On 30 Nov 1998 15:43:55 GMT, f98dawa@dd.chalmers.se (Dag) wrote:

>I was talking to some guy the other day about primers vs. zooms. He claimed
>that primers are only really useful when using a tri-pod, since the small
>quality you gain, in comparison to a good zoom, is lost by the shake from hand
>held shooting.
>Does this correspond to other peoples experience, or are primers always
>noticeably better than good zooms (I'm primarily thinking of the Nikon 24-120).

OK, I think one should split the zoom category into top-quality
moderate-range tele-zooms, and the rest...;-) The first category
*can* virtually match even rirst-rate non-zooms at almost all
stops. The second category is quite different, even with
top-quality zooms: the prime is generally faster, and
is generally noticeably sharper at stops wider than about
f8 (making the zoom the one I would recommend using with
a tripod...). Add the lower-weight/smaller-size/lower-price/
easier-focusing of the non-zoom to their better wide-stop
performance, and one wonders about the supposed "convenience"
advantage of the zoom. I would rather have a sharp wider stop
available for easy hand-holdability in lower light...
A good 35mm f2 (sharp at f2...) will beat any
20/24/28/35--35/50/70/85/105/135/200mm made, unless
the few very best of these are used at f11-16... Gosh,
I wanna get a zoom...! ;-) (I do use tele zooms, though...;-)