would be in single figures.


Common laws of probability might suggest that.

People have been taking photographs since what?
1825 with Nièpce and Daguerre first producing sustainable photographs?
And zoom lenses have been around for about 40 years now.

Best regards,
Andy

[Kirik]

"If you don't want to change lenses or move your a** at all when doing a photo shoot,"

It isn't that; it's that the action often changes so quickly, you likely wouldn't have time to either change lenses or move around. I'm thinking about the kinds of pics I take, which is sports photography.

I'm about to pull the trigger on a 7-200 f/2.8L when I find a good use one... that seems like the one I need. I'm currently using fairly low-end sigma lenses and they often produce blurr since I sometimes shoot boxing matches where the stage is lit up but the rest of the area is dark.

[Andy_T]

It isn't that; it's that the action often changes so quickly, you likely wouldn't have time to either change lenses or move around. I'm thinking about the kinds of pics I take, which is sports photography.


I agree with you :wink:
However, a lot of sports photographers use prime lenses because they give them the best pictures and they normally only use the lens fully zoomed in.

Other than that, the 70-200/2.8L is the lens to get.

I'm about to pull the trigger on a 7-200 f/2.8L when I find a good use one...

WOW :shock: That one would even be better! What a zoom range!

(Sorry, couldn't resist :wink: )

Best regards,
Andy

[Kirik]

WOW :shock: That one would even be better! What a zoom range!

(Sorry, couldn't resist :wink: )

Best regards,
Andy

LOL! Typo...

Yeah that seems like the lens for me. I wonder how it would do from about 30-40ft away from a lit up boxing ring, with the rest of the place being pretty dark...??

[daveh]

I've owned a few zooms but none have been keepers for me. Image quality and speed are the usual complaints. (Or weight in the case of a few.) I tend to take a lot of low-light pictures so I mostly use a 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.2, 135 f2.0, and 200 f1.8.

If I can't move, then I change lenses. That's what SLRs are for ;)

[digidog]

It isn't that; it's that the action often changes so quickly, you likely wouldn't have time to either change lenses or move around. I'm thinking about the kinds of pics I take, which is sports photography.


You have more than one camera so you don't need to change lenses.

[Kirik]

If I can't move, then I change lenses. That's what SLRs are for ;)

That takes time...

As for having >1 camera, do you have a camera for each lens??

The reading I've done states there's little difference today bewteen zoom and non-zoom in regards to clarity...??

[daveh]

That takes time...

Nonetheless that's why they put a lens mount on there. It doesn't really take very long. I don't recall ever missing a shot during a lens change but I suppose it's possible depending on what kind of shooting you do. Of course, the same could happen while swapping a battery pack, which takes about as long.

As for having >1 camera, do you have a camera for each lens??

I used to carry bodies with different films - but these days, I just dial a different speed on the same digital body. Changing film in mid-roll was possible but was pretty time-consuming and error-prone.

The reading I've done states there's little difference today bewteen zoom and non-zoom in regards to clarity...??

That hasn't been my experience. However it really depends on how picky you are. Many SLRs today are used as fancy snapshot cameras where it won't matter at all. That's something you need to decide for yourself.

[steven]

The reading I've done states there's little difference today bewteen zoom and non-zoom in regards to clarity...??

From the reviews that I have read this is not the case. And having talked to photographers who have been taking pictures for many years the same thing is said.

You get sharper images on a prime lens. This in addition to the lighter, smaller advantage is what keeps them around. Why would you carry three or more prime lens if you could get the same shots with one zoom? You wouldn't. But when I look at the pros out there they have primes attached to their cameras.