On 04 Sep 2002 02:34:29 GMT, sacapts2001@aol.com (SAcapts2001) wrote:

>>You're comparing primes to zooms. The prime lenses will be sharper.

>This brings up a whole new subject. I did a Google search and reading numerous
>posts. I noted quite varied oppinions on zooms vs. primes. Some saying that
>the zooms could not come close to the primes, while others said that the new
>generation of zooms were optically superior to their predicessors and immage
>quality would not suffer.
>
>What do most on this group use...zooms, primes or a mixed bag? Do you really
>see that much difference in image quality with zooms?

The best zooms are sharp to the corners wide-open (or close)
at most focus distances, and can be close to non-zooms in
performance for most purposes when there is sufficient
light, though they are generally larger/heavier/slower/
harder-to-focus/more-expensive/with-greater-linear-distortion/
with-greater-flare-and-ghosting than individual non-zooms.
If you are shooting MF, indoors, with available-light, use
non-zooms; if you are shooting in good light, with AF, and
the shortcomings of zooms are not important, use the best
zooms. I pack both types for jobs with varying light levels
(my "wedding" pack includes the 16mm f3.5 MF fisheye and/or
20mm f2.8 MF, 35mm f2 AF, 85mm f1.8 AF, 24-120 F3.5-5.6
AF, and 75-300 F4.5-5.6 AF [the last two are taken only for
outdoor use, except for the short zoom used at 24->35mm
or so]). Favorite "good" Nikkor zooms (assuming good
samples - zooms do vary...): 24-120, 17-35, 50-135, 75-150,
80-200 f2.8. For more, see my Nikkor list at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html and the reviews at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html.