Visit MPB Visit MPB Visit MPB

Zoom lenses are the work of the Devil.

Hardgravity
Posted 31/05/2010 - 12:00 Link
I take a 50mm on walk about sometimes, it makes me think about the shots more, I also have a Tammy 18-250 which is a very good all purpose lens and tends to be the choice for holidays.

Primes better than zooms?

Zooms better than primes?

I think both have their place, primes are great for street and portrait shots, but zooms win out travelling.
Cheers, HG

K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K3 and a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.

Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...

PPG entries.
Anvh
Posted 31/05/2010 - 12:13 Link
I notice that I used the DA*16-50 differnt than the DA*50-135.
With the DA*50-135 the differnce in AOV is less so I simply take a comfortable distance and use the zoom to frame the shot.
The DA*16-50 has a real differnce in AOV so I think about the kind of shot I want and set it on the focal length and work with that, so basicly a variable prime lens.

It's all up to you how you use the lens like is said through this topic, therefore I don't think that using primes makes you think more about the shot, actually it might make you think less about the shot since you don't need to think about what focal length to use
Stefan
Comment Image

K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Canada_Rockies
Posted 01/06/2010 - 07:04 Link
The zoom lens can be a boon. I like a weighty camera. It feels to me as if the extra mass keeps things steadier. My DA 12-24 is used to frame scenery from the vantage point that gives me the image I want to see. First the feet set the relationship between the various distances, then I crop out the extraneous matter while keeping all 10 Mp. I do the same with the DA* 16-50. The DA* 50-135, on the other hand, is a sports lens, in my book. From the sidelines I can "zoom in" on the action I am trying to follow.

Unlike a couple of others, I find less need for zoom lenses when I am out looking for and at wildlife and/or birds. I tried a zoom lens for this, and it just did not work for me.

As we say on this side of the pond, Different strokes for different folks.
Albert in the Canadian Rocky Mountains
K3, M 400/5.6, M 100/4 macro, DA 12-24, DA* 16-50, DA L 55-300
FA 24-90, 1.7X AFA, 1.4X-S
AF 540 FGZ flash
fatspider
Posted 01/06/2010 - 09:43 Link
Quote:
I can see the argument for a SuperZoom for those times when you just have absolutely no idea what you are going to encounter

Which is probably 99% of the time for most of us

One point on one has mentioned yet is frequency of lens changes and the amount of crud that enters your camera, this may not have been much of a problem with film cameras but it certainly is with digital, perhaps with this in mind a new topic should be started "are primes the work of the devil"

I used primes when I first got my istD, and the sensor was filthy within weeks, my K10D will be four(?)years old now and I've cleaned the sensor twice, even allowing for the dust removal on the K10D thats a huge difference in the amount of muck entering my camera.
My Names Alan, and I'm a lensaholic.
My PPG link
My Flckr link
i-Berg
Posted 01/06/2010 - 10:55 Link
Canada_Rockies wrote:
I like a weighty camera. It feels to me as if the extra mass keeps things steadier.

That's fine until you try to take shots at or above head height!
i-Berg
Posted 01/06/2010 - 11:00 Link
fatspider wrote:

One point on one has mentioned yet is frequency of lens changes and the amount of crud that enters your camera, this may not have been much of a problem with film cameras but it certainly is with digital.

Ipsy,

Perhaps the difference is not the film or digital backs, but the fact that we are now arguably more affluent, and thus spoilt for choice?

To expand - I had three lenses and one TC to go with a single camera in the 1970s - that's all. None of these lenses was a zoom BTW...

Now - with two cameras, I have three zooms and five primes - hmmm....
Mongoose
Posted 01/06/2010 - 16:24 Link
at risk of inviting the same response a man may get when answering the question "does this dress make me look fat?" with the phraise "no dear, your fat makes you look fat", I contend that no lens, no camera feature, and no computer can ever make you lazy.

They may make it easier for you to BE lazy, but only your own free will can MAKE you lazy.
you don't have to be mad to post here



but it does help
Dr. Mhuni
Posted 01/06/2010 - 17:09 Link
fatspider wrote:

One point on one has mentioned yet is frequency of lens changes and the amount of crud that enters your camera, this may not have been much of a problem with film cameras but it certainly is with digital, perhaps with this in mind a new topic should be started "are primes the work of the devil"

I used primes when I first got my istD, and the sensor was filthy within weeks, my K10D will be four(?)years old now and I've cleaned the sensor twice, even allowing for the dust removal on the K10D thats a huge difference in the amount of muck entering my camera.

I know prime users who say that since they shifted to primes they've had less of a problem with sensor crud, as zooms have a tendency to suck in dust, whereas primes are more dust resistant.

Can't say I've noticed either way, but it would be hard to tell as I interchange between primes and zooms. And of late I've hardly got any crud on my sensor in any case - perhaps down to my finessing lens changes (one lives in hope).

