Well, there has to be some trade-off, doesn't there?
Even if we take Pal's original statement as true ("today's best zooms are every
bit as good as primes"), a zoom is going to exact some penalty on it's user.
They're bigger, heavier, slower, more complicated, take more time to use (since
you have one more control to fiddle with), and more expensive than a prime.
I'm not saying zooms are bad - I have a couple that I use quite often - I'm just
saying that optical performance is only one thing to consider in a lens (albeit,
a pretty damned important thing! <vbg>).
ciao,
frank
Alan Chan wrote:
> >>It is being said that todays best zooms are every bit as good as primes.
> >>You can find it even in several photo books like the ones by John Shaw
> >>(who in earlier books only recommended primes), Charles Campbell etc. I
> >>would modified it to todays best zooms are better than yesterdays primes
> >>and
> >this is valid to the extent generalizations go.
> >
> >Lots of things are "being said" this doesn't mean it's true. Reminds me of
> >some
> >of the absolute crap I have read in Hi-Fi mags recently.
>
> I think it is still true that the best prime lenses are still better than
> the best zoom lenses in general, optically. These include wide open
> sharpness, distortion control, flare control, light-fall-off control, not to
> mention the hyperfocal scale (use it often with 24/35).
>
> regards,
> Alan Chan
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--
"I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
