Fixed Focal vs Zoom

I like Primes.


But there are times when a zoom lens is very usefull. Sometimes your group shots can be wide or small so you have to walk back and forward to much since its a fixed focal length just to get everything in fram.

I like them as well, but I find zooms more of a match for most (but not all) of my shooting. Plus, I enjoy a good argument once in a while.

Ironically, even with a zoom, you'll find yourself moving about a bit, trying to get that tree just right to frame the bridge or trying to get that ugly building adjacent to you out of the picture. But you move and you zoom and take the shot.

Tom W wrote:
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.

I can call the 28-105 "crappy" with impunity because I own it. Compared to a variable aperture 35-80 I had for a few years and compared to a v.a. 28-80 I had for another couple years, the 28-105 is great. However, compared to my 100/2.0, it is neither quick nor accurate at the long end. In another thread a while back I pondered the dramatic difference in the images produced by these two lenses. In that thread I was talking about relatively still subjects. I haven't even started on the inability of the 28-105 to hold a runner in focus.

I put on a zoom when I don't really know what kind of pictures I am going to be taking. But that doesn't happen very often with me and that might be the kind of person or photographer I am. I tend to plan the pictures I am going to take and choose the best equipment (lens, flash, camera...) I have for that particular job.

If you sent me your 24-70, I would gratefully accept it, and happily use it, probably often. However if you asked me to send you my 24 and 50 in return, I'd have to ebay the 24-70 to buy back my 24 and 50, but then I would have money left over with which I could get a 20mm.

The truth is, 24-70 doesn't seem like a very big range to me. When I am sitting with my 24mm on, I never, that I can recall, say, "I wish I had my 50 on." It is much more likely that I would say, I wish I had my 100, or my 200 on. The 24-70 doesn't solve that problem. Only the 35-350 comes close to that, and that is lot of pounds and a lot of dollars and still isn't as wide as I could ever want, or as long.

droosan wrote:

Tom W wrote:
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.

I can call the 28-105 "crappy" with impunity because I own it. Compared to a variable aperture 35-80 I had for a few years and compared to a v.a. 28-80 I had for another couple years, the 28-105 is great. However, compared to my 100/2.0, it is neither quick nor accurate at the long end. In another thread a while back I pondered the dramatic difference in the images produced by these two lenses. In that thread I was talking about relatively still subjects. I haven't even started on the inability of the 28-105 to hold a runner in focus.

I also own it and its a good lens. If your copy of the 28-105 doesn't focus quickly and accurately, then perhaps its broken. Did you drop it or something while changing lenses?

Do you ever get dizzy up there on that high horse of yours? Or do you sometimes come down and mingle among the peasants with their "crappy" zooms?

Well, planning is a good idea. I do it as well at times. Other times, I just go out shooting. And in most cases, the zoom is the right tool.

There's little chance of that happening, so get used to swapping out lenses and cropping pictures a lot.

Well, the 24-70 has a lot more range than that 24 prime. And if I need longer, I've got a zoom for that range as well.

As entertaining as it is to trade purile insults with you, it is selfish of us. It doesn't positively contribute to the friendly atmosphere that is so important to this forum. And so I leave this thread. I think we are two blind men debating different parts of the elephant, anyway.

I apologize to all for my part in this. I need also to clarify: The EF 28-105 USM is not crappy in any absolute sense. I think photodo.com will back me up that it's optical fidelity is as good as any zoom in its range for under $1000, and far better than many. I have taken many pictures with this lens I am happy with. The experience from which I made the preceding comments is this: My 28-105 coupled with my 10D and fully extended, produces pictures not as accurately focused as my EF100/2.0, especially if the subject is moving. For all I know it may be my particular lens or my particular 10D or the combination of the two.

As many have said, all versions of the 70-200 are terrific. But I wouldn't expect to get camera store pics that would show this. It excels at sports in good lighting. Primes really show well in poor lighting like camera stores.

If you don't shoot action, 70-200 might not be useful for you. Seems like you don't need longer than 135mm from your kit.