I am glad you qualified your statement with the IMHO, because that is exactly what it is....an opinion, and not supported by any facts. Todays modern zooms are every bit as good as the primes...IN THEY MANNER MOST PEOPLE USE THEM, not necessarily using optical bench measurements which are pretty much useless when it comes to shooting in real life. Comparing, also, apples to apples, such that we are comparing consumer level lenses of either type.
The lenses you cite still cost $215 (plus shipping I suppose) and you still have only 4 focal lengths to cover 28mm to 200mm. Even new, B&H have a selection of manual focus and auto focus 28-200mm lenses for between 135.00 and 270.00 USD. There are others that cost more but these are in the same cost range as your example. All other things being equal I would bet that the results would be indistinguishable in real world shooting. I have a AF Sigma 28-200mm that is very sharp, even hand held, with enlargements up to 11x14, and I have 172 focal lengths to choose from. I cannot count the times I was able to get exactly the framing I wanted, solely because I had a zoom and could get exactly the focal length I wanted. Sitting there in a crowd trying to constantly swap lenses is a hassle, it is usually in the dark, it disturbs the people around you, and you have to balance and keep track of all those lenses not on the camera, and while doing that miss the best pic of the evening..... PITA. I had a friend with a Spotmatic that lost a fine 135mm when the roller coaster he was riding in made a sharp turn, but the lens he was trying to change continued straight. Modern high speed color films also make the need for a big glass, i.e. $$$$$, prime questionable. Back in the 70's I had one pro tell me that he had never seen a lens that could not outresolve the film.... All the other variables that come with taking a photo more than cancel out any small differences between a prime and a zoom. While not all zooms are created equal the same can be said for primes. While I have no problem with any other photograpohers who chooses to limit themselves to primes only, but I kinda resent the arrogance of some of some who seem to think that they have the only truth and then call upon others to justify their choices. 'nuff said for now. BTW, I do have primes as well for when they are the correct choice for me. Jerry in Houston > From: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Film for graduation > > Rogier: > > IMHO, this is not the best reason to use zooms. Take a look at a set of > 4 primes (just for the illustration purpose, prices are from ebay): > A28/2.8 $60 256g > A50/2 $25 160g > M135/3.5 $50 270g > M200/4 $80 405g > in terms of weight and money, they cost the same or even less than the > zooms. In terms of performance, they are better. In terms of build > quality, they are *a lot* better (read: durable). You have more backup > redundancy: you can break any of them and still have a reasonably good > setup. And, if you have to carry this around, remeber that only one of > them will be straining your neck -- the rest would go in the bag. They > will cover the same 99.999% too ;) > > But, again, IMO, a one or two carefully picked primes would cover over > 90% of pictures :) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
