Do you want to compare a 1.650 g, 2.700 euros 35-100 2.0 lens vs a 200 g, 200 euros Nikkor DX 35 1.8 or maybe a 400g, 400 euros Nikkor 85 1.8? Then I think you miss the point with small, fast primes.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Oly Zooms vs. APS-C Primes
- Thread starter Holgs
- Start date
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Holgs
Senior Member
To me a 50mm equivalent is a nice focal length for a prime lens, and in that sense its good that Nikon brought out the lens - and I'm sure it will make many users of cameras like the d40 happy - BUT - the level of CA, the distortion and the fall-off are things I would have thought could be brought under control in a prime lens in this focal range. It also means that the lens is far less versatile as a general purpose lens. In fairness these are all the same flaws present in the Oly 25mm. I think the rating is as much a product of the price of the lens though than its IQ. I guess its as much a reflection of the market Nikon sees for the DX range as anything. To me the level of CA in both lenses rules them out as an option for serious work. Saying that its one of my pet hates in a lens.
My real point was that if we are to see new prime lenses, they should offer us something that the zooms don't have - ie. faster max aperture -and- better IQ. While the 12-60 and the 35mm are clearly two very differently priced lenses, I'd still rather have the convenience of a zoom than pay for a bag full of primes that don't deliver the any improvement in IQ.
--
http://www.harrystravels.com - for travel stories, thoughts on travel camera equipment, and links to my photo portfolios.
Holgs
Senior Member
Yep... not a bad Friday night thread I would have thought?
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=46,30&fullscreen=true&av=1.667,1.667&fl=35,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F3
In sharpness the lens never dips bellow the Nyquist frequency, the CA never exceeds 0.03%, the falloff is always bellow 0.7% and distortion is minimal.
http://www.harrystravels.com - for travel stories, thoughts on travel camera equipment, and links to my photo portfolios.
Well looking at the comparative focal length - 25mm for the Oly at the range you'd normally use it in - f3.5-6.3:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=46,30&fullscreen=true&av=1.667,1.667&fl=35,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F3
In sharpness the lens never dips bellow the Nyquist frequency, the CA never exceeds 0.03%, the falloff is always bellow 0.7% and distortion is minimal.
I'm not a big fan of pancakes - but in a way it can be justified on a small body such as the E420. The Pentax is billed as a "limited lens" which should have something more than just better build quality. Can you imagine the anguish from here if Oly brought out a HG prime with this sort of IQ?
True, but then the 12-60mm is no slouch in this area either when it does get going - it looses out slightly on center sharpness, but gains on CA.
--
http://www.harrystravels.com - for travel stories, thoughts on travel camera equipment, and links to my photo portfolios.
Holgs
Senior Member
I guess that was exactly my point - if you're going to make primes, they should be high quality lenses - I don't see the point of shelling out $600 for a lens that is small if it doesn't match that with IQ.
I guess Oly has formed the view that 50mm is its portrait lens range. By and large I don't shoot portraits in a studio - when I do shoot portraits it tends to be outdoors and often in situations where a zoom is far more practical.
--
http://www.harrystravels.com - for travel stories, thoughts on travel camera equipment, and links to my photo portfolios.
pinnacle
Senior Member
I've been a photographer for 32 years and have watched zoom lenses evolve from passable to the new class of zooms from Olympus. The old cliches about nothing better than a high end prime are just that, cliches.
As for learning how to compose a picture, many competent photographers have developed that general skill already and do not need to be confined to the limitations of a fixed lens. Perhaps a photographic novice might benefit by the limitation to a fixed lens, but I'm not convinced of that. Many of us would much rather use the zoom abilities of our lens rather than stepping toward or away from our subject, even more so if a tripod is involved, if we happen to be using a tripod.
I do understand that opinions in these areas vary widely and each photographer must use the tools that match their personal style and preferences.
I have seen excellent results from both schools of thought.
Dan
--
Ever wonder why the various major religious belief systems tend to be geocentric? So if I am born in Tibet...Odds are?
trisweb
Leading Member
You clearly have not used the 35-100, and from what you're saying, it seems to me like you haven't even seen images from it.
The only arguments against it are price and weight. It is otherworldly in optical quality, and to say it's 'ridiculous' to compare it to portrait primes in that respect really gives away your complete lack of knowledge about the glass.
