Topic: Zoom Lenses

[Late Developer]

I spent a while, yesterday, updating a spreadsheet containing details and values of all my photo gear (not down to the last filter and neck strap - just the main stuff) for insurance purposes.  Once I'd completed it, I was struck by the fact that I no longer own a single zoom lens. Not one. 

I have nothing against zoom lenses.  I've owned a few down the years and I currently own cameras for which there are literally hundreds of zoom lenses available.  I just don't have any and I don't seem to miss them.

As lens build technology has improved, generally speaking, I'd have thought zooms would be "the norm".  Are there others out there who, like myself, don't own any zoom lenses and, if so, is this a deliberate decision? Are zooms not up to the mark, quality-wise? Too big / too heavy? Too expensive for a really good one? 

[Sandeha Lynch]

Too slow was always the bugbear with the older zooms, that and the variable aperture that slows them even further.  I'd be quite certain that a modern zoom would be stellar by comparison with anything made in the nineties or earlier, but to me it's still a dust-pump.

I actually have two.  The 18-35mm Vivitar is the widest lens I have so it gets used at 18mm maybe once every three years.  The other is a Pentax 80-320 that last went for a walk ten years ago.  In my Sketchbook of Wales, a selection covering ten years, it gets used in three shots, out of a hundred.

[Francois]

So far, I'm a pretty happy zoom lens user. But I just admit that all of them are slightly fuzzy when compared to a tessar or something similar.
But I do find them practical to use.

[Kai-san]

I do not own a single zoom lens either and yes, it is deliberate. At first it was due to a concern about image quality, but now I see it more as a challenge to my own creativity. My feet still works excellently for zooming and if I'm not happy with the result I go back later with a different lens (or camera). A zoom lens is of course heavier and bigger, and in addition you have the fact that max aperture varies as you zoom. I prefer to keep such variables to a minimum and concentrate on the motif. I guess that's why I'm more and more attracted to manual cameras.

[Late Developer]

Too slow was always the bugbear with the older zooms, that and the variable aperture that slows them even further.  I'd be quite certain that a modern zoom would be stellar by comparison with anything made in the nineties or earlier, but to me it's still a dust-pump.

I actually have two.  The 18-35mm Vivitar is the widest lens I have so it gets used at 18mm maybe once every three years.  The other is a Pentax 80-320 that last went for a walk ten years ago.  In my Sketchbook of Wales, a selection covering ten years, it gets used in three shots, out of a hundred.

Yes, the first zoom I ever owned used to black out half of the split prism on the focusing screen - rendering it useless to all intents and purposes.  Over the last 10 years or so, I've been lucky enough to be able to afford a couple of decent ones with wide maximum apertures but I just found them very lumpy and heavy to carry for any prolonged distance.  Small, quick(ish) primes are great and a fair bit cheaper - though you do have to zoom with your feet.

Lovely album, by the way.  I'll have to spend a bit more time viewing it, when I get home.

[Late Developer]

I do not own a single zoom lens either and yes, it is deliberate. At first it was due to a concern about image quality, but now I see it more as a challenge to my own creativity. My feet still works excellently for zooming and if I'm not happy with the result I go back later with a different lens (or camera). A zoom lens is of course heavier and bigger, and in addition you have the fact that max aperture varies as you zoom. I prefer to keep such variables to a minimum and concentrate on the motif. I guess that's why I'm more and more attracted to manual cameras.

I'm wondering if my decisions were also deliberate, albeit subconscious.  When I had a DSLR, it was a 30+ megapixel job and didn't have an anti-aliasing filter. Consequently, it really showed up any inadequacies of the lens on the front of it to the point where I upgraded the zooms I had to f2.8 through the range versions.  As I have dodgy knees and need to lose a fair bit of weight, carrying the damned stuff became painful and it also occurred to me that I was still shooting landscapes more with my Hasselblad than anything else and using the DSLR kit less and less.

I still retain an F5 (I know, it's heavy but I love it) with 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4 and an 85mm f1.8 lenses when I want auto focus.  However, a small rangefinder and a couple of quick(ish) primes is what I tend to carry round most.

Ironically, I'm a lot less critical of my negatives (35mm and 120) than I ever was of NEF and DNG files. Digital just seems to demand perfection which, in itself, is a very narrow goal.

