Fixed Focal vs Zoom

CoolToolGuy wrote:

Tom W wrote:

CoolToolGuy wrote:

Tom W wrote:

CoolToolGuy wrote:

Tom W wrote:
It just shows that Canon needs to hurry up and develop that 15-500 f/1.4 DO IS USM, double overhead cam, fuel injected, superheterodyne, dual conversion, twin prop, air conditioned, aluminum-sided thermopane zoom lens that we need so bad.

Tom, those are some really good specs, but I won't even consider it unless it is also low-carb.

Not only low carb but high fiber, low fat, low sodium, high diffractive protein, and absolutely no trans-fatty acids.

Shoots great, less filling!

So, you figure out a way to get a little Viagra into the mix, and they'll sell a million of them!

LOL! But wouldn't the viagra counteract the effect of the DO optics?

Well, from what I've seen, the DO elements are a little like the ribs on a (pick your favorite term for a protective device), so it could actually enhance the experience!

Zoom zoom zoom!

CoolToolGuy wrote:

Tom W wrote:
It just shows that Canon needs to hurry up and develop that 15-500 f/1.4 DO IS USM, double overhead cam, fuel injected, superheterodyne, dual conversion, twin prop, air conditioned, aluminum-sided thermopane zoom lens that we need so bad.

Tom, those are some really good specs, but I won't even consider it unless it is also low-carb.

.............and under $1000 USD.............

Ro1

Sometimes, for example, at a crowded event where the photographer has very little mobility, you are right. In those cases I am more likely to have a zoom. However, often you can zoom in or out with your 50, by moving your feet. Your feet, on the other hand, can't change the aperture, the edge sharpness, or distortion.

Also, don't forget, zooming in is as easy as using the crop tool in Photoshop. 6.3MP allows a lot of cropping unless you are shooting posters--if you have a sharp lens.

This afternoon, a very orange bird I had never seen before appeared in my yard. I went in the house and got my camera. (I am not normally a bird photographer so I don't have a 500mm) I had the choice of a 75-300/5.6 zoom, or a 200/2.8L. I didn't hesitate, I put on the 200mm. I know from experience I have a much better chance of ending up with a usable picture with the 200mm. It will find the bird, focus on it instantly, and I can crop the picture on the computer. The moral: Because of its greater sharpness, greater aperture, and much faster focusing, my 200mm prime is effectively longer than my 300mm zoom.

Now if the subject is dead and it's sunny, focusing isn't an issue, and I'd consider the zoom.

Slow compared to a faster focusing prime, but not slow compared to a comparably priced zoom. My 50/1.4USM focuses much faster than my 28-105USM.

Another comparison
200L: lightning fast, 75-300 slooooooooow

Sure, compared to a multithousand $ zoom the 50/1.4 might not be that fast. But it's better than any zoom in my budget.

Remember, the camera needs light to find the focus, f/1.4 is 16 times more light than f/5.6 and 4 times more light than f/2.8

But most often, the aperture, edge sharpness and distortion are insignificant issues, at least with the 24-70, whereas I cannot knock down walls or stop traffic with my 50 mm to get the shot. In other words, they each have situations where one holds an advantage. For what I shoot, the minor disadvantages of the zoom are far outweighed by its flexibility. If the situation demands it, I'll not hesitate to use the 50.

And I do have a sharp lens or two or three. And all but one are zooms. Anyway, there's only so far that cropping can get you, and it certainly won't widen your angle of view.

Well, I don't think its proper to judge zoom lenses by comparing an f/2.8 L prime with an f/5.6 low-end consumer zoom. Had you had a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom, you could have gotten the same shot of the bird, and then turned around and got your large dog standing 5 feet behind you without hesitation.

Your experience differs from mine - my old (well, 1 year old) 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 focuses both faster and more accurately than either my 50/1.4 does or my 50/1.8 did. And it was only $220 new.

Geez, as a guy who grew up with Canon FD lenses where the focus speed was determined by hand/eye coordination, I just can't use autofocus speed as a prime factor in picking a lens. The image quality is what matters. There can be occasions where the autofocus speed can matter (sports, for example) but if the lens produces a better image, focus by hand, or wait for Canon to upgrade the lens.

As for the prime versus zoom, I have both and I use both. Both have their strong points. I do, however, think that many people write off primes as old school, thinking that zooms are the only way to go. And to them I reiterate:
Try one, you may find yourself in the prime of your life

That isn't the point. The point is that while I understand fully that compromises that go into a zoom lens and that, more often than not, its image quality is slightly softer than a comparable prime of the same focal length, I also understand that one need not use false information to support their choices.

Primes and zooms both have their places. My 50/1.4 was about useless trying to shoot a fast-acting indoor volleyball game since it could not find the proper focus point a good deal of the time.

Manual focus isn't always an option (though its great for Macro) due to the miniature viewfinder.

I have a prime - I use it. I'll probably have more primes in the future (that 100 macro comes to mind). But I resent the inference made by a couple of posters (not yourself) that prime users ought to look down their noses at the lowley zoom lens users, particularly when certain zooms are so close in image quality to their comparable stable of primes as to make the differences negligable.

