Difference between Zoom and non-Zoom lenses?

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


Thats all you get

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.

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

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

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

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/e​quipment/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

Best regards,
Andy

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).

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

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

I agree with you
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.

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

(Sorry, couldn't resist )

Best regards,
Andy

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

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