Zoom Only These Days?

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

Jim Redelfs wrote:
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?

Zooms over the last 20 years have been generally in two categories,
consumer and pro. The consumer lenses go from cheap to not so cheap
with qualities of terrible to pretty damned good. Consumer zoom have
conservative (2:1) to outlandish (10:1) zoom ratios and esp. in the
later case, pretty severe aperture restrictions.

Pro zooms typically have a zoom ratio of 2.5:1 or less. They have
constant, fast apertures. They oftn employ the more exotic glass and
coatings.

A pj's bag will often have three key zoom lenses: 17-35, 28-70|80 and
70|80-200. all f/2.8's (Usually he will have two or three bodies so
each lens almost permanently attached to a body).

Needless to say, these lenses are not cheap. But they are damned good.



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

My main lens is my 100 f/2.8. When I'm shooting a specific subject
matter, I avoid zooms if I can. I have 20, 50, 100 and 300 primes.

For social events, parties, etc., the 28-70 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8 are
the ticket. For sports, the 300 f/2.8 and 80-200 are the lenses of choice.

I prefer the primes, but the zooms are usually the best when time is
short/pace if fast and events are on the move.

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

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?

When my son was born there was no objection to flash being used. The
lighting in the OR is usually fairly brioght all over, and most intense
in the area of concern. These kinds of shots should be achievable at
800. Make sure your SIL understands how to set the ISO to get a
reasonable shutter speed. (Say 1/125 or faster should be his target).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
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

Jim Redelfs wrote:

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?


Zooms have become better, espcially the "pro" versions. I'm willing to pay
some extra to get a good zoom rather than having to carry 3-4 prime lenses.
I now have 2-3 lenses that will cover almost anything I could imagine
shooting and only one is a prime, a fast macro lens that doubles as a
portrait lens. In the past zooms gave up optical quality, now they don't.
--

Stacey

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

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.

I use a 24-85mm AF-S Nikkor-G as my main lens.

Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

In article ,
Jim Redelfs wrote:

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

What has changed?

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

Tom Nelson 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.

In article , andrew29
@littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
Tom Nelson 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.


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

The truth of the matter is: If you are going to shoot in a dusty environment
you need to be prepared to clean the camera and the lens, or pay someone else
to do it for you.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:22:00 -0500, Larry
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.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:54:25 +0000, Graham Holden
wrote:

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:22:00 -0500, Larry
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.

Just be glad you don't have to send off your sensor to the labs for
scratching through their fast processing machines, and dipping in
murky second-hand chemicals.

Film gets visible damage the first time round, so the sensor would be
useless after a few rolls.

--
Owamanga!