I'm not writing off primes as "old school", and I'm sorry if that's the idea that you got. But I'll defend my lens choices against the "elites" that claim zooms as a whole are inadequate. I know better.

Tom,

Please don't take my comments personally. They were not directed at you, although you were a significant responder in this thread. Threads like this one (in my mind) are not about one person responding to another, but all of us pooling and disseminating our collective wisdom for the benefit of all. What I think about zooms is my impression of a general attitude, not what I think that you believe. Sorry if you saw it otherwise.

Ehhh, sorry, Rick. I've been working nights this week, I had just gotten up when I posted the reply (after being awakened by the neighbor's lawn mower - imagine that, people mowing their lawn during the day). I tend to take things on a more personal and agressive level at my earliest hours.

As well, I had just recently gotten through a similar, but less friendly "discussion" at another web site after one poster made the semi-innocent comment that a certain favorite zoom lens was "an overweight dinasaur that is soft wide open". It escalated from there, me being the stubborn one that I am. As well, I probably carried some of that attidute with me over here to the more civilized world.

Ah-ha! This is the whole sticking point of our argument, I believe. I think it is exactly proper to compare these two since they are comparably priced. It is proper to compare the 50/1.4 with the 28-105 because they are comparably priced. I believe it is not proper to compare the 50/1.4 with the 24-70L because they are not comparably priced. For me money is THE object because I have very little. When I go into the store, I don't ask, "Should I buy that $500 prime or that $2500 zoom?" Instead I say, "My wife will have my head if I spend over $500. Should I buy this impressive prime lens or should I buy this [your words] 'low-end consumer zoom'." In this situation the prime has often won, and I have never regretted it. (Hmm, I have never ebayed off a prime but I ebayed off several zooms over the years.)

Our argument may simply be that you are arguing from a stand point of "L-zooms are pretty damn good" and I am arguing from a standpoint of value-for-money in the sub-$1000 range.

Yes, price is part of the equation, but when you need to buy a 24, 28, 35, 50 and something close to 70mm primes, all capable of shooting sharp, contrasty, color-balanced images at f/2.8 (like the 24-70 does), your price theory flies out the window. That's a lot of lenses.

Interestingly, you conveniently forgot the rest of my post.

Ummmm, L-zooms are a little more that "pretty damn good" - they rival the pile of primes that they replace in price and image quality. Plus, they offer considerably better build quality and convenience. Look, if you want to shoot primes, by all means, enjoy yourself. I shoot with one of them as well, when the situation calls for it. And I'll probably buy other primes as I see fit.

But don't try to press the idea that those that prefer to shoot with zooms are settling for "pretty damn good" images or that those using zooms are too lazy to walk 10 feet to get a shot ("zoom with your feet"). The image quality of the 2 "L" zooms (and the Sigma) that I use is excellent, not pretty damn good. And there are plenty of times where zooming with ones' feet will not get the shot, without the added capability to change focal lengths on the fly.

Tom, we don't need to buy all the prime lenses. I agree that the 24-70/L can do the job of the prime lenses "most" of the time. And I won't label zoom lens users as lazy. It needs discipline, however.

Now you're over the top. A 24 and a 50 will do the work of an 24-70 very well, especially with digital. And yes, I recognize that it means switching from one to the other. But that trades off with the already mentioned advantages, too.

I am not denying that a decent zoom offers flexibility. All I am saying is that an excellent prime is better than a crappy zoom in most cases and excellent primes and crappy zooms are about the same price.

I'm goal-oriented. When I buy something it is generally to solve a particular problem I have. "I need to improve my basketball pictures. This 200mm will do nicely and it is only $600." Nothing else will do what the 200 will (in terms of focusing on action) in a dimly lit gym for $600.

Well, that's debatable. Lets say that 3 lenses, a wide, a normal, and a short telephoto would replace it. If we were talking full frame, I'd settle for a superwide, a normal wide, and a normal lens. Otherwise, there's a pretty big gap to crop out, given that there are other issues that might require cropping and other processing as well. You can use up a lot of image quality real quick.

I think you do a lot of folks here a disservice by calling their $200-300 zoom lens "crappy". In most situations, given 8X12 prints from similar "crappy" zooms and primes, a person would have to look real hard to tell the difference. That doesn't mean that there aren't situations where the prime will excel, but those situations aren't prevalent for most shooters. For the few times that I need real low-light capability, I can use the 50 - otherwise, my 2.8 zooms do the job just fine. And, of course, I don't need to stop and change lenses in the field.

I'll concede that there are some crappy zooms out there, and I'll concede again that the prime has an advantage in image quality _some_ of the time, but I will again state that the difference is generally negligable except in special circumstances. To restate again, to me, the minute differences aren't worth the lost convenience and flexibility.

I could see where a fast prime could be helpful in low-light situations WRT exposure and shutter speeds, but as far as focusing action, I doubt that there is any appreciable difference between the various true USM lenses, but for a couple of exceptions (and your 70-300 is probably one of those exceptions). All 3 of my Canon zooms focus very quickly and accurately. Two are "L", one is that (as you might put it) "crappy" 28-105 f/3.5-4.5.