Ah, Photography Journalism! Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

I was reading an article in Shutterbug. It was the July issue. It was by Joseph A. Dickerson and titled Format Selection, Bigger is Better…Or Is It? Speaking of 35 mm zoom lenses he says [p80], "Are they as sharp as fixed focal length lenses? Probably not. But today’s zoom lenses are so good that the difference is negligible, unless of course you’re trying to compare 35mm images with 4 x 5 images".

It hasn’t been my experience. The one I have used most lately is the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF. It may not be the best zoom in the world [I have no way of knowing] but it isn’t all that cheap. It does a good job but doesn’t compare with Nikon or Leica primes in the same focal length ranges. Even I can tell the difference.

Why do they publish this stuff? Of course, the author may be technically superior to me, in which case I would be wrong. I am more than willing to accept that possibility. :)

What is your experience?

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), July 13, 2001

Answers

As long as one is shooting color print film (not Velvia, Kodacrome, nor high-definition B&W), which is how the vast majority of pictures are made, then he is correct -- the quality of the image is determined by the film not by the lens, either prime or a high quality zoom.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 13, 2001.

Art, I think you may be misunderstanding the sentence "that the difference is negligble". I use a 35-70 F4 Leica and I can tell the difference between it and my primes, as you can with your Nikkor. But are you going to buy a print of mine (I sell through a local gallery) ?:-). Probably not. Am I going to buy a print of yours? I doubt it. I've found that the only people who notice these differences are other photogs. I think what authors like Mr. Dickerson mean is that to the buyer, whether it be a fine art buyer or a newspaper, that the difference is not really noticeable enough to make a difference.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 13, 2001.

Thanks Bill:

As long as one is shooting color print film (not Velvia, Kodacrome, nor high-definition B&W), which is how the vast majority of pictures are made, then he is correct

I would think that a good jounalist would have added those qualifiers if that is what he meant. He didn't add them. I have no idea what the reference to 4 x 5 meant.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), July 13, 2001.

I would even argue with that statement, about film resolution as the determining factor. In Shutterbugs own report, this month, of high speed color films, the few resolution figures they quote are in excess of what many/most lenses deliver. I think more to the point is to not believe what you read in Shutterbug--I don't even glance at their digital column anymore, so filled is it with dumb errors.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), July 13, 2001.

Bob:

I think what authors like Mr. Dickerson mean is that to the buyer, whether it be a fine art buyer or a newspaper, that the difference is not really noticeable enough to make a difference.

You could well be correct. My peeve is that isn't what he said. It is common in these kind of articles. I think that he should have been more accurate in his presentation. As I said, it is my peeve; just like I don't like lenses with focusing tabs. Another personal peeve not shared by others here. :)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), July 13, 2001.

Art, this is a pet peeve of mine. The whole purpose of photography (in my mind) is to end up with worthwhile photographs (which are going to be different for different people), and to this end some writers write with this is mind. There are lots of articles for all the techies that worry that this lens has .0000005 less lpm resolution than that lens, or that this camera records at 3.25 million pixels, whereas that one does 3.3. I have kind of a funny feeling, going by all the slightly fuzzy photos, many of them famous that Bresson (for example) took, that he really didn't give a good gosh darn ;-) if he was using the highest resolution lens at his disposal. Sometimes I actually want to hear a writers personal, gut feeling instead of a recitation of MTF graphs.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 13, 2001.

Did I mention this was a pet peeve of mine :-)

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 13, 2001.

Bob:

I agree with you. My point had to do with accurate journalism. I guess that is an oxymoron. :)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), July 13, 2001.

Maybe he means that tripod will make a bigger difference?

-- (yongfeil@yahoo.com), July 13, 2001.

Ok, all that can be so subjective, quality of zooms vs. primes vs. 4x5, when I think in the reasons I use a leica rangefinder, it is not it´s lens sharpness (I shoot Tri-X), things I like of my leicas are: compactness, lens speed, finders, ergonomics, weigth, image roundes, flare control capabilities of lenses, durability, able to be repair; so if they make a SLR zoom to be 10000000000% sharper than my summicrons, I´m still with my leicas. By the way what oxymoron and pet pevee mean?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 13, 2001.

> unless of course you’re trying to compare 35mm images with 4 x 5 images".

I suspect what he meant to imply was that differences between zoom and non-zoom lenses would perhaps be significant if the photos were enlarged to the same _size_ that many large-format photos are enlarged to, say, 16x20.

Unfortunately that's not what he wrote, so we're left to guess.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), July 13, 2001.

Actually, my experience with Nikon is that my 17-35 2.8 AFS was every bit as good as the fixed 20 and 24 and significantly better than the 35. However, I agree that my 35-70 2.8 never quite met the mark of my fixed 50, and nor was the 80-200 2.8 AFS nearly as sharp as the fixed 85 or 180.

At any rate, I'd be willing to bet that Joe Dickerson doesn't even shoot a full roll of film a month... I once knew a writer for an outdoor sporting magazine, way back when I sold sporting goods. He often wrote these incredible product reviews for new outdoor products. I remeber this one article where he gave this newly designed tent a stellar review -- I mean if you read the review, you wanted to run out and buy this tent even if you didn't need a tent. Anyway, a month or so later I saw the tent he reviewed sitting in his study -- It was still packed in the original factory-sealed box -- he had never even opened it up! I asked him about it and he said something to the effect of, "I don't get paid to trash our advertiser's products. If I tested it and said I didn't like it for whatever reason, I'd never get any other free stuff to test and might be out of a job."

What is it they say in Misouri besides "Show me!"??? Something like "Believe none of what you read, little of what you hear, and only half of what see with your own two eyes!"

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 13, 2001.

Personally, I don't put much weight to anything published in Shutterbug (especially "articles"). The only reason to buy it is if you're looking for used gear.

-- Richard (rvle@bellatlantic.net), July 13, 2001.

Jack:

It is actually Missouri. :)

No Offense taken.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), July 13, 2001.

In the words of Dan Quail, "... and I'm a world-class speller!"

Sorry!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 13, 2001.

Comparing zoom with primes has to be specific, and you must know what is the strength and weakness of your zoom and prime. Is every one knows his zoom that well ? What is its best performance focal length ? what is its best aperture ? What is the best aperture for prime ?

Some of the current zoom lenses, at its best focal length and aperture, beat out many primes at their best.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), July 13, 2001.

Roberto:

I'll take a stab at these since nobody else has...

Pet Peeve = A regular happening that irritates you or tics you off.

Oxymoron = a humorous or witty combination of contradictory words, such as "government intelligence" or "inexpensive Leica" :-)))

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 13, 2001.

Martin:

You are probably correct, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of a zoom. :)

But this is an aside. My original point had to do with these articles. It seems that they are paid for a certain number of words. Doesn't seem to make much difference what the words are. Only the number counts.

End of Rant; for good.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), July 14, 2001.

Thanks Jack.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 14, 2001.

Yes there is a current feeling promulgated by most photo magazines that somehow lenses are simply a question of taste - they are all good. Magazine promote this idea all the time. A recent review in Amateur Photographer "tested" the Tamron 28-200. One part of the review said that it produced "acceptable 8 x 10", but later on it said that is all you wanted were 5 x 7s then it would be fine. One is left to wonder what is meant. By not being at all precise the review is rather useless, but I suppose it does not offend Tamron. However, I would love to know what "acceptable" really means in the context of a consumer photo magazine - I suspect many of us here would say "lousy".

Whilst I am willing to accept that a photo is an individual thing and that few consumers care what lens made the shot - the real thing is comparisons. A shot taken on a Tamron may be acceptable but comparing it to the same shot taken with a 35mm Asph it should appear pretty poor - once one sees this the Tamron ends up on the scrap heap.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), July 20, 2001.