[Indofunk]

Huh. You made me look and no, I don't have any zoom lenses either (not including my d****l camera, natch). I have a couple of 2x extenders which I literally never use, but no zooms. Only really have 2 interchangeable lens cameras to begin with. And in fact, if I could only have a 50mm lens for each of them, I wouldn't even notice enough to complain. Actually, I'd notice that my camera bag is a little lighter because I'm not bringing a second lens, and would probably appreciate that

[John Robison]

Like the OP have had several, now only two left, they are cheap/not worth selling. Come to think of it, that applies to almost all the cameras and lenses I own.

Anyway, back to zooms. Usually, too big/heavy to cart around or too slow. Still have a 50mm to 90mm f3.5 (constant aperture) Zuiko for my Pen F and use it only when I need something between the 38mm standard and 100mm tele Pen lenses.
For my OM set up I have their not so big and very light 35~70mm f3.5-4.5 S Zuiko, ok for good light, bit slow for poor light.
I regret that I sold one Zuiko OM mount zoom, would like to have it again, the 28~48mm f4 which I found quite useful even if only f4. Paid peanuts for it, now they are expensive. (Expensive relative to my income at least). 

[astrobeck]

None in my household either...and it's by choice.
Probably because for as long as I can remember, I have read and heard that a prime lens is the way to go.

And also that famous Robert Capa quote of "if your pictures aren't good enough, then you're not close enough" buzzes through my head.
Not that I shoot portraits or street stuff, but mostly landscapes, I still have no desire to get or use a zoom lens.

To me they are clunky, and heavy and...and... and...

There are a couple of larger lenses in the house of my husbands that I use (he went digital a few years ago) for astronomy stuff, but they are not zooms either.

[Late Developer]

Interesting.....

So far, the majority of us seem to either have one or two zoom lenses - but don't use them (much) or we've dispensed with them altogether.  Maybe it's a film photographer thing? 

The converse seems to be true for d*g*tal, however, - possibly because the majority of consumer level (crop sensor) cameras tend to be packaged with a "utility" zoom equivalent to 28-135mm.  Enthusiast and pro versions tend to be "body only" and the pros either use primes or can afford / need the f2 / f2.8 zooms. 

[Bryan]

In my Sketchbook of Wales, a selection covering ten years, it gets used in three shots, out of a hundred.

I took a quick look at the book, it looks great.  I need to spend some time to go through it.

Though I own several zoom lenses I usually don't use them.  I agree with most of the comments above against using them but they do come in handy on the rare occasion.  They do come in handy when you're chasing a moving object like an airplane. 

Canon AE-1 Program using an Canon FD 100-200mm f5.6 Zoom lens.
Blue Anges at Seafair by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

I have two that I consider some of my favorite lenses.  The first is the Zuiko MC Autozoom f/4 35-70mm lens I got from Peter last year.  I like the zoom range and the results I get from it are pretty good.

Olympus OM-2n by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

The second is my Vario Switar 36EE (8mm-36mm f/1.9) Kern Paillard Electric Eye lens.  It's very early zoom technology but good quality for when it was made.  Focusing with an 8mm reflex movie camera is difficult due to very dim viewfinders, being able to zoom in for focusing is useful.  It's also nice to be able to do zoom in and zoom out shots when filming.  This lens also has an automatic light metering system built in.  I actually sent this lens in to be re-furbished after I bought it so I have a bit invested in it. 

Bolex Paillard H8 Rex 4 by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

[jharr]

I have a 35-105 zoom that came free with a free Nikon N2020, so it is the 80's model with the window on top. I have used it, but I probably won't again. I am comfortable with a normal prime. It is the 'next level' analog lens since you have to 'zoom' with your feet. As I age, I think there should be a different word for that. I'm not so much "zooming" as much as "puttering". I have a cheap Korean (Samyang) F mount 500mm f/8 mirror lens if I really want to compress distances, but generally 105mm is about as 'tele' as I go. For me photography is as much or more about the process of taking pictures as it is about enjoying the end product, so switching lenses in the field and making sure I don't get any dirt inside is just part of the whole experience. La vita primo!

