depends - what focal lengths do you use? balance that with speed of the primes vs the zoom, lens size, and of course optical performance/character. or if you're me, think about how much you don't bother to change lenses, only use like 3 of them max per system, and don't really like adding 'zoom' to what you do when taking a picture - i like focal length set before i put the camera to my eye, with only framing and exposure left to decide.
I keep finding myself happy with a 'normal', maybe a slightly wide one, almost all the time, and 'needing' something wide (less than half FL of normal) or long (1.5-2x FL of normal) pretty infrequently. I just got back from 5 days of vacation with nothing but an old screwmount Leica and a 50mm f2, no issues at all other than a not-so-brightly-lit indoor arena. Even then, faster glass would've meant not enuff DOF, so the only real answers would've been faster film, or better yet, faster film in a bigger format to lessen the impact.
I'm a bad example, since I often shoot outdoors in compact areas, so I often have to use a zoom when I can, since moving the camera is often not an option, and the vantage point is often poor for certain focal lengths. The exception being plants, which are usually on the macro, which is easier to focus by moving the lens.
I suppose it depends on how often you actually USE the zoom lens, how often you zoom it, and whether you need a lower f/stop or not.
what josh said - i'm not exactly a good role model for lens selection. current lineup, after selling much spare stuff:
for 35mm: 40/2 Leica M-mount ('76) 50/2 Leica thread mount ('51) 15/4.5 Voigtlander in Leica thread mount ('08!) 73/1.9 in Leica thread mount ('31!)
for 6x7 (Pentax): 45/4 165/4 leaf-shutter
only other camera left to my name (the Girl has a bunch of Nikon stuff) is a Yashica 124G TLR, with a fixed Yashinon 80/3.5
that said, I'mm pretty darned happy with the above list, though I'd always like faster things, maybe a fast 35 or 50 for the Leica, and the 105/2.4 and 150 or 165/2.8 for the Pentax. not like I need more glass, other than one of the mentioned faster pieces for the Pentax. 2-3 bodies and 7-8 lenses is still more than I SHOULD keep around, y'know?
Okay see here's the problem I face - the 24 is faster than anything I've got at wide angle by a stop. It's also 67mm, which means I could use my polarizer and ND filter with it.
Its competition is the 16-50 f2.8. I want very badly to think that lens is the right answer to "what do I want to use for taking pictures of things," I really do, but from what I have seen of the quality, I can do better and faster at the long end with my 43 (a very comfortable length for me), I can do better and wider with my 14 at the short, and it's freaking enormous - 77mm front end. The only advantage it offers is the silent focus, and quite frankly, who cares?
I'm thinking the right answer is go ahead and pop for the 24/2, then when it becomes available, pick up the 35/2.4 for cheap and then sell the 16-45 zoom.
That would put my fixed length lens lineup at:
14/2.8, 24/2, 35/2.4, 43/1.9, 50/1.7, 50 macro, and 77/1.8. Assuming I'm not going somewhere claustrophobic, I could even leave the 14 at home and still have a pretty comfortable spread of speeds and capabilities with those. It's not like I don't always carry a spacious shoulder bag when I'm only carting the 16-45 zoom, anyway.
I've been trying to carry the K24 with me on walks. I haven't been using it much, though, because the subjects just haven't presented themselves. I need to actually take it somewhere to play with it - tomorrow should present that opportunity, fortunately. I do like using it, just as I like using all of my lenses, it's just that doing the stop-down metering on the K20 is such a phenomenal pain sometimes. With the M-series macro, it's not an issue because it already takes more effort to shoot small subjects, but with what I see as being a good standard wide, it's hard to justify using it if it takes a few test shots to get right. I was hoping putting the standard focusing screen back in would help with that, but it doesn't seem to have done so.
The problem, as I see it, with my 16-45 is that it's gotten ... shall we say... loose over the years. The barrel wobble appears to be affecting image alignment. I have no better way of describing it than that, because it doesn't appear to be a sharpness, aberration, or vignetting issue. It just seems sometimes that the images at anything other than the 40-45mm range are... different from one another in character. The inconsistency bothers me because I'm a nerd. Also it's freaking enormous when mounted on the camera at 16mm. The outside diameter of the 24 would be similar to the zoom, and the 14 is quite a bit wider (77 vs. 67) but they're both substantially shorter. The 24 weighs in at 405g, the 14 at 420, the zoom at 365, so as far as the handling goes, I'll be gaining a little stability at the cost of bag weight.
