Why buy tele zooms when primes are 1/4 price and twice as good?

[Carnildo]

The 2.8 50-200mm is $ 1700 vs. the prime at $ 650. If that is not
a difference consider this: the 200mm prime weighs HALF that of the
lens, and it does not need IS.

You see the only reason to get a DSLR out in the field is to do low
light photography. For that you need a 2.8 lens.

So I can just stick a 1000mm telephoto on my Powershot A520 and take a picture of the moose across the lake? The moose isn't going anywhere, so f/8 or f/11 isn't a problem.

You need a few steps backwards. Never forward. Steps backwards
are usually easy.

Except when those three steps backwards involve scaling a 200-foot cliff.

I'm not saying there is no reason for zoom lenses. But you do
double the weight, triple the cost, AND lose sharpness.

For one prime compared to one zoom. But most zooms take the place of about three primes. The 50-200mm zoom you keep comparing to replaces a 50mm prime, a 100mm prime, and a 200mm prime.

Now I've
seen some prime pictures that scream of sharpness and some zoom
lens pictures that look super fuzzy to me.

And I've seen plenty of super-fuzzy pictures from primes, and sharp pictures from zooms. So?

 

[200mm]

I don't know why people buy zoom teles when the primes are 1/4 the
price and twice the sharpness of even the most expensive zooms. A
Canon's 300mm 2.8 prime for $ 500 is much better than a 50-300mm L
2.8 IS $ 2000 zoom lens. For another $ 100 get a prime 50mm 1.8.
Even with $ 4000 in lenses the quality won't match the primes.

So what if you have to take a few steps forward or backwards.

--I wish I could get a 300mm for $500
NIkondude.

' Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know'

 

[marcoventuriniautieri]

Unfortunately it is not generally true that a prime is cheaper than a zoom.

Marco

 

[James C. Murray]

or move back and forth at an airshow etc.

 

[Richard Ullakko2]

How many lenses do you lug around anyway?
--
I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception.

 

[mdg]

You need a few steps backwards. Never forward. Steps backwards
are usually easy.

Even if you can step backwards it has a completely different effect to zooming out - zooming out will make all objects in the frame smaller by the same amount, wheras stepping backwards will make close objects smaller whilst leaving distant objects pretty much the same size.

 

[D Q E]

I don't know why people buy zoom teles when the primes are 1/4 the
price and twice the sharpness of even the most expensive zooms. A
Canon's 300mm 2.8 prime for $ 500 is much better than a 50-300mm L
2.8 IS $ 2000 zoom lens. For another $ 100 get a prime 50mm 1.8.
Even with $ 4000 in lenses the quality won't match the primes.

So what if you have to take a few steps forward or backwards.

TWICE the sharpness? What?

--
mumbo jumbo