Originally posted by jk333 Do you like primes? Because this is 3.

I don't get the complaints. No it doesn't have a huge zoom range but everyone is always touting their prime lenses, particularly fast lenses and this lens provides that.

It's not meant to compete with a normal zoom; it's supposed to be a substitute for f1.4 and f1.8 prime lenses. Comparing this to a normal zoom is like comparing a normal zoom to a super zoom and saying that the normal zoom doesn't have enough range.

That's exactly what I said in my review of the 18-35mm f/1.8 DC, actually. The lens isn't meant to compete with an f/2.8 zoom, it's meant to compete with 2-3 primes.

And, at that, the 18-35 is jaw-dropping. Even on the SLR Gear review chart, it is truly impressively "flat" across the 3-D chart for sharpness. It is three primes in one.

Yet, (and for me this is key) it doesn't weigh like a brick. To me, having a lens that weighs more than 2 lbs defeats one of the advantages I enjoy with primes. While Nikon is getting a ton of flak for the "cheap plastic" construction of their new f/1.8 G lineup, IMO it epitomizes the reason that some people buy primes. Incredible sharpness, and shockingly lightweight. Nikon's 28mm f/1.8 weighs just 11 oz. Pentax' 31mm f/1.8 weighs about 12 oz IIRC. If I'm going to compromise on carrying around two f/1.4 primes, I'd rather have an ultralight f/1.8 prime that is in the middle of the range, than an f/2 zoom that spans the whole range and weighs a ton.

Of course as ever, that's just me. I suspect there are plenty of folks out there with buying habits and photographic needs that are the exact opposite!

=Matt=

---------- Post added 07-19-15 at 07:46 PM ----------

Originally posted by Nicolas06 I like primes but there NO WAY I would have 3 primes to cover the 24-35 range. I would have potentially a 24 and a 35mm if I was after an FF. For now I have a DA15 and a DA21.

Worse if you take a single 24mm lense, let say 24mm f/1.4, and you add a TC to it you get a 35mm f/2... You could also crop to get the same thing. You lose a bit resolution for the 35mm, but keep the same shallow deph of field capability and get wider apperture at 24mm...

I don't see the value of a zoom that is basically a variable 1.4TC put on a prime with a reduced max apperture at the short end.

I think this point is turning into a bit of a dead horse elsewhere, and maybe here too. However I agree with the sentiment, though others may not. Especially having used Nikon's 24 and 36 MP full-frame cameras a lot recently, and looking forward to Pentax' 36 or 42 MP sensor....cropping 1.5x is truly "no big deal" when you still have 10-16+ megapixels left over, for any type of photojournalistic work where needing zoom range even comes up. I do this with my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, and as a result I've sold my 50mm f/1.8.

To beat the dead horse one last time: if this lens had been just slightly better than 1.5x zoom, say a 24-50mm, I'd consider it an exponentially greater success. But with megapixels climbing higher, and f/1.4 primes being ultra-tack-sharp wide open, a 1.5x f/2 zoom is a tough sell for all but the select few who find themselves in situations that truly benefit from it.