It is the perfect counterexample to your argument - that a prime lens can be matched and even bettered by a zoom - and pinnacle was exactly right to bring it up as such.
As I said, weight and price... those are issues to talk about here. But not quality.
--
'There's nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept' Ansel Adams
(Equipment in Profile)
The only arguments against it are price and weight. It is otherworldly in optical quality, and to say it's 'ridiculous' to compare it to portrait primes in that respect really gives away your complete lack of knowledge about the glass.
It is the perfect counterexample to your argument - that a prime lens can be matched and even bettered by a zoom - and pinnacle was exactly right to bring it up as such.
As I said, weight and price... those are issues to talk about here. But not quality.
--
'There's nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept'
(Equipment in Profile)
Both have their advantages.
Moneywise it's zooms, nowadays.
In OM-days I had (and still have) 6 lenses (21, 28, 28-48, 40, 50, 100 mm) just to cover 12-60mm range. Yes, I know, the 21 was a bit wider. Which bag is hevier or costs more? Not to mention about the lenses I had to cover the range from 12 to 300mm (24-600mm)...
And now I have covered the holes - I didn't have the 85, or 135, which is very close to 60mm coverage now.
So, weightwise, it's zoom, nowadays.
BUT. If you are looking something of f1.4 or even f2 for shallow DOF and/or low light shooting in reasonable price and weight, it will be a prime. Any zoom with f1.4... how much would that weight? Small and handy are not the words that come into my mind either - that would not be a walk around lens.
So. For special purposes the primes are the best and most economical way to built a high IQ lens. Woukd I buy one or some? Maybe. An about 17- 20mm f1.4 or 1.8 would be nice. Maybe even 40mm f 1.4 (FT-lenghts), even if I have the 50mm macro now. With the same quality as 50mm lens. Or 12-60. Of course, wide open.
Pancace? Why? Small is beautiful, but if the IQ is the most important thing...
PS. I still use the OM stuff, with and without E-series. Will I use these E-series bodies or lenses after 30 years?
--
Jouko
'The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it'
http://lehtokukka.smugmug.com/
Moneywise it's zooms, nowadays.
In OM-days I had (and still have) 6 lenses (21, 28, 28-48, 40, 50, 100 mm) just to cover 12-60mm range. Yes, I know, the 21 was a bit wider. Which bag is hevier or costs more? Not to mention about the lenses I had to cover the range from 12 to 300mm (24-600mm)...
And now I have covered the holes - I didn't have the 85, or 135, which is very close to 60mm coverage now.
So, weightwise, it's zoom, nowadays.
BUT. If you are looking something of f1.4 or even f2 for shallow DOF and/or low light shooting in reasonable price and weight, it will be a prime. Any zoom with f1.4... how much would that weight? Small and handy are not the words that come into my mind either - that would not be a walk around lens.
So. For special purposes the primes are the best and most economical way to built a high IQ lens. Woukd I buy one or some? Maybe. An about 17- 20mm f1.4 or 1.8 would be nice. Maybe even 40mm f 1.4 (FT-lenghts), even if I have the 50mm macro now. With the same quality as 50mm lens. Or 12-60. Of course, wide open.
Pancace? Why? Small is beautiful, but if the IQ is the most important thing...
PS. I still use the OM stuff, with and without E-series. Will I use these E-series bodies or lenses after 30 years?
--
Jouko
'The best camera in the world is the one you have with you when you need it'
http://lehtokukka.smugmug.com/
Harold66
Forum Pro
Again , irrelevant. Although there are not many tests of that lens on the most reputable sites , there is a general consensus that this is indeed a great zoom
To be honest , I find it quite ridiculous that everybody seems to be so touchy about their equipment. There is a kind of behaviour where people seem to take critique of any of their equipment like if you were talking about their kids
No that's not true and you should know it. Both single focal lengths and zooms
have their pluses and minuses but there are more to what is usually referred to primes than just price and weight
you have to add Brightness
which in turn has an effect on the capacity to manual focus
pleasure to compose the image in the frame
my 12-60 is a great zoom but it is more accurate AND more pleasant to use the 50mm macro at 2
First of all , you are changing what I wrote. I am willing to stipulate that if you compare for instance a top zoom , it can match the better single focal lenght at a given length
what I was saying is that if you take the best 35, 50, 85 and 100 lenses available
and match it to your 35-100mm , there is at least one of them which would be better than the zoom, REGARDLESS of the zoom and brand
but again , this is not my main point. it is possible that in this specific case , the difference would be so small that it would not be seen in standard size prints and standard shooting conditions
to repeat what Dan wrote , you can take your 35-100 and you won't be able to shoot hand held portraits of the same quality than with -say= a 85mm planar because of the simple fact is that it is very hard to do with a lens that weighs 1.7 kilo
guys , stop being so over sensitive about your equipment and try to accept the law of physics
Harold
--
Il suivait son idee
son idee etait fixe
Il s'etonnait de ne pas avancer
Harold66
Forum Pro
Perhaps a
Well , I am and I am not the only one...
