Three primes?

[brokenz]

Thom Hogan wrote:
snip

Yep, I know that last one isn't a prime, but frankly, the days
where zooms were inferior optically to primes are over and have
been for awhile.

snip

Thom I only wanted to address this one part of your post. No offense but those days are far from over. The days that zooms weren't even good enough (depending on your exact definition) may be over but for specific things I doubt we'll ever see zoom replacements that are the optical equals of lenses such as the 35mm 1.4AIS among others. Now I'd love for Nikon to prove me wrong and make "ANY" zoom that happens to cover 35mm, is as fast doing it, and as sharp but I just don't see that happening soon if ever.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

 

[greg77]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=19754684

--
Greg
http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=301372
http://www.pbase.com/coraltown/root

 

[Thom Hogan]

The days that zooms
weren't even good enough

You're the second person to try to say I said "good enough." That's not what I said. I wrote "optically inferior." I was very specific, actually. Does, for example, the 70-200mm at 85mm, 105mm, or 180mm match the optical performance of the 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2 DC or 180mm f/2.8? I'd say yes. In some cases, exceeds. As I've written elsewhere, my 12-24mm DX tests better at 24mm than any of the prime 24mm's I had (note the past tense).

Many of the lenses that people wrote me about (yes, I got email on this, too) are impractical as zooms, usually because of fast apertures, which is a different story. In other words, you can't replicate what the prime lens does. If I needed f/2 at 24mm, I would have kept my prime. But at similar apertures, there aren't a lot of primes that optically outperform some of the current zooms.

(depending on your exact definition) may
be over but for specific things I doubt we'll ever see zoom
replacements that are the optical equals of lenses such as the 35mm
1.4AIS among others.

Again, go back and read my words. If you need f/1.4 at 35mm, you're indeed not likely to get that from a zoom. But not because such a zoom would be optically inferior, but rather because it would be costly to produce (and probably very large and heavy if we're talking about something like a 18-70mm f/1.4).

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

 

[Thom Hogan]

greg77 wrote:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=19754684

A non-sequitor if I've ever seen one. Perhaps if you had compared the 200-400mm at 400mm at f/4 with the the 200mm f/2 with a TC-20E (400mm f/4) or maybe the 300mm f/2.8 with a TC-14E (420mm f/4) we might have something to talk about. But this still wouldn't be what I was talking about in the first place.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

 

[rockygag]

I am very close to this kit for primes ....

Nikon 35 F2
Nikon 50 1.8
Tamron 90 2.8

I was a Seaworld reciently, spent one day with primes ( more or less + 80-200 for some shows where I needed 200 )

When the need for zoom is not there, really prefer the primes, I seem to get more keepers from them, maybe they force me to think more abourt the shot as have to frame by foot ....... I really don't think it is IQ as I am hard pressed to distinguish the Tamron from the Nikon 80-200 @ 90 mm for all F ... YOU may be able to tell, but no me ...

If you follow this forum, I am a bigma fan, chose it over 300F4 + 1.7 TC, for what I shoot, the zoom is just handier, I keep a watch on my exif, and I seem to use 200-500 about equally when the bigma is on

Dave

 

[bilosellhi]

are: 35 f 2
85 f 1.4
180 f 2 along with so many already plus...

and I would add zooms as needed depending on what my goals are and how much weight I want to carry...

 

[Andrew Philip]

(nt)

 

[dp24]

Thom,

Have you used the 15mm f/3.5 on a DSLR. If so, how do you like it?

I can find very little information on this lens either here on dpreview or elsewhere.

 

[brokenz]

The days that zooms
weren't even good enough

You're the second person to try to say I said "good enough." That's
not what I said. I wrote "optically inferior." I was very specific,

Fair enough Thom.

actually. Does, for example, the 70-200mm at 85mm, 105mm, or 180mm
match the optical performance of the 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2 DC or
180mm f/2.8? I'd say yes. In some cases, exceeds. As I've written

I'd agree but only when 2.8 is fast enough or suitably wide enough for effect.

elsewhere, my 12-24mm DX tests better at 24mm than any of the prime
24mm's I had (note the past tense).

I wish I had gotten hold of a better copy myself. I ended up with the Tokina but was only slightly more impressed with it.

Many of the lenses that people wrote me about (yes, I got email on
this, too) are impractical as zooms, usually because of fast
apertures, which is a different story. In other words, you can't
replicate what the prime lens does. If I needed f/2 at 24mm, I
would have kept my prime. But at similar apertures, there aren't a
lot of primes that optically outperform some of the current zooms.

I'd disagree to a point. It depends on specific instances to say.

(depending on your exact definition) may
be over but for specific things I doubt we'll ever see zoom
replacements that are the optical equals of lenses such as the 35mm
1.4AIS among others.

Again, go back and read my words. If you need f/1.4 at 35mm, you're
indeed not likely to get that from a zoom. But not because such a
zoom would be optically inferior, but rather because it would be
costly to produce (and probably very large and heavy if we're
talking about something like a 18-70mm f/1.4).

I agree about it cossting a weighing a fortune but disagree in that I bet it would be optically inferior. True, you really have to pixel peep to see the differences in some cases. Some zooms truly are that good now. The differences exist though. I've yet to find a zoom that covers 50mm and is as good at 2.8 as my 50mm 2.0AIS. Not one.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x,
S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

 

[fabie]

28mm 1.4
50mm 1.4
105mm 1.4

Loved the wide aperture shots!

 

[lawnmower]

The days that zooms
weren't even good enough

You're the second person to try to say I said "good enough." That's
not what I said. I wrote "optically inferior." I was very specific,
actually. Does, for example, the 70-200mm at 85mm, 105mm, or 180mm
match the optical performance of the 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2 DC or
180mm f/2.8? I'd say yes. In some cases, exceeds. As I've written
elsewhere, my 12-24mm DX tests better at 24mm than any of the prime
24mm's I had (note the past tense).

Many of the lenses that people wrote me about (yes, I got email on
this, too) are impractical as zooms, usually because of fast
apertures, which is a different story. In other words, you can't
replicate what the prime lens does. If I needed f/2 at 24mm, I
would have kept my prime. But at similar apertures, there aren't a
lot of primes that optically outperform some of the current zooms.

I am taking the opportunity to Jump on Thom's bandwagon. If you read my posts that were written previously in this thread you would see that I was basically saying the same exact thing about primes not outperforming current zooms. Of course I have as stated that I have owned and still own both. Few wanted to listen to Old Lawnmower but maybe listening to Thom Hogan is an option. Yeah right!!

I am not so sure though. Some folks on these forums that picked up a camera one month or even a year ago and have only owned the 50f1.8 or the 35f2 know more than Thom. The sad thing is, they would argue with him also. Truth is, most folks that own the inexpensive primes want to justify there worth by trying to put down zooms that they simply never want to spend the money on like the 17-55 which could take the place of the 20, 24, 28, 35, and 50mm primes all put together. AND you don't have to switch lenses all the time. Don't listen to me, try Thom unless you think that you know more than he does which would account for about a quarter of the people that write messages in these forums.

(depending on your exact definition) may
be over but for specific things I doubt we'll ever see zoom
replacements that are the optical equals of lenses such as the 35mm
1.4AIS among others.

Again, go back and read my words. If you need f/1.4 at 35mm, you're
indeed not likely to get that from a zoom. But not because such a
zoom would be optically inferior, but rather because it would be
costly to produce (and probably very large and heavy if we're
talking about something like a 18-70mm f/1.4).

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x,
S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

 

[astro21]

I would choose, in order of preference:

1. 85mm 1.4D
2. 50mm 1.8D
3. 35mm 2D

...although I don't actually own the third one...

--
astro21
Comments always welcome.
Kawasaki-shi, Japan.
Nik*n D seventy
http://www.davidcsnowden.com/album/

 

[brokenz]

I am taking the opportunity to Jump on Thom's bandwagon. If you
read my posts that were written previously in this thread you would
see that I was basically saying the same exact thing about primes
not outperforming current zooms. Of course I have as stated that I
have owned and still own both. Few wanted to listen to Old
Lawnmower but maybe listening to Thom Hogan is an option. Yeah
right!!

I think you are reading alot more into things than are there.

I am not so sure though. Some folks on these forums that picked up
a camera one month or even a year ago and have only owned the
50f1.8 or the 35f2 know more than Thom. The sad thing is, they
would argue with him also. Truth is, most folks that own the
inexpensive primes want to justify there worth by trying to put
down zooms that they simply never want to spend the money on like
the 17-55 which could take the place of the 20, 24, 28, 35, and
50mm primes all put together. AND you don't have to switch lenses

Let's see. I use and still use the following lenses with various DSLR's (and some of the older ones with various film SLR's), 17-55mm, 35mm 2.0D, 35mm 1.4AIS, 50mm 1.4D, 50mm 1.4AIS, 50mm 2.0AIS. The 17-55mm is not the only zooms I've owned or still own in that range but that's the one you want to talk about so it's the one I'm mentioning. Same thing for the primes but I only mentioned the ones I still like enough to use. My 17-55mm is a good copy. It was one I went to a store and picked thru multiple copies myself. I'd put it up against anyone else's copy of the same. It earns me money. It's not for sale. I like it that much. I'd even go as far as to call it a "miracle" zoom. That said...

1. I like the 35mm focal length alot. I like shooting in low light and at wide apeture for effect. 2.8 is not fast in my book. So does the 17-55mm do 99% of what I "need" to do? Yes. Does it do even 50% of what I "want" to do? No. Can it? No.

2. I love the 50mm focal length and as with the 35mm love shooting with it in low light and at wide apeture for effect. See above comments concerning 35mm vs. the 17-55mm and apply it to 50mm now.

Additionally, for contrast and sharpness specifically, the 17-55mm is not the equal of the 50mm 2.0AIS. This is from an actual user.

all the time. Don't listen to me, try Thom unless you think that
you know more than he does which would account for about a quarter
of the people that write messages in these forums.

Well I enjoy Thom's responses more than yours. He's a very knowledgeable person and can disagree without sounding like a total pr*ck.

Honestly though, if you find that "a quater" of the people that write messages in these forums disagree with you then perhaps you should just move somewhere more advanced. Someone with your obvious "expertise" shouldn't find it hard to find said places.

Finally, you make my point. Are some zooms at the point where they can equal most primes in quality? Yes. Are "ALL" zooms better or the equal of "ALL" primes when making "ANY" comparison? No. I would think someone of your advanced "expertise" would know better though.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

 

[RaidenCraig]

Rudeness is the weak person's imitation of strength
--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.

 

[Thom Hogan]

Have you used the 15mm f/3.5 on a DSLR. If so, how do you like it?

No, I haven't. I keep meaning to get around to it. Maybe when I go on a big adventure shoot assignment next year...

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

 

[Sam Carleton]

I shoot primarly primes, thought I own some zooms.

If I could ONLY have three, I guess it would have to be:

28/1.4
85/1.4
200/2

Am I aloud to own some teleconverters? If so, I would take all three for the 200/2!
--
Sam
http://www.miltonstreet.com
http://www.sportsshooter.com/scarleton