Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,916   Posts: 1,521,791   Online: 1059
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 65
  1. #41
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    966
    Images
    4
    I primarily work with primes, particularly in the 24-80 range, but I find that zooms are useful in certain circumstances. As Stone has already mentioned, some of the newer model zooms are actually quite exceptional. But even some older glass can be very useful. I own and use two of them, both from the Vivitar Series One group. The first is the ubiquitous 70-200, which is really quite a good lens though heavy. These are very inexpensive and it seems everyone wants to get rid of theirs on e-bay. I don't really understand it either because it is one of the best school play zooms I have ever owned. The other is a bit harder to find, but a truly wonderful lens, the 90-180 flat field macro zoom. This is a very handy lens and I use mine a lot, actually more frequently than the 70-200. It produces magnificent macro pictures.

  2. #42
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,038
    Images
    157
    I think the tele zooms are so common on ebay right now because no one wants them.
    There were many craptastic marketers. Promaster, Albinar, Quantaray, to name a few. Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, and Vivitar also put out some craptastics, but some very good glass as well.
    These lenses were not made to last, and many are not working or are not up to spec.

    But right now, no one wants to lug a shit pipe around on their neck and the serious photographers pay for the better glass. And even pocket sized cameras have 5x zooms these days. There is just no place for these low-grade tele zooms anymore.
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  3. #43
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,008
    Images
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    No Stone, I do agree with you that the newer zooms are utterly fantastic. I am certainly not 'putting down' these lenses but i wanted to remark that they, now, are amongst the cheapest in the used market. Honestly, maybe that is because they are so bulky and, in some cases, heavy. Certainly, those are formidable concerns, but, also the number of them in the used market adds to this price pressure. (All facets of a given product come into play here.)

    von Hoegh: You have your reasons for not wanting zooms and those reasons might not conform to, or confirm, mine. I do like primes, usually better, but there is much to say about the real quality of these newer zooms. And the older ones were good too, if you knew the best focal length to use and were not too greedy with the faster aperture stops. - David Lyga
    I think the poster above me made a comment about "catching soccer kids", I think this may have something to do with it, if you think about it the people that were buying a lot of the zooms back then were both professionals AND the everyday man, but all of the people relied on film to shoot everything, now most the people who are shooting film are shooting it because of its artistic quality and so the usefulness of zoom lenses for an artist who's working a lot slower and is more precise about getting a sharp image would rather have a prime than a zoom lens. The only people who are using zooms now, are mostly shooting Digital...

    So it's not that there are more zoom lenses that exist in total in the world, it's just that the usefulness of the primes for people still shooting film means that they are holding onto those lenses but they are selling the zoom lenses that they don't need because that guy going to a soccer game has his Digital zoom rather than the film zoom.

    I own a total of 2 Zoom lenses that are made for film, one of them was my fathers, and I never shoot with it, in fact I don't think I've ever used it maybe once when I was 13? I might consider using it for a party for fun if I wanted to shoot with film, but usually if I do that I use my autofocus film camera which attaches to my fancy zoom lens for digital, anyway, the other one I have is a 70-210 that was given to me by an antique shop they just couldn't get rid of them, the guy had all these different Canon lens parts and couldn't sell them for $10 a piece and had them for over two years so he handed me the basket and said "oh you're a photographer here take anything you want I just want to get rid of them" and I've also never use that lens, I took it because I thought hey that might be valuable and maybe I'll use it someday, but frankly it's probably never going to happen.

    Anyway it's a thought they could be right it could be wrong, but I figured I'd mention it.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,320
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post

    von Hoegh: You have your reasons for not wanting zooms and those reasons might not conform to, or confirm, mine. I do like primes, usually better, but there is much to say about the real quality of these newer zooms. And the older ones were good too, if you knew the best focal length to use and were not too greedy with the faster aperture stops. - David Lyga
    In 35mm, the range I most use is 35mm to 105mm; I never take action pictures, or pictures in any other situation where rapid framing/change of focal length is neccesary. Zooms have a max. aperture, size, and weight penalty, as well as the performance penalty. Show me a zoom which gives the same image quality as my Nikkor primes, with no weight or aperture penalty, and I might consider it. As of now, such a lens doesn't exist.

  5. #45
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,224
    You know, von Hoegh, you might be wrong. Newer zooms can match this sharpness more times than not. But, the price you pay for such low cost quality is, as you already stated, 'weight' and 'slow'. And, yes, they can be somewhat cumbersome. - David Lyga

  6. #46
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,008
    Images
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    In 35mm, the range I most use is 35mm to 105mm; I never take action pictures, or pictures in any other situation where rapid framing/change of focal length is neccesary. Zooms have a max. aperture, size, and weight penalty, as well as the performance penalty. Show me a zoom which gives the same image quality as my Nikkor primes, with no weight or aperture penalty, and I might consider it. As of now, such a lens doesn't exist.
    My Canon zoom is pretty damn sharp, however it certainly wouldn't match the weight requirement that you're talking about, of course it is going to be heavier because of all the additional glass in order to hit all of those ranges, however if you added up a 70 and 80 and 90 and 100 and 135 150 and 180 and a 200mm and put them altogether that would be much much heavier
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,320
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    My Canon zoom is pretty @#!*% sharp, however it certainly wouldn't match the weight requirement that you're talking about, of course it is going to be heavier because of all the additional glass in order to hit all of those ranges, however if you added up a 70 and 80 and 90 and 100 and 135 150 and 180 and a 200mm and put them altogether that would be much much heavier
    But I typically carry 35, 50, 105. Sometimes just a 28 and a 50. Often just one lens, usually the 35/2.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,320
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    You know, von Hoegh, you might be wrong. Newer zooms can match this sharpness more times than not. But, the price you pay for such low cost quality is, as you already stated, 'weight' and 'slow'. And, yes, they can be somewhat cumbersome. - David Lyga
    Show me one that can match the performance of my 50/2 nikkor-H and/or my 105 Nikkor, preferably at both focal lengths.

  9. #49
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,224
    von Hoegh: I did say "more times than not".

    Perhaps, in this instance, your Nikkors knocked out the competion. - David Lyga

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,320
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    von Hoegh: I did say "more times than not".

    Perhaps, in this instance, your Nikkors knocked out the competion. - David Lyga
    I agree that modern zooms have improved a great deal as far as resolution, contrast, and distortion go. I have an 80s 35-70 Zuiko that's part of my late father's Olympus gear, and while it's competent, and could be useful under certain conditions - say snapshots at someone's birthday party - current zooms are better. I prefer the simplicity and superior handling of primes for some of the same reasons I prefer cars without ABS and with manual transmissions. Don't like electric windows either.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin