Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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