Many of us would much rather use the zoom abilities of our lens rather than stepping toward or away from our subject, even more so if a tripod is involved, if we happen to be using a tripod.
Yes , I am sure but it does not prove anything. Furthermore , nobody is denying the fact that in lots of cases-including the one you mentioned-that zooms are usually more "convenient"
the whole point is to explain that this convenience comes at a price. This can be added size and weight , extra cost , lower quality at certain or all focal lengths
so depending on the lenses involved , it can be one of these factors you lose on
or on ALL OF THEM
Absolutely. I am not saying should use single focal lengths or that equipment or that equipment
on the other hand , having to resort to a 1.7 kilo lens for hand-held portraits is going to cramp a photog style , for sure
Harold
--
Il suivait son idee
son idee etait fixe
Il s'etonnait de ne pas avancer
--
85mm is NOT for anybody ideal. Look at IlyaV's portrets in this forum with 50mm f5 !!! I think that the creativity of the photographer is more important than the mm!
He can use 42mm but doesn't.
nick_webster
Veteran Member
I'm not being picky about anybody's equipment, but where is your evidence ?
You constantly state that a fixed focal length is probably better than the 35-100, but have so far failed to back up your argument with any facts. You are making an assumption, then regarding that as a fact, then basing your argument on those "facts".
I realise that weight/size/cost/aperture are all issues in favour of a fixed focal length lens , but the OP was asking about image quality, and so far you haven't addressed that issue at all, you keep ignoring posts like mine which ask you to back your assertations with evidence.
If you are arguing that primes have advantages as noted above then I have no problem at all, but you keep saying a prime is better than a zoom for IQ, but fail to provide any proof at all. If you have that proof then great, show it, and we can all agree. Until then, just repeating what "you" think and regarding it as a fact is just idiocy,
Nick
You constantly state that a fixed focal length is probably better than the 35-100, but have so far failed to back up your argument with any facts. You are making an assumption, then regarding that as a fact, then basing your argument on those "facts".
I realise that weight/size/cost/aperture are all issues in favour of a fixed focal length lens , but the OP was asking about image quality, and so far you haven't addressed that issue at all, you keep ignoring posts like mine which ask you to back your assertations with evidence.
If you are arguing that primes have advantages as noted above then I have no problem at all, but you keep saying a prime is better than a zoom for IQ, but fail to provide any proof at all. If you have that proof then great, show it, and we can all agree. Until then, just repeating what "you" think and regarding it as a fact is just idiocy,
Nick
Harold66
Forum Pro
NO , that's not what I said. what I said is that if you take the best zoom 35-100mm
and compare it against -say -the best 35mm, the best 50mm , the best 85mm and the best 100mm, the zoom quality can only equal the fixed lens quality for some of the focal lenghts, that on other focal lengths , it cannot as a zoom has to make compromised
as far as proof is concerned , just pick a high quality zoom which has been seriously reviewed and compare comments on sharpness, distorsion, vignetting with a few primes of that zoom focal range. you will be able to see it for yourself
the difference may not be significant to you but it would still be there
Harold
--
Il suivait son idee
son idee etait fixe
Il s'etonnait de ne pas avancer
nick_webster
Veteran Member
If you are going to take the best 4 primes, 35,50,85 and 100 how much would that cost against the cost of the 35-100 ? And what would the weight be ? If you are not saving money or weight and losing the flexibility and convenience, your point starts to look marginal.