Was your problem with the istD as much a result of the less dust resistant sensor on earlier cameras (and the lack of internal dust removal) as frequent lens changes?
Mhuni

500px
Still27
Posted 01/06/2010 - 17:41 Link
I'm with fatspider on this, with film it was no problem constantly changing lenses, now with digital it is different you have to be aware of the dust problem.
When I got my K20D I got the 16-45 + 50-200. Then I found the DA 18-250 and thought *no more lens changing* I was quite happy for a month or so till I bought a smc Pentax-K 200mm f4 PRIME Oldie, I was never again happy with the IQ of the 18-250 (zoom from the devil) and started to collect old primes. As the weight of my bag go heavier and heavier I started to read this forum and read how good the Top Quality Zooms were and when I bought the DA*50-135 I think for me this was the best of both worlds Good IQ with not so many lenses to carry and change.I certainly think the KIT Zooms are the work of the DEVIL, Cheap and Nasty.
Bill
K5+Bigma+BushHawk Shoulderpod.
K5+16-50DA* + 10-17DA Fisheye + 50-135DA* + Sigma 70mm Macro + DA35 2.4..
Slik Pro 700DX tripod.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixellie/
Edited by Still27: 01/06/2010 - 17:43
Dangermouse
Posted 01/06/2010 - 22:00 Link
Weirdly I find that a 28mm prime will deal with most "walkabout" situations pretty well. A decent one is sharp enough that you can crop images in the same manner as that horrible digital zoom business on a compact, but with much nicer results!

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. When you take the crop factor into account the field of view is roughly the same as a 42mm lens on film, slightly wider than the classic 50mm but pretty close.

A 50mm prime is handier than you might think for landscapes as it allows you to crop out foreground clutter like ugly fences between the road and the rest of the scenery. You can then stitch images together to get a wider field of view.

The kit 18-55mm is cheap but not nasty IMO, my only criticism of it is the physical size of the lens and that's only compared to the tiny older primes.
Matt

Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.
Edited by Dangermouse: 01/06/2010 - 22:03
MrCynical
Posted 01/06/2010 - 22:19 Link
Primes are great for 'set piece' photography - macro, portraits, landscapes. They are, however, less useful for situations in which the subject moves relative to the photographer. Sports, birds, situations where there's no time to change lens (e.g. on a safari or other 'group holiday): in all of these, the zoom produces an image of much higher quality than the one the prime couldn't take.

Dangermouse wrote:
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. When you take the crop factor into account the field of view is roughly the same as a 42mm lens on film, slightly wider than the classic 50mm but pretty close.

50mm was classic but wrong The actual 'normal' focal length on a 35mm format (whether digital or film) is 43mm - the reason Pentax made the seemingly odd FA43!
Edited by MrCynical: 01/06/2010 - 22:23
Dangermouse
Posted 01/06/2010 - 22:35 Link
So the 42mm equivalent I get with a 28mm on my K-m is perfect then!

I just like the way the M 28mm f3.5 behaves. Infinity focus comes up pretty rapidly and it shows very little distortion. I usually leave it on f8, focus, take a meter reading, and shoot.
Matt

Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.
Canada_Rockies
Posted 01/06/2010 - 23:42 Link
Dangermouse wrote:
So the 42mm equivalent I get with a 28mm on my K-m is perfect then!

I just like the way the M 28mm f3.5 behaves. Infinity focus comes up pretty rapidly and it shows very little distortion. I usually leave it on f8, focus, take a meter reading, and shoot.

It is a great lens indeed. Set everything on the lens to the orange marks, and it's a top notch focus-free lens with surprisingly little distortion, particularly considering its new price: I got mine in the early 80's or late 70's for Cdn $ 110. I no longer need it with my current lens lineup, but my daughter in law likes using it reversed to get 2:1 macro.
Albert in the Canadian Rocky Mountains
K3, M 400/5.6, M 100/4 macro, DA 12-24, DA* 16-50, DA L 55-300
FA 24-90, 1.7X AFA, 1.4X-S
AF 540 FGZ flash
mecrox
Posted 02/06/2010 - 00:07 Link
I haven't found too much problem with crud on the sensor when changing prime lenses, and I change them 2-3 times daily if I am using my camera. It's an idea to take sensible precautions, though, like holding the camera facing down and out of the wind, avoiding dusty areas and the like. After a change, I always run the sensor cleaning vibrating thingie. I have far more problems with crud in the view finder and especially behind the focusing screen. Making the screen non-removable (except with difficulty and a pair of tweezers) on the kx was a mistake, I think.

And yes, I too find 28mm a good length for walkabout and also candids if preset to a focus zone. It's sad that Pentax haven't accommodated this with a DA limited despite the film-era hullabaloo about 43mm being the ideal focal length. My A series 28mm has a slight brownish-yellow tint if I use it for colour, perhaps the result of a lens coating designed for film rather than digital.
mayday
Posted 02/06/2010 - 00:32 Link
I bought my DA* 60/250 specifically for my safari holiday as a 300mm prime was just too long a focal length at times. Coupled with the K7+Grip, I found a great combination for shooting game. No lens changing whilst there were clouds of dust around and the weather/dust proofing proved it's worth. The camera and lens took on a light brown appearance on occasion.
link
Regards
David

Retired at last - now all that time for photography - you would think: wink:
Edited by mayday: 02/06/2010 - 00:34

Add Comment

To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.