Califmike33
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #17 · Manual focus lenses versus zoom lenses | |
philip_pj wrote:
You are dealing with a very small sample size here. It's very likely most people use zooms for more hassle-free landscapes, or phones of course.
I shoot landscapes from 15mm to 100mm - which and how many zooms do we need to achieve that? What do they each weigh? How much do they weigh, all up? They don't change themselves out. At what focal length is any zoom lens the best option for landscapes of superior quality, as compared with the MF prime possibilities?
In a nutshell, that is why people start with zooms and end with primes, so very often.
The best MF primes have faster lens speeds, are wonderful at all apertures, small, lightweight, easy to use quickly, easy to pack/carry, great into the very corners, have flat fields, many have APO-level color performance, incur lower carry weights on-camera/in-bag, focus easily (stronger focal planes), offer creative opportunities (subject isolation), have finer focus fade character, require smaller tripods/heads (if you use one in these IBIS days), can be changed in a minute, have their character, are durable and rebuildable, use smaller filters/hoods, are made of metal not plastic, have hoods that work rather than only at the short end. Many compositions can be shot using the strongest apertures, from elevated vantage points.
Zooms are fussy, they all have sweet spots outside which you may want to avoid, so they often reduce in utility to become smaller range 'semi-primes'. They lack color nuance/separation. The lack of versatility continues for apertures - being slower, they need more stop down on average.
They use low-medium grade asph element surfacing and have huge element counts (so ghosting and glare are issues), many extend often to ridiculous sizes and balance poorly on the camera body. Many need computer support for their massive distortion levels and CA - a design fudge. They are made down to a price, not up to a quality level! Have you ever seen inside one?
If people can't see the differences, zooms are an acceptable fall-back option for them. But not for me, and many more like me.
https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1149-tamron2875f28g2?start=1
https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1169-sony2070f4g...Show more →
I like your post, makes sense to me. I think zooms are better in the fill all the gaps, whereas if you have primes you may need to move back and forward to get the proper shot. Again you are right most zooms are soft on the low and the high end in general, but not always. My Tamron is sharp from 28 to about 70mm 75mm is soft and the weak point. I think you may have pushed me over the edge to get prims, Voitlanders, Laowa, etc.
|