And to quote you "All zooms are optimized for a certain focal length ( usually the starting ones) so that means that while your 35-100 may match the quality of the best 35mm primes ( at a considerably higher bulk and weight , just to remind you) , it won't match the quality of a prime of 85mm or 100mm "
Here you are saying that the quality won't match - which is where I was asking for evidence, which you have still failed to provide
So I'm not sure how you think I was misquoting you ? And if the quality is a bit less , but I can't tell, what is the benefit ?
As I said, I agree that there can be benefits to fixed focal length lenses, just as there are drawbacks. The OP made the point that if the benefits are negligible then what is the point ?
I await the proof of your assertions with baited breath ...
Nick
PS Just for fun here are some numbers based on Nikon lenses
35 f2 £250 205g
50 f1.4 £220 230g
85 f1.4 £870 550g
105 f2 £790 640g
which give a total of £2130 and 1625g
Oly 35-100 f2 £1950 and 1650g
So the Oly is £180 cheaper and pretty much the same weight, but it does give you 36mm, 37mm, 38mm etc. And you don't have to change lenses
And to quote you "All zooms are optimized for a certain focal length ( usually the starting ones) so that means that while your 35-100 may match the quality of the best 35mm primes ( at a considerably higher bulk and weight , just to remind you) , it won't match the quality of a prime of 85mm or 100mm "
Here you are saying that the quality won't match - which is where I was asking for evidence, which you have still failed to provide
So I'm not sure how you think I was misquoting you ? And if the quality is a bit less , but I can't tell, what is the benefit ?As I said, I agree that there can be benefits to fixed focal length lenses, just as there are drawbacks. The OP made the point that if the benefits are negligible then what is the point ?
I await the proof of your assertions with baited breath ...
Nick
PS Just for fun here are some numbers based on Nikon lenses
35 f2 £250 205g
50 f1.4 £220 230g
85 f1.4 £870 550g
105 f2 £790 640g
which give a total of £2130 and 1625g
Oly 35-100 f2 £1950 and 1650g
So the Oly is £180 cheaper and pretty much the same weight, but it does give you 36mm, 37mm, 38mm etc. And you don't have to change lenses
trisweb
Leading Member
I have no issue with you critiquing it as long as you can back it up with some hard evidence. As it stands, you're critique is simply a set of generalizations without any fact behind them. If you want to talk about the "physics" of it, go right ahead, but I expect to see some empirical results and numbers if we're going to use that respectable word of science. I really could care less about any emotional aspect.
However, you have brought up weight and size, which as I said was a completely valid argument to make over this lens. No defense to be made there - it is heavy and large. But then, as opposed to carrying three or four prime lenses of 35, 50, 85, and 100mm, I think it's comparable. And that was the point of this thread, which I think is valid. That's all I'm saying.
But, if I have to tell you, we are not being overly sensitive. Simply responding to an overly sensitive emotional response based on generalizations about what you believe about optical physics with no real evidence. No offense intended; We all know that primes are great, and I wish Olympus had more, cheaper, faster of them, but I also think the 35-100 is a pretty astounding work of engineering.
--
'There's nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept'
(Equipment in Profile)
Harold66
Forum Pro
let's try to remember that the goal is to make pictures. First of all , I was listing this four focal lengths as a base for existing primes. If I was to choose my oly stuff , I would not need these 4 focal lengths. I may need two ,someone may need 3
second of all , even assuming I decided I needed all 4 of them , it is more likely than on an assignment , I would choose to carry only one or 2 while YOU are stuck with your 1.7 kilo zoom even if you only take portraits on that day
and btw, if you want to tell me that a 1.7 kilo zoom lens is as apt to do the job than say exchanging a 300 2/50mm zuiko lens and a 400 grams 1.8 or 2/40mm lens, please go ahead
I also think the 35-100 is a pretty astounding work of engineering.
and AGAIN , nobody says otherwise
Harold
Harold66
Forum Pro
n
Come on give me a break
How many handheld portraits have you made with your BIG ZOOM ?
H
please read my previous message on this thread to see my answer to that
Oh now , you are going to tell me that on your 35-100mm , you have regular use of 35,36,37, 38 mm on your focal lengthSo the Oly is £180 cheaper and pretty much the same weight, but it
does give you 36mm, 37mm, 38mm etc. And you don't have to change
lenses
Come on give me a break
How many handheld portraits have you made with your BIG ZOOM ?
