Universal Zoom Lens or multiple "more specific" lenses???

[Thiophilos]

While I agree that different lenses are of different quality, made with different parts, etc, my impression is that all else being equal, a smaller zoom range = less distortion, which answers my question.

Correct. That is general wisdom... except that it is about image quality, not '"distortion". Image quality is about sharpness, contrast, flare, vignetting, and so on. And distortion. When we say "distortion", we mean spatial deformation.

Image quality in zooms can be very good, but you pay more for those high quality zooms.

 

[greybeard]

It all depends on how and what you like to shoot. I like zooms because they give me more opportunities than primes

 

[phkc070408]

My Tamron 28-300 f3.5-6.3 used to be my go-to lens, however, as my photography skills improved, I found quality issues with it. Most of my shoots involve me using the same lens throughout the shoot. If I'm plane spotting, I always use my Tamron 150-600. That said, I've found that having a narrower zoom range doesn't cause me to carry more than 2 lenses at a time.

Also, I usually work out of the back of my vehicle, with the vehicle being nearby, so I can easily grab a new lens without having to lug it around.

The only time the weight of additional lenses becomes an issue is when I go on vacation. It can be an inconvenience to carry a bunch of heavy lenses around, however since high quality pictures are important to me, I feel it's worth carrying the weight around. Of course, this is a personal decision and many might disagree.

 

[Spirit Vision Photography]

I just read an article that compared using a Universal Zoom Lens (say a 28-300mm) vs having a few Primes. It mentioned the additional light distortion performed by the Ultra-zoom that ultimately reduces image quality when compared to a picture taken with a Prime.

I like to travel, so carrying 4 or 5 prime lenses with me isn't always practical, but would using Zoom lenses that have a smaller zoom range, say a 28-105, and an 80-200 improve my pictures? My assumption is yes, since the lens is more specific, but would like to make sure.

Thanks

I tend to travel lighter these days, but I still require quality results. I now shoot with a 17 or 20mm prime, 24-120, and the 70-200 f/4, or 70-300. In my experience, the Superzooms (28-300) lenses produce inferior results.

 

[phkc070408]

Well, I'm not sure whether I was using a poor quality lens, or my theory is correct. However. after shelving my Tamron 28-300 and using my Canon 28-105 and Canon 70-200 for most everything, I'm getting much better pictures.

YMMV

 

[480sparky]

I've never had anyone look at one of my images taken with a 28-300 and say, "Ewww... that looks terrible. You need to go to primes."

 

[Don Fischer]

I've never had anyone look at one of my images taken with a 28-300 and say, "Ewww... that looks terrible. You need to go to primes."

I'e had pretty much the same results. But I'm finally starting to recognize soft in the super zoom's. But zooms are my lens of choice. Having to stop and change a lens can cost you a shot. My do it all lens turned out to be an 18-200 on my Nikon. My other digital is a Panasonic ZS100 has a built in lens of 25-250 and works fine for me. Have a 55-300 and there are some times I actually need it but day in and day our my 18-200 and the Panasonic both out ProForm it so I seldom use the 55-300. Don't really get the results I'm looking for but there are times, few, where that long lens is handy to have. it. Also have an older 170-500. Been a lot of years since I've had a prime lens and it was a 50mm Nikon that seldom ever got used. I often use the zoom to frame the picture and with a prime I'd have to walk all over!

 

[21limited]

A couple things.

I once did a test of Pentax compatible lenses where I ask people to compare lenses, 7 different lenses at 35mm. There were two primes, Pentax 35 2.4 plastic fantastic, and classic SMC 35 3.5. For sharpness, those two lens were rated best pixel peeping. However the best rated lens reduce to 3480 x 2100 (4k) was a cheap FA 35-80. It rendered beautifully. (These were blind tests in an on-line poll. with between 80 and 90 participants. So the point is sometimes in the quest for absolute sharpness, how a lens renders is overlooked. It is CA that improves transitions and out of focus areas, a lens can be very sharp and have horrible transitions and out of focus areas. So even the best lenses are designed to have an appropriate mount of CA. I found with both my 35 primes, they were sharp, but not necessarily pleasing to look at, especaillly at reduced size, and in the out of focus areas.

Another thing..... back in the early 90s Pop Photography ran tests on 100 or so lenses to determine which were the best. 2 of the top 10 were zooms. There were a lot of primes rated lower than those zooms. All the top companies, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, had at least 1. I believe Canon had 2, but no company dominated. No company's primes (or zooms) were always the best at all focal lengths, or even close.

Back when I compared lenses on Optical Limits, I notice some peculiarities. I Own a 21 limited prime, though I rarely use it. I also own ad DA 18-135. At 21 mm my DA 18-135 was stronger than my Limited prime. So looking at these two lenses I wouldn't take the 18-135 off the camera to put the 21 limited on, unless I needed ƒ3.2. So another monkey wrench. Where is the zoom lens strongest. When should you take the zoom off the camera for the prime. Have you analyzed your images to see which focal lengths you'd be most likely to be using.

And another warning. On APS-c, my DA*60-250 is a stack of primes. Solid all the way through its range. I paid around $1200 for it. I bought it after comparing test results on Optical Limits with the older film era designs DA* 200mm. It looked like the difference at 200mm would be negligible. However, after getting a deal on DA*200 limited I no longer use the DA* 60-250 for that focal length. Being a film era design, it sometimes purple fringes. But when it doesn't it's images are superior, despite being only negligibly better on the test charts.

My "Studio instructor" back in 67 said "Find the lens you love, buy the camera it goes on." Based on my experience, finding the lens you love is no easy task. But that's where IMHO you need to start.

Despite thousands of dollars in lenses, the two I have with me on this trip are the DA 55-300 PLM, a recently designed, very fast focusing pulse motor lens, that is light weight and very portable. And my 11 year old DA 18-135. Those two cover 18 to 420 mm with the 1.4 TC. From time to time I'll add a 100 macro, or a DA*55 ƒ1.4. For 99% of what I do, these lenses are excellent, at least for APS-c. ON FF I have a Sigma 24 macro, A Rokinon 14mm ƒ2.8 for astro-photography. A 28-105, and I use the 55-300 on it as well.

Sitting for the most part unused, a 300 2.8, my pro quality, DA*60-250, A DA 16-85, that's close to $3000 in lenses and pile of other expensive (and not so expensive) lenses. I was misled by every test site I followed, because when they test lenses with charts, they don't chart how users and viewers rate the images. My online polls showed a considerable difference between test site evaluations, and viewer satisfaction. My current method of evaluation is to go to Flickr, type in the name of the lens I'm investigating, and look at the images. I honestly no longer care what the test sites say, or what some guy rating cameras says. I care about "do I like the images." And when I know I'll be reducing image sizes to 3840x2160, I use the lenses I acquired dirt cheap, the FA 35-80 or FAJ 18-35 on FF. They may be poor pixel peeping but do they ever render nicely at reduced size.

I know this didn't help, but nothing worthwhile comes easy. Good luck in your search. My philosophy is cover a complete range with your 28-300 type lens, consider stronger lenses, either zooms or primes for the focal lengths you use most. Don't get indoctrinated about zooms or primes, both can be the best at a given focal length. Find the best options for the focal lengths you use most.

It's not about what I think or some photography expert thinks or the test charts, it is about your tastes and what you like.