[02Pilot]

I own one, the 35-70 macro kit lens that came with the Pentax SFX my father bought me in Japan in 1989. It was my only camera and lens for many years, and while I still use the body occasionally, it's most often with a prime (usually the 200/4). Being primarily a rangefinder user in 35mm, zooms are not generally an option.

Should anyone be curious about the quality of current zoom lenses, I thought this was an interesting piece, albeit one that has zero practical relevance for me: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-zoom-lenses/

EDIT: Whoops, I forgot about the Sigma 100-300 K-mount that I got with the camera. I haven't used that in ages.

[Francois]

It's funny because while reading all this I realized that I'm simply a sucker for cheap glass in whatever shape it comes in!
I have too many zooms for it to be considered sane. And I almost always use the small lightweight Nikkor 28-70 that I got when I bought my camera.
But I also have a cheap 35-300 that doesn't focus below 8 feet without setting it in macro mode using a twist collar, a cheap 70-210 from Sigma, An expensive 70-210 from Nikkor that's AF, another 70-210 from Tamron, and a 28-70 from the same...

And my all time favorite is an Industar-61, so go figure 

[Bryan]

It's funny because while reading all this I realized that I'm simply a sucker for cheap glass in whatever shape it comes in!

I have the same problem, so now I have several lenses lying around that have disappointed me but are not worth selling. 

[chris667]

I like the rigidity that prime lenses give you. Too often, when using a zoom, I find myself zooming in and out of a scene rather than walking around.

I do have a couple though. Generally acquired for free with dubious purchases.

[Indofunk]

I just realized that even when I use the one zoom lens I own for my d*****l camera, I don't think I use it as one typically would. I look at the scene, imagine what I want from it, and set my zoom lens to a particular focal length. Then I treat the lens as a prime and walk around to get the "right" shot.

(This is getting less and less relevant, but my zoom is a 18-50, and the only focal lengths I ever set it to are 18, 28, and 50. And even then, 18 is very rare, usually only when I have to do indoor real estate shots)

[Bryan]

If you want the convenience of a zoom with the quality of a prime you could get the Leica 3 lens turret.. Good luck finding one though.  I have several movie cameras with two and three lens turrets but they were much more common. 

http://blog.leica-camera.com/2011/06/20/carl-merkin-the-thing-with-three-eyes-a-history-of-three-lens-turrets/

[hookstrapped]

This is a rather interesting and entertaining read about zooms

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-zoom-lenses/

[jojonas~]

This is a rather interesting and entertaining read about zooms

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-zoom-lenses/

I did not read a lot of that but I came out on the other side a richer person due to this line: "Measurebating zooms is a fool’s errand." 

[zapsnaps]

Going against trend (again) I have 2 zooms (& no primes) for my Leica R8. I keep the 80-200 on it all the time and the 35-70 fits in a large pocket, so I have everything covered (except 70-80). I've never felt the need to get a prime for this rig, as I am really happy with the zoom results. But it would be interesting to pop a prime 50 on the 8 & see what the difference is. As I never enlarge prints, I doubt many would see the difference on proof prints. Yeah - because I don't have a darkroom, I live with proof prints.

[Francois]

believe me, even with a proof print you can see the difference, especially if you're using a very good prime lens!

The biggest difference you're going to see is in the contrast. A very good 50mm can be so sharp and contrasty you can't believe your eyes. It's almost like getting a new pair of eyeglasses with a fresh prescription in them.

[zapsnaps]

Francois - I've just checked the price of used R prime lenses - ouch! Fast & wide is expensive, even used. But you may have got the GAS simmering again

[Francois]

Leica R lenses are definitely very expensive. And the bad thing is pretty much the only third party lenses you can fit on them are the Tamron Adaptall2 series.

[imagesfrugales]

For my AF Minoltas (and Sony Alpha) I have about 10 zoom lenses and 2 of them are my favorites.

First the Sony 18-55 kit lens made for APS-C but makes a perfect 4/24 - 5.6/55 full frame on my Dynax/Maxxum 5 quasi for free. Otherwise a good 24 mm lens is quite expensive. Cave: only works with the last AF Minoltas because of the internal focus motor.

 Second the outstanding (really!) older 2.8-3.5/70-210 Sigma, bulky and heavy metal:


almost tamed by Imagesfrugales, on Flickr