H
nick_webster
Veteran Member
I keep asking you for the proof that the 35-100 is poor at some focal lengths, which is what you were basing your argument on - which I did quote to you in case you had forgotten. You have still not done so.
I don't have a 35-100 but I've used one for a morning and it seemed sharp to me regardless of what focal length I used it at. You seem to have different info about the lens, but you won't share it with us.
I haven't seen your anwer to the cost/weight of 4 top primes vs the cost/weight of a zoom. Perhaps you could point me to it when you show evidence for your claim ...
You didn't answer my point about all the focal lengths in between either ... Do you deny that I could use all the focal lengths in between 35, 50,85 and 100 ?
I think I'll stop bothering as you seem not to understand what I'm asking, and instead answer questions I've not asked . I'll leave it you to have the last word, and then you can think your point is proved
Nick
EDIT: I've just seen your post about not taking all your lenses, and I agree completely. As I said, my weight/cost comparisons were just for fun, I wasn't trying to prove a point.
I've also seen your post about the 12-60, but that isn't the lens in question is it ?
I don't have a 35-100 but I've used one for a morning and it seemed sharp to me regardless of what focal length I used it at. You seem to have different info about the lens, but you won't share it with us.
I haven't seen your anwer to the cost/weight of 4 top primes vs the cost/weight of a zoom. Perhaps you could point me to it when you show evidence for your claim ...
You didn't answer my point about all the focal lengths in between either ... Do you deny that I could use all the focal lengths in between 35, 50,85 and 100 ?
I think I'll stop bothering as you seem not to understand what I'm asking, and instead answer questions I've not asked . I'll leave it you to have the last word, and then you can think your point is proved
Nick
EDIT: I've just seen your post about not taking all your lenses, and I agree completely. As I said, my weight/cost comparisons were just for fun, I wasn't trying to prove a point.
I've also seen your post about the 12-60, but that isn't the lens in question is it ?
Harold66
Forum Pro
Alright , just read your most reply . answered it with a few points but it seems you are waiting for some " proof"
as I said before , there is not many full scale reviews of the most expensive zoom lenses at Oly like the 35-100 , maybe I dare to suggest because the weight and size ( not even mentioning the price)makes it a special applications lens rather than a walk-around zoom
But we can take the 12-60mm , sort of the flagship lens for Olympus for most popular focal lengths. This lens has been previously reviewed by several site including very serious review on here , as well as camera labs, slrgear, etc.....
so let's look resolution of this 12-60mm at 50mm . 50mm (100mm in 35mm terms) is a classical portrait lens for many
if you look at the resolution of this lens in dprtest, you can see that it fluctuates between around 1000 lines to 1400 . and that the highest level achieved is way under the level of the 50mm macro at the same 4 opening
now if you take the 2/50mm at 2 how does it compare ? well it does not since you can't use the 12-60mm at 2
Now olympus does not have a 2.8/12mm lens but if they brought one , I am sure it would at least equal the optical characterisctics of the 12-60mm at 12mm
because again , no matter a zoom can get , it has to compromise to cover several focal lengths
Harold
as I said before , there is not many full scale reviews of the most expensive zoom lenses at Oly like the 35-100 , maybe I dare to suggest because the weight and size ( not even mentioning the price)makes it a special applications lens rather than a walk-around zoom
But we can take the 12-60mm , sort of the flagship lens for Olympus for most popular focal lengths. This lens has been previously reviewed by several site including very serious review on here , as well as camera labs, slrgear, etc.....
so let's look resolution of this 12-60mm at 50mm . 50mm (100mm in 35mm terms) is a classical portrait lens for many
if you look at the resolution of this lens in dprtest, you can see that it fluctuates between around 1000 lines to 1400 . and that the highest level achieved is way under the level of the 50mm macro at the same 4 opening
now if you take the 2/50mm at 2 how does it compare ? well it does not since you can't use the 12-60mm at 2
Now olympus does not have a 2.8/12mm lens but if they brought one , I am sure it would at least equal the optical characterisctics of the 12-60mm at 12mm
because again , no matter a zoom can get , it has to compromise to cover several focal lengths
Harold
pinnacle
Senior Member
Harold, you are doing fairly well at making your points in this discussion. I like the way you try and stick to fact based exchanges.
