[Adam]

Hi Adam,

good to see you post something not forum related.


Fully agree with the last part but in terms of IQ I think your statement was safe to make with the early generations of zooms.

For modern zoom, such as the Pentax 50-135, I'm sure one can find a good number of primes which struggle to equal their IQ. These primes will still have an advantage in terms of size and weight, which can also be a concern for some applications.

I'm looking forward to seeing your shots.

Early last year, I actually took the 50-135mm with me on a trip as my main lens, instead of the 85mm. While that was also my first time using the new DA* zoom, I have to say I was a little bit disappointed with what I came back with- the exposure wasn't as accurate, and the sharpness wasn't quite there either. The weather-sealing was nice, but I got tired of standing in the rain faster than my camera did

When I had to pick lenses again for this summer, the I reached for the 85mm without hesitation. Along with the 300mm/2.8, I think it's one of the best lenses Pentax has ever come up with.

My Norway photos are ready; I'll start working on a thread within a couple minutes.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[MRRiley]

I just want to chime in on the ”what a great thread”.

I am a DSLR beginner having used compact cameras for years and years. I finally took the leap of faith about a year ago with the K20D and the kit lens 18-55mm. For a beginner like me the kit lens is a must. It teaches you both the beginning, middle and end of “normal” shooting lengths. It took me a year to realize that for me the 35mm was it. Not just by looking at the EXIF data but it’s how you see the world that makes the frame. 35mm is the easiest way to frame a picture in your mind and then take the shot. So I bought the 35mm F2. Best thing I ever did. IQ and fast, with a length that my mind understands. A month ago I bought the 70mm f2.4 in order to get more reach and “in the face” shots. I suspect that a wide angle prime will follow in the fall.

What I am trying to get across here is basically that all the things I did wrong with a compact zoom camera was to think about zooming and not about how to expose and balance my photos. I have no idea if I will eventually end up with a couple of zooms, but for learning about photography and becoming a better one at that I can only recommend the kit->prime road. Well, it is working for me anyways!

A lot of that is due to the fact that a 35mm lens on a APS-C DSLR fairly closely approximates the magnification factor (aka 1x) of the human eye. Its also the approximate equivilent of the old "normal" 50-55mm lenses on film SLRs (which was again based, to some extent, on matching what average humans see with our unaided eyes).

Mike

[Class A]

A lot of that is due to the fact that a 35mm lens on a APS-C DSLR fairly closely approximates the magnification factor (aka 1x) of the human eye. Its also the approximate equivilent of the old "normal" 50-55mm lenses on film SLRs (which was again based on matching what average humans see with our unaided eyes).

50mm was not chosen solely because it matches what the human eye sees. It was a compromise between the 35mm normal focal length (43.3mm) and sharpness (which, at the time, was easier to achieve with slightly longer focal lengths).

The centre of a range of focal lengths which give a natural perspectives for a natural viewing distance, for APS-C, is 28.8mm.

[Class A]

While that was also my first time using the new DA* zoom, I have to say I was a little bit disappointed with what I came back with- the exposure wasn't as accurate, and the sharpness wasn't quite there either.

Wow, either you must have very high standards or the lens had FF/BF or some other issue? I don't speak from first hand experience but from what I've heard and seen from this lens, it doesn't seem to be lacking sharpness.

When I had to pick lenses again for this summer, the I reached for the 85mm without hesitation. Along with the 300mm/2.8, I think it's one of the best lenses Pentax has ever come up with.

Sounds right to these ears. Note, I didn't say the 55-135 beats all primes, just that it is possible to find some which do not have better IQ.

[MRRiley]

50mm was not chosen solely because it matches what the human eye sees. It was a compromise between the 35mm normal focal length (43.3mm) and sharpness (which, at the time, was easier to achieve with slightly longer focal lengths).

The centre of a range of focal lengths which give a natural perspectives for a natural viewing distance, for APS-C, is 28.8mm.

Agree completely. .. was just trying to point out that there is a certain logic behind choosing and being comfortable with 35mm lens on APS-C. True, 28 is a better approximation to 1X. Just my feeling that many/most people have gotten used to the perspective of the 35mm on APS-C due to it's rough equivalent to the 50-55mm.

On the other hand, I was never any good at math so what do I know. LOL

Mike

[Canada_Rockies]

50mm was not chosen solely because it matches what the human eye sees. It was a compromise between the 35mm normal focal length (43.3mm) and sharpness (which, at the time, was easier to achieve with slightly longer focal lengths).

The centre of a range of focal lengths which give a natural perspectives for a natural viewing distance, for APS-C, is 28.8mm.

Originally Nikon and Pentax "normal" lenses were in the 55mm range because of the distance between the lens mount and the film plane. Even a 50 mm lens needed some extra work because it was less than the lens mount to film plance (or sensor plane).

[Marc Sabatella]

A lot of that is due to the fact that a 35mm lens on a APS-C DSLR fairly closely approximates the magnification factor (aka 1x) of the human eye.

What do you mean by this? Magnification is dependent on the viewfinder as well. On a camera that is listed as 95% magnification measured with a 50mm lens, that means you'd need something like a 55mm lens to get 100% magnification. On a camera with only an 85% magnification viewfinder, you need more like a 60-70mm lens to get 100% magnification.

For way more than you ever cared to think about regarding the concept of "normal" in lenses, you could search out a thread from a year or so ago that went on and on and on but actually brought out quite a few interesting points regarding magnification, field of view, perspective, and other matters.

Its also the approximate equivilent of the old "normal" 50-55mm lenses on film SLRs (which was again based, to some extent, on matching what average humans see with our unaided eyes).

Sort of true, indeed, but when it comes to magnification, you can't get this on APS-C by going with a wider lens. A 35mm lens produces a *much* smaller images on any APS-C camera than what that naked eye sees - and that's why people complain about how much harder it is to focus manually with most DSLR's.

[MRRiley]

All my comment was intended to say was that it made sense that Zorglub selected 35mm on APS-C. My theory is/was that he/she did so, to some extent, because 35mm on APS-C approximates normal human vision and is fairly comparable to the old 50 or 55mm lenses on 35mm cameras. The point about the viewfinder magnification is a good one as it alters your perception of the image that is reaching the sensor... This is one reason that I advocate 1X magnification and 100%-crop viewfinders (though the crop factor is less bothersome to me than a heavily offset magnification)

Now, back to the original subject of this thread which is presumably.... Zoom vs. Primes. Frankly, use what meets your quality needs and what fits your shooting style or the situation. In my case I use zooms a lot since it is a lot easier and more practical when I want to get a closeup of a MotoGP rider going through a curve at 100mph a split second after taking a shot of 3 riders duking it out in that same corner. For one shot I need a couple hundred MMs, and for the other I need tens of MMs. I don't think I can change primes fast enough to do that and still get both shots. Not to mention that running in and out to frame your shots is not exactly safe in the venues I shoot and it's liable to get you thrown out of the media areas. Now when I am shooting landscapes or other subjects that allow me to zoom with my feet, I'll take a prime too IF I have one that provides the field of view that I want. If not, I'll use the zoom again...

Mike

[Adam]

Wow, either you must have very high standards or the lens had FF/BF or some other issue? I don't speak from first hand experience but from what I've heard and seen from this lens, it doesn't seem to be lacking sharpness.

Not entirely sure what it was, but I doubt it was FF or BF. I'm not too concerned, though.

My theory (more like speculation) is that the faster a lens is, the easier it is for the camera to meter, which it turn results in better exposure in P-mode (given you're not bracketing to make up for it). Hence, primes win!

[snkenai]

I've beed dinkin' with cameras for a long while and lenses for 20 or 30 years and I still haven't made a no compromise choice. Zooms help me get the shot becauce it covers the range of multiple primes. BUT using it is so irritating to me because of extra size, weight, and limited wide apeture. I love to grab a small film slr and go. Yesterday I took the spotmatic with 55 f1.8 to the beach to watch a smoky sunset. Great! But on the way back to the house there was a mother moose with two small calves along side the road. No long lense to catch them! I love the "55" but was seriously "undergunned". I've been trying to get a good shot of that moose for weeks. She has white on neck and shoulders. Oh well, maybe next time I will have made the "right" choice of lens.

Steve N

[photog]

Zoom lenses wee not intended to save walking although watching most of us one would think that was the case. First decide on the viewpoint that gives the perspective that provides the subject the way you have conceived the picture - than select a focal length / zoom that enables you to frame the composition.
Like myself most photographers from the late 1940'2's did not own a zoom lens in any shape or form. A lens was a lens!
I had 3 prime lenses for my RB67 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 (10 on 120 roll film) and similar for my Hasselblad. Zeiss for the Blad and Mamiya
Sekor for the Mamiya both with excellent Compur type shutters. Lovely lenses but no zoom and no one even mentioned autofocus.
Ron McDermott

[TER-OR]

I agree, and would like to use more primes. The biggest use for zooms in my experience is nature photography, where I need something with a pretty broad range. Last night I was trying to get a picture of an ebony jewelwing damselfly with my 100mm macro, but couldn't get close enough. It's great for a lot of things and certainly 100mm is a pretty decent reach, but what works for bees and others which don't care if you're right next to them doesn't for these guys!

I've been eying the 40mm pancake - when I have budget money available I may buy it - until then the 16-45 will have to do - and the 50mm manual focus prime I have...

[pacerr]

... the angle of coverage is different when you zoom ...so the background will be completely different.

I first had to stop thinking of the zoom lens as a cropping device before it became possible to use it as a perspective changing device. Once I understood that, I carried a only 35mm and a 135mm for a few dedicated outings to reinforce the concept.

And I ought'a do that again now that I think about it!

H2

[Class A]

I don't think I can change primes fast enough to do that and still get both shots.

Mate, that's only because you have been spoiled by the comfort of zooms! Practice your lens changing!! Always keep one on the camera and a couple in the air like a juggler.

[Canada_Rockies]

I agree, and would like to use more primes. The biggest use for zooms in my experience is nature photography, where I need something with a pretty broad range. Last night I was trying to get a picture of an ebony jewelwing damselfly with my 100mm macro, but couldn't get close enough. It's great for a lot of things and certainly 100mm is a pretty decent reach, but what works for bees and others which don't care if you're right next to them doesn't for these guys!

I've been eying the 40mm pancake - when I have budget money available I may buy it - until then the 16-45 will have to do - and the 50mm manual focus prime I have...

For dragonflies and the like, I have better luck using the 400 with 50mm of extension. It images an area of approximately 4 X 2.7 inches (10 X 7 cm). My old telephoto lens's closest focus is 5 meters. The 50mm tube brings it in to about 3 meters (10 feet). Dragonfly wingspans can run up to 3 inches (7.5 cm) so that is pretty close to full frame at 10 feet (3 m).

As to the picture quality, I guess one should not hand hold a 400 with 50mm tube at 1/50 second. Even shake reduction cannot handle that shake! Particularly on Friday afternoon.