Zoom Only These Days?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The last time I was "into" lenses was when I became somewhat familiar with
Canon's FD lineup (1979). Well, so much for THAT anymore... <sigh>

Back then, the main thing I learned was that it takes a LOT of money to
purchase a truly GOOD, brand name lens.

I also recall that one of the main "issues" with zoom lenses was that such
lenses are optically "slower" than a fixed focal length lens.

Today, most everything mentioned and discussed seems to regard ZOOM lenses.

What has changed?

Are you using a zoom lens as your "main" lens?

I'm finding the 18-55 kit lens that came with my 20D is providing satisfactory
results, to say the least. (EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6) Of course, I am
thoroughly enjoying the flexibility that a zoom lens provides.

I was accustomed to a fixed, 50mm lens on my AE1 and T90. I have a 70-210 FD
zoom but, after getting a fixed 300mm, I didn't use it much. Heck, I just
took the (family) Photo of the Century using this "kit" zoom lens. The jpeg
is already printed 8x10 and Mrs. MacWidow is framing it today!

I was considering the purchase of a new lens for shooting the upcoming birth
of my third grandchild. Now I am beginning to believe that the 18-55 would be
sufficient to record this wonderful, if not particularly news-worthy, event.

I am planning to hand my new toy over to my son-in-law for HIM to use during
the delivery - flashless. The MOMENT he emerges with my camera, he gets back
his little POS (oops, I [also] meant P&S) camera and I get MY rig back.

I'm now convinced that, especially at ISO 1600, and considering the LUMENS in
a delivery room/suite situation, this lens would work OK. Perhaps JUST "ok",
but it would work.

Without testing ON SITE beforehand, would you attempt to use this lens (EF-S
18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6) for such a shoot?


JR

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jim Redelfs" <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote in message
news:jim.redelfs-FC4FA4.09455416012005@news.central.cox.net...
> The last time I was "into" lenses was when I became somewhat familiar with
> Canon's FD lineup (1979). Well, so much for THAT anymore... <sigh>
....
>
> I'm now convinced that, especially at ISO 1600, and considering the LUMENS
> in
> a delivery room/suite situation, this lens would work OK. Perhaps JUST
> "ok",
> but it would work.
>
> Without testing ON SITE beforehand, would you attempt to use this lens
> (EF-S
> 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6) for such a shoot?
>
>
> JR

I came up through the same route as you AE1, T90 when primes were the thing
and zooms best avoided !
Since moving to AF with EOS 3 and 10D I find zooms have improved
tremendously. There are some dissappointments, 75-300 is soft, 24-85 never
produces much above average particularly on the 10D.

The thing I find is that zooms are slow, unless you pay plenty on money for
the L series so I regularly use the primes, mainly 85 1.8 & 400, and for
landscapes etc a 20-35 which will probably get replaced by a 17-40 one of
these days.

Test out your camera and lens beforehand and you might find 1600 a bit noisy
but neatimage or noise ninja will certainly help.

All the best

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> The last time I was "into" lenses was when I became somewhat familiar with
> Canon's FD lineup (1979). Well, so much for THAT anymore... <sigh>
>
> Back then, the main thing I learned was that it takes a LOT of money to
> purchase a truly GOOD, brand name lens.
>
> I also recall that one of the main "issues" with zoom lenses was that such
> lenses are optically "slower" than a fixed focal length lens.
>
> Today, most everything mentioned and discussed seems to regard ZOOM
lenses.
>
> What has changed?

Improved computer-aided design, fabrication, and other factors have
allowed manufacturers to produce zoom lenses that are much better than zooms
of a few decades ago. A very high-quality zoom of today might compete (in
some areas, at least - not all) with a medium-quality prime lens, but
overall, prime lenses are still going to be better in most characteristics
in most all situations.

The difference that still remains is, of course, cost, as the zoom lenses
are usually quite a bit cheaper than prime lenses. As the design,
fabrication, and all of the rest lets manufacturers make better zooms at
lower prices, they become more attractive. They'll never replace a prime
lens, but then again, there are a lot of people who really just don't need
(or could ever afford) anything like a 300mm f/2.8 prime, a 300mm zoom (even
if it's f/5.6) would fill most of their needs satisfactorily, and at a tiny
fraction of the cost.

> Are you using a zoom lens as your "main" lens?
>
> I'm finding the 18-55 kit lens that came with my 20D is providing
satisfactory
> results, to say the least. (EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6) Of course, I am
> thoroughly enjoying the flexibility that a zoom lens provides.

I use a combination of the 18-55mm kit lens and a Sigma 28-105 f/2.8, and
find that they cover a tremendous range of uses for me, although I am but a
novice! The largre aperture of the Sigma lets me soften backgrounds for
portraits (and use a somewhat faster shutter or lower light than the kit
lens). It doesn't (of course) give me the bokeh of something like a 50mm
f/1.8 or f/1.4, but it covers a wide varieties of situations that a 50mm
f/1.8 wouldn't.

Overall, for me, it's been a matter of looking at my wants and budget, and
finding the best fit. So far, I've been pretty happy. I'd really like to
take some wildlife shots, so I'll probably add something like a 300mm zoom
this summer. If I were selling wildlife portraits at a good premium, I'd go
for a 300mm prime, but I'll never make a penny off of these shots, so I have
to stick to a much more modest budget.

steve

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tom Nelson <ludibund@xintegraonline.com.invalid> wrote:
> Dust is much more an issue with digital than film. Changing lenses
> opens the mirror chamber to dust infiltration (there's argument
> whether the digital sensor tends to attractt dust). In any case, zooms
> reduce the need to change lenses.

Hmm. I was told by the people who service my cameras that zooms, not
being airtight, tend to pump air into the mirrot box and make dust
problems worse...

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:22:00 -0500, Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet>
wrote:

<snip problems with dust and zoom lenses>


>With some lenses that is true, but its no more problematic than it was/is
>with film.

I used to wonder why everybody seemed to make such a fuss about dust in
digital SLRs and thought "it must have been/is the same with film" (I'm
relatively new to SLR of any type). Then something made it click: with
film, you effectively get a new, (hopefully) dust-free sensor with every
shot. With a dSLR, the dust will just build up and up.

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Larry wrote:
[]
> With some lenses that is true, but its no more problematic than it
> was/is with film.

Yes, it is worse than with film, because with film dust affects a single
exposure before being moved away from the focal plane. With digital SLR
the dust just stays there and accumulates....

David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:48:49 -0000, andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
wrote:

>Tom Nelson <ludibund@xintegraonline.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Dust is much more an issue with digital than film. Changing lenses
>> opens the mirror chamber to dust infiltration (there's argument
>> whether the digital sensor tends to attractt dust). In any case, zooms
>> reduce the need to change lenses.
>
>Hmm. I was told by the people who service my cameras that zooms, not
>being airtight, tend to pump air into the mirrot box and make dust
>problems worse...

Depends on the zoom lens. I'm told that my Canon 70-200 IS doesn't do
this, that the air in the lens stays inside the lens (moving around
the lens elements) as it zooms.

jc