I just want to ask you to do one thing. This may be difficult depending on access in your area to the 35-100 F2. Please see if you can take one out for one day and use it in as many situations as possible. Get a feel for the balance and weight. Get a feel for the quality of the design and smoothness of the mechanics. Compare the image quality to other lenses used at the same focal lengths and apertures. Use it wide open. Look at the bokeh. Compare the contrast. Compare the sharpness. Look for chromatic aberration. look for distortion.
Just try the lens for a day. One beautiful day out with just you and the lens on your camera.
If that doesn't sway you, then nothing else matters. I'm betting otherwise.
Thank you for some well thought out discussion.
Dan
--
Ever wonder why the various major religious belief systems tend to be geocentric? So if I am born in Tibet...Odds are?
Franka T.L.
Veteran Member
Comparing lens for different format is kind of irrelevant. And the Pentax Lens is also a different animal ..
Just as every Mfr having their own way of doing lens. Pentax never been into absolute sharpness or optical performance. I use their system both good old film and digital, and of course I use 4/3 also
If you think APS-C fix focals is soft, you need to look at what I've got from using some old Manual Focus Lens.
In choosing for Fix focals, absolute image / optical quality is not perhaps always the reason although in some case they are ( say going for a Macro Lens ). For the same format / coverage. It must be said that from the same Mfr, ( thus the same knowhow and technolgy , design criteria ) a fix focals is likely to be able to be lighter, more compact, better ( IQ ) , faster, or a combination of these.
Its in these usage and combination of a setup that govern why one want to go for a Fix focals or a zoom or a setup of whatever comprise.
My take on the matter , its not even fair to compare 4/3 zoom vs APS-C fix focals, just as its unfair to compare lens for Medium Format vs 35mm ... And Sharpness is IMHO not one of the most important criteria once one reach a threshold, and that threshold had but reach by almost all lens ( used within their context ). So the comparison must be on performance/feature/ image making and image capturing capability that is field specific and coupled with the need of the specific user.
A more specific comparison would be say Zoom vs fix focals of same format. Say if we look at the ZD 50/2.0 Macro vs the ZD 12-60/2.8-4.0 vs ZD 14-54/2.8-3.5 vs ZD 14-35/2.0 , we can see that my prior statement of the fix focal advantage being vividly demonstrated. The Macro is certainly lighter, more compact than all the zoom, faster than almost all, and certainly cheaper also ( at least here locally ). IN fact its in bulk even smaller than the now slow kit zoom for the E420 / E520 / E620 / E450.
--
Just as every Mfr having their own way of doing lens. Pentax never been into absolute sharpness or optical performance. I use their system both good old film and digital, and of course I use 4/3 also
If you think APS-C fix focals is soft, you need to look at what I've got from using some old Manual Focus Lens.
In choosing for Fix focals, absolute image / optical quality is not perhaps always the reason although in some case they are ( say going for a Macro Lens ). For the same format / coverage. It must be said that from the same Mfr, ( thus the same knowhow and technolgy , design criteria ) a fix focals is likely to be able to be lighter, more compact, better ( IQ ) , faster, or a combination of these.
Its in these usage and combination of a setup that govern why one want to go for a Fix focals or a zoom or a setup of whatever comprise.
My take on the matter , its not even fair to compare 4/3 zoom vs APS-C fix focals, just as its unfair to compare lens for Medium Format vs 35mm ... And Sharpness is IMHO not one of the most important criteria once one reach a threshold, and that threshold had but reach by almost all lens ( used within their context ). So the comparison must be on performance/feature/ image making and image capturing capability that is field specific and coupled with the need of the specific user.
A more specific comparison would be say Zoom vs fix focals of same format. Say if we look at the ZD 50/2.0 Macro vs the ZD 12-60/2.8-4.0 vs ZD 14-54/2.8-3.5 vs ZD 14-35/2.0 , we can see that my prior statement of the fix focal advantage being vividly demonstrated. The Macro is certainly lighter, more compact than all the zoom, faster than almost all, and certainly cheaper also ( at least here locally ). IN fact its in bulk even smaller than the now slow kit zoom for the E420 / E520 / E620 / E450.
--
- Franka -
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum