Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, Just for the record, I agree with you in every point you said about the zooms vs primes. They flare more, they weight more, they are uglier, they are huge, they promote photographer laziness. But they are just tools, and they are more convenient for certain jobs than a prime in the same way than a 135/2.8 soft focus is more appropriate for a portrait than a 100/2.8 macro lens, even if this latter outperforms in several technical aspects the other. But for instance, the Canon EF35/2 had more spherical aberration at the corners at f/2.8 than the old EF20-35/2.8L at the same focal length and aperture. The EF20/2.8 had more vignetting AND spherical aberration than the EF17-35/2.8L. Canon L glass is just plainly better quality than their consumer grade primes. I don't know if it is a reason of quality assurance or what. Ed PS. Just for the record, I love my M8, even if it is noisier than my 5d, and its colors are difficult to treat. It's just the more appropriate tool for the job I want to do, and it suits my shooting style more than the 5d. But for clinical macro photography, it is absolutely unuseable (yes, I have tried with a Visoflex), and the 5d becomes the right tool to use. Sorry for the lack of time to respond as deserved. El 09/04/2007, a las 10:06, Mark Rabiner escribi?: > On 4/9/07 6:55 AM, "Eduardo Albesi" <eduardoalbesi@ciudad.com.ar> > typed: > >> I'm sorry, Mark, but I sold the 35/2, 20/2.8 and 24/2.8 and >> 20-35/2.8L. >> >> I'm working (about to start) at the ER. Tomorrow I will try to post >> some images shot in the studio comparing the 17-35/2.8L to the 28/2.8 >> and 35/1.4L. >> >> I never said Canon primes are on the weak side. I have high regard >> for the 50/1.4 and 1.8, 85/1.8, 85/1.2L(I), 135/2.8 soft focus, >> 100/2, 200/2.8L, 300/4L. I love primes. One of the reasons why I love >> my M8. >> >> And I am not a bit surprised by this. The super L zooms cost at least >> as the sum of the primes they replace. Almost all L zooms are newer >> optical designs, have better mechanical construction assuring better >> collimation and centration, etc. >> >> IMO, I seem to remember that on the Nikkor field, a zoom like the AF- >> S 17-35/2.8 ED (and a long list of other letters I don't remember >> anymore) performs at least as good as most of the same age primes it >> intends to 'replace' at similar apertures. But I don't have any of >> them anymore. >> >> Saluti, >> >> Ed > > > > This outperforming of this and that zoom over this and that prime is a > popular theme on internet chat groups the blind leading the blind. > Rumor > spreading. > My Nikon zooms outperform my Nikon primes in the zoom category. > They zoom better. > With my primes in order to zoom I have to run back and forth real fast > taking little steps pretending I'm on roller skates.. It just ain't > the > same. Anything back lit a prime shines and a zoom falls apart. > There's just > too much glass in there. And I try to shoot backlit as often as I > can. Like > anybody does. Not when I shoot the want adds though. Those are > always lit > from the sides 45 degrees. And its nailed to the wall so not much > light gets > in from behind. > Zooms create standard of the industry images. Nothing wrong with them. > You see a picture in the paper or magazine it was proably taken > with a zoom. > But lets not get carried away. A zoom is a convenience and a > convenience we > can live without. Perhaps in many cases SHOULD live without but > we're too > darned lazy. > The results we get with zooms are just dandy till you compare them > with > what you get from a single focal length lens in real world shooting > situations. Not a paper on the wall. > All my 24mm 2.8 has to do is be good at 24mm. That's its one job in > life. > It doesn't have to be good at 17,18,19,20,21 all the way to 70 or > whatever > it goes to I have all shapes and sizes of zooms. > Its an unfair comparison to the poor zoom whose just biting off > more than it > can chew.. > Amazing the results a zoom gives us. > But to say it equals or surpass a prime in anything but > occasionally dry > resolution tests like what you get when you shoot a newspaper on > the wall is > internet mass stupidity feeding on itself like it certainly does. > The blind > leading the blind. People forming their opinions of their gear > based on what > they hear and read not by what the do with the gear. Which > generally is buy > it on eBay. Read about it on chat groups. Then sell it on eBay with > strong > opinions about all phases of it. With one of them being a reason > why they > sold it. > No prints. > Hearsay. > > > None of my Leica m lenses zoom by the way. > > > Mark Rabiner > 8A/109s > New York, NY > > markrabiner.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >