In article <01bc29f1$69e7fe40$9933917b@gruhn>, gruhn@apricot.deletethis.com says...

>> You will get "Tamron 28-200" pix whether a Minolta 300si or a Nikon F5

>A zoom hater I thought?

More likely an observation that if one is going to choose a bottom-end
(image-wise) lens, it might just as well be put on a cheap body - the image
quality will be the same, and the money-spent/weight/size will be less...

>> For myself, I'd get a 24-50 and 70-210 Nikon

>Guess not.

That is at least getting into mid-level quality of image performance
over the whole range from 24 to 210mm...

>I know once upon a time zooms were just not an option. Yucko. I've been
>under the impression that they've been gaining acceptance with the pros.
>I've read some magazine articles, but the best I could tell was that they
>didn't really want to have much of an opinion but were generally favourable
>towards the zooms.
>What's the general feel of the field these days?
>Rational discussion appreciated more than fanaticism.

One can maybe differentiate three levels of zooms (with Nikkor examples):
- The highest, where there is very little image quality lost by using
the zoom compared with primes (and maybe none, except under unusual conditions). -- 80-200mm f2.8, 75-150E (with several others between
this level and the one below...)
- The middle, where very little image quality is lost by using the zoom
compared with the prime, if the zoom is used optimally (best apertures, FL's, and distances) - but not if the zoom is used without regard to
the lens' strengths and weaknesses. -- 24-120mm, 70-210mm f4-5.6
(and many others)
- The bottom, where even at optimum apertures and the sharpest FL's and
best distances, performance is still noticeably below that of even
middling-quality primes. -- 43-86mm (and most off-brand zooms I have
tried)
Zooms tend to be favored more by those who prefer perceived convenience
over image quality (I think most zooms are actually harder and slower to
use than most primes - and they often limit the range of subject matter
photographable, due to their smallish maximum and/or optimum apertures).
Pros do use zooms under conditions which favor their use (when shooting
must be rapid, and rapid viewpoint shifting is impractical - or when the
zoom is good, and fast enough to serve as a good substitute for primes
[the 80-200mm f2.8 Nikkor...]). Zooms have their place (both at the
bottom end, for snap-shots - and at the top, for highest-quality
image-making), but I find myself returning to the excellent,
compact, light, slower primes....
Hope This Helps