I forgot the other part - if Pentax does eventually migrate to "full frame" if there is such a thing anymore, the 24 puts me at an advantage over the zoom by simple virtue that it covers the 35mm frame.
I'm also a bad example because I shoot Canon, and our lenses are bulkier due to the wider diameter, so carrying more than three lenses or so gets to be a pain, and primes are generally limited to specific needs like macro or low light.
It sounds to me like you have a good reason to replace the current zoom, eventually. Personally, I went with a zoom for this range. My only primes are a 50/1.8 and my macro. Since that Pentax zoom is pretty pricey, the prime is definitely a more economical choice. I wouldn't discount the value of the USM style focus on the zoom, if it works like Canon's, because being able to autofocus for coarse adjustment and then manual focus is surprising useful, albeit not so much at wider focal lengths. Great on longer lenses.
But... It sounds like you would enjoy the 24, and since your already well stacked with primes, it probably makes sense to continue the lineup.
what josh said. it sounds like you're unhappy with the results yo get from the zoom, specifically it's optical performance as opposed to application/misapplication. that's a death-sentence for any lens in my book, as you'll either use it and be unhappy whenever you do, or not use it which is a total waste as well. as i said before tho, sanity-check this against your shooting style, ie, do you prefer having the option of choosing focal length as you shoot, or when pulling the camera out of the bag/mounting a lens? i'm a case of the latter, sounds like josh might be the former.
can't say i'd mind a 24/2 for either of my cameras (well, 24 equivalent for the Pentax - if only my 45/4 were 2 stops faster!) - i'm compromising lens speed for overall packaging and image size lately. it's so,ething of a pain in really low light, but overall, much more effective and satisfying that the nikon with the 24/2.8, 50/1.2 and 85/1.4 ever was. trade a little blur from slower shutter from too little DOF wide open, and it all more or less works out.
i'm pretty sure you'd get hooked on a fast 24 if you're using a 14 as much as you do - tho i think in full-frame, so i might be a bit off here. slow or not, my tiny little 15/4.5 is a blast, but i can very much imagine swapping the little-used ultrawide for a more often used fast wide. alas, that'd be pretty big compared to any of my glass, so probably not gonna happen.
Well, so the 14 is in the class of a 20mm ultrawide, the 24 would be in the class of a 35mm wide/wide normal depending on how you think about things.
You're right that the reason I don't favor the zoom anymore is that the inconsistent qualities of it are hampering my tastes. I'm not going to lie, though - another part of the "problem" is that it's slow.
When you add it all up - bulky, wonky, and only f4 for the trouble - it really is the death sentence for my tastes. It isn't a bad lens by any stretch of the imagination, I just think I've grown into different needs at this time.
That said, one of the problems with the 16-50 is that it's even bulkier (at least it's biggest at 50 and is internal-focus) and was subject to horrendous sample variation in early batches. I haven't been in touch with the community for a couple years now, but there were a bunch of people that went back to the 16-45 because their copies of the DA* were so bad.
I will not be able to avoid owning a standard zoom forever, though. Therein lies the thing that's really pushing me to the old 24/2 - they don't make those anymore, and they're only getting older/more scarce/more used. I can go to B&H at any point in the next few years and pick up a brand new 16-45/4, 16-50/2.8, or 17-70/4. Two of those have SWM or whatever, all three are DA lenses that feature the quick-shift focus that everyone likes, and they're probably only going to get cheaper over the long run.
Josh - one nice thing about the 24 (and all the FA* glass, actually) was that it did feature an on-lens disengage for the focus mechanism. You could autofocus, then by pulling back on the ring, you could disengage AF and fine-tune. It was a primitive implementation of the same concept and was likely to cause shifts in focus, but at least it's something. The DA lenses that are screw driven do have quick-shift; I'd hate to see the trickery involved in how that works, though.
samples if you're interested.
ReplyDeletedepends - what focal lengths do you use? balance that with speed of the primes vs the zoom, lens size, and of course optical performance/character. or if you're me, think about how much you don't bother to change lenses, only use like 3 of them max per system, and don't really like adding 'zoom' to what you do when taking a picture - i like focal length set before i put the camera to my eye, with only framing and exposure left to decide.
ReplyDeleteI keep finding myself happy with a 'normal', maybe a slightly wide one, almost all the time, and 'needing' something wide (less than half FL of normal) or long (1.5-2x FL of normal) pretty infrequently. I just got back from 5 days of vacation with nothing but an old screwmount Leica and a 50mm f2, no issues at all other than a not-so-brightly-lit indoor arena. Even then, faster glass would've meant not enuff DOF, so the only real answers would've been faster film, or better yet, faster film in a bigger format to lessen the impact.
so, do you LIKE your zoom, or not so much?
-GMT
I'm a bad example, since I often shoot outdoors in compact areas, so I often have to use a zoom when I can, since moving the camera is often not an option, and the vantage point is often poor for certain focal lengths. The exception being plants, which are usually on the macro, which is easier to focus by moving the lens.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it depends on how often you actually USE the zoom lens, how often you zoom it, and whether you need a lower f/stop or not.
what josh said - i'm not exactly a good role model for lens selection. current lineup, after selling much spare stuff:
ReplyDeletefor 35mm:
40/2 Leica M-mount ('76)
50/2 Leica thread mount ('51)
15/4.5 Voigtlander in Leica thread mount ('08!)
73/1.9 in Leica thread mount ('31!)
for 6x7 (Pentax):
45/4
165/4 leaf-shutter
only other camera left to my name (the Girl has a bunch of Nikon stuff) is a Yashica 124G TLR, with a fixed Yashinon 80/3.5
that said, I'mm pretty darned happy with the above list, though I'd always like faster things, maybe a fast 35 or 50 for the Leica, and the 105/2.4 and 150 or 165/2.8 for the Pentax. not like I need more glass, other than one of the mentioned faster pieces for the Pentax. 2-3 bodies and 7-8 lenses is still more than I SHOULD keep around, y'know?
-GMT
Okay see here's the problem I face - the 24 is faster than anything I've got at wide angle by a stop. It's also 67mm, which means I could use my polarizer and ND filter with it.
ReplyDeleteIts competition is the 16-50 f2.8. I want very badly to think that lens is the right answer to "what do I want to use for taking pictures of things," I really do, but from what I have seen of the quality, I can do better and faster at the long end with my 43 (a very comfortable length for me), I can do better and wider with my 14 at the short, and it's freaking enormous - 77mm front end. The only advantage it offers is the silent focus, and quite frankly, who cares?
I'm thinking the right answer is go ahead and pop for the 24/2, then when it becomes available, pick up the 35/2.4 for cheap and then sell the 16-45 zoom.
That would put my fixed length lens lineup at:
14/2.8, 24/2, 35/2.4, 43/1.9, 50/1.7, 50 macro, and 77/1.8. Assuming I'm not going somewhere claustrophobic, I could even leave the 14 at home and still have a pretty comfortable spread of speeds and capabilities with those. It's not like I don't always carry a spacious shoulder bag when I'm only carting the 16-45 zoom, anyway.
I've been trying to carry the K24 with me on walks. I haven't been using it much, though, because the subjects just haven't presented themselves. I need to actually take it somewhere to play with it - tomorrow should present that opportunity, fortunately. I do like using it, just as I like using all of my lenses, it's just that doing the stop-down metering on the K20 is such a phenomenal pain sometimes. With the M-series macro, it's not an issue because it already takes more effort to shoot small subjects, but with what I see as being a good standard wide, it's hard to justify using it if it takes a few test shots to get right. I was hoping putting the standard focusing screen back in would help with that, but it doesn't seem to have done so.
The problem, as I see it, with my 16-45 is that it's gotten ... shall we say... loose over the years. The barrel wobble appears to be affecting image alignment. I have no better way of describing it than that, because it doesn't appear to be a sharpness, aberration, or vignetting issue. It just seems sometimes that the images at anything other than the 40-45mm range are... different from one another in character. The inconsistency bothers me because I'm a nerd. Also it's freaking enormous when mounted on the camera at 16mm. The outside diameter of the 24 would be similar to the zoom, and the 14 is quite a bit wider (77 vs. 67) but they're both substantially shorter. The 24 weighs in at 405g, the 14 at 420, the zoom at 365, so as far as the handling goes, I'll be gaining a little stability at the cost of bag weight.
I forgot the other part - if Pentax does eventually migrate to "full frame" if there is such a thing anymore, the 24 puts me at an advantage over the zoom by simple virtue that it covers the 35mm frame.
ReplyDeleteI'm also a bad example because I shoot Canon, and our lenses are bulkier due to the wider diameter, so carrying more than three lenses or so gets to be a pain, and primes are generally limited to specific needs like macro or low light.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds to me like you have a good reason to replace the current zoom, eventually. Personally, I went with a zoom for this range. My only primes are a 50/1.8 and my macro. Since that Pentax zoom is pretty pricey, the prime is definitely a more economical choice. I wouldn't discount the value of the USM style focus on the zoom, if it works like Canon's, because being able to autofocus for coarse adjustment and then manual focus is surprising useful, albeit not so much at wider focal lengths. Great on longer lenses.
But... It sounds like you would enjoy the 24, and since your already well stacked with primes, it probably makes sense to continue the lineup.
what josh said. it sounds like you're unhappy with the results yo get from the zoom, specifically it's optical performance as opposed to application/misapplication. that's a death-sentence for any lens in my book, as you'll either use it and be unhappy whenever you do, or not use it which is a total waste as well. as i said before tho, sanity-check this against your shooting style, ie, do you prefer having the option of choosing focal length as you shoot, or when pulling the camera out of the bag/mounting a lens? i'm a case of the latter, sounds like josh might be the former.
ReplyDeletecan't say i'd mind a 24/2 for either of my cameras (well, 24 equivalent for the Pentax - if only my 45/4 were 2 stops faster!) - i'm compromising lens speed for overall packaging and image size lately. it's so,ething of a pain in really low light, but overall, much more effective and satisfying that the nikon with the 24/2.8, 50/1.2 and 85/1.4 ever was. trade a little blur from slower shutter from too little DOF wide open, and it all more or less works out.
i'm pretty sure you'd get hooked on a fast 24 if you're using a 14 as much as you do - tho i think in full-frame, so i might be a bit off here. slow or not, my tiny little 15/4.5 is a blast, but i can very much imagine swapping the little-used ultrawide for a more often used fast wide. alas, that'd be pretty big compared to any of my glass, so probably not gonna happen.
-GMT
Well, so the 14 is in the class of a 20mm ultrawide, the 24 would be in the class of a 35mm wide/wide normal depending on how you think about things.
ReplyDeleteYou're right that the reason I don't favor the zoom anymore is that the inconsistent qualities of it are hampering my tastes. I'm not going to lie, though - another part of the "problem" is that it's slow.
When you add it all up - bulky, wonky, and only f4 for the trouble - it really is the death sentence for my tastes. It isn't a bad lens by any stretch of the imagination, I just think I've grown into different needs at this time.
That said, one of the problems with the 16-50 is that it's even bulkier (at least it's biggest at 50 and is internal-focus) and was subject to horrendous sample variation in early batches. I haven't been in touch with the community for a couple years now, but there were a bunch of people that went back to the 16-45 because their copies of the DA* were so bad.
I will not be able to avoid owning a standard zoom forever, though. Therein lies the thing that's really pushing me to the old 24/2 - they don't make those anymore, and they're only getting older/more scarce/more used. I can go to B&H at any point in the next few years and pick up a brand new 16-45/4, 16-50/2.8, or 17-70/4. Two of those have SWM or whatever, all three are DA lenses that feature the quick-shift focus that everyone likes, and they're probably only going to get cheaper over the long run.
Josh - one nice thing about the 24 (and all the FA* glass, actually) was that it did feature an on-lens disengage for the focus mechanism. You could autofocus, then by pulling back on the ring, you could disengage AF and fine-tune. It was a primitive implementation of the same concept and was likely to cause shifts in focus, but at least it's something. The DA lenses that are screw driven do have quick-shift; I'd hate to see the trickery involved in how that works, though.
aggh holy crap the 16-50 weighs 600g.
ReplyDelete