I don't want to start prime/zoom debate, but I have to agree that in general, prime lenses are optically better than zoom lenses. I know that current top-line zooms has many great reasons to own: a. great sharpness and contrast that rival prime lenses b. zooming versatility c. zoom's price tag can't be matched by the primes that it replaces However, there are qualities of prime lenses that cannot be matched by any zoom lenses, such as low distortion and more even illumination from center to corner. Low distortion may not be required by most photographers, but some photographic application that need low distortion, zoom lenses cannot compete with the primes. For example: Sometimes I need to have "panoramic" format, by combining/stitching multiple shots into one photograph, either by tape or digitally using Photoshop. Since primes' distortion is much lower than zooms, combining/stitching multiple pictures into one "panoramic" that were shot with prime lenses are much easier than if they were shot with zooms. For most photographers, my advice is this: buy zooms, rent/borrow primes where necessary (that is, whenever your zoom doesn't up to the job at hand). Warmest Regards, Januar Rahadi. Bandung, Indonesia. >Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 17:28:53 -0700 (MST) >From: Bryce Robert Hashizume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: 80-200 tests V4 #333 [v04.n335/2] >Message: 2 > >On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 22:13:22 +1200 "Eric Edelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > >>It's also pretty well known that a quality zoom can't approach the >>quality of a prime lens. > >I, for one, would contest such a view. A zoom with only a moderate range >may be quite capable of outperforming a prime. I'd guess that the >35-70/2.8 performs better than the 50/1.2. I'm none to fond of how my >60/2.8 performs in the non-macro range. What primes tend to offer is >speed. But here are soft primes. And there are sharp zooms. A sharp >zoom is probably sharper than a soft prime. There are some rather soft >primes out there too, perhaps as a result of old designs. I know prime >designs are relatively simple, but I'm sure they can be improved upon; why >else would Leica be redesigning many of their lenses, such as the 35/1.4 >aspherical?
