A Zoom that a serious photographer will never use: 18-56mm

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even in recent years when zooms supposedly are the equal of prime lenses in terms of image quality, I still gravitate to primes; the fact is I don't own any zoom lenses but then I'm OCD about IQ, which is a different obsession than pixel peeping.

 

I would trust the WATE and MATE lenses made by Leica in terms of image quality, though.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Herr Barnack

[gyoung]

There are quite a few good zooms covering this sort of field of view range now, and the aps-c ones seem on the whole better than full frame ones.

But I long ago gave up on zooms that go down to 5.6 at the long end, too limiting. Others such as Fuji can do 2.8-4 without getting large or heavy

 

Gerry

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[fsprow]

As my photography has evolved, I have abandoned zoom lenses except for Africa and sports.  I believe one of the common factors in the images of many of the great photographers is the use of very few (or one) single focal length lenses.  

 

As has been said by some of the "greats", I have trained my eye to see what the lens sees, rather than expecting the lens to see what I do. Big difference in results.

[jaapv]

There are quite a few good zooms covering this sort of field of view range now, and the aps-c ones seem on the whole better than full frame ones.

But I long ago gave up on zooms that go down to 5.6 at the long end, too limiting. Others such as Fuji can do 2.8-4 without getting large or heavy

 

Gerry

What is the problem  having 5.6 with modern sensors with decent ISO capability?

[gyoung]

What is the problem having 5.6 with modern sensors with decent ISO capability?

F/4 is better, 2.8 better still, for reasons that are just as valid with a zoom as a a prime, and not surely worth typing out here. People wouldn't be very happy with a 90/5.6 on an M9 I don't think.

It's always a trade off between aperture, size and weight, if you can have faster formmer without too much compromise with the latter two, I quote 'what's the problem'

 

Gerry

[jaapv]

Hmm.. I wouldn't have any problem using a 90/5.6 on the M9 except in lower light, as the M9 has limited ISO capability. I don't subscribe to the cliché: "faster is better", I tend to judge a lens by its results. Obviously there are situations where a fast lens is needed. For many uses, however, it will just add bulk and price.

[Keith_W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"He [Peter Karbe] also says that a constant aperture zoom has simply thrown away the wider aperture that would have been possible at one end of its range."

 

Hmmm, that would explain a lot. Nearly all Canikonsony zooms have better MTF's at the wide end of the range. The conventional explanation is that it is harder to design for wide angle, so the designers start there first. But ... if, as Karbe says, that at the wide end the lens is simply stopped down to make it a constant aperture zoom, then of course it would be sharper. Since it has been stopped down. 

[Guest]

I am not sure about the CL, but it’s a bit tougher to lock auto focus on the T/TL in low light at the longer end of the zoom (hunts more). I mention this here for feedback please because I am curious to see if it hunts less on the CL when you zoom in low light.

 

With the CL’s superior sensor, the improved high ISO handling is otherwise like giving you back 2 full f stops to makes up for the slower aperture, except for the bokeh difference. Slow is a relative thing when you can make it up with higher ISO.

 

I bet Leica had this sensor evolution in mind when they decided to compromise on the slower variable aperture of the TL zooms.

[gyoung]

Hmm.. I wouldn't have any problem using a 90/5.6 on the M9 except in lower light, as the M9 has limited ISO capability. I don't subscribe to the cliché: "faster is better", I tend to judge a lens by its results. Obviously there are situations where a fast lens is needed. For many uses, however, it will just add bulk and price.

Yes, but there is often lower light, and 5.6 which needs 8 for good performance is useless in anything but bright light. So you end up carrying primes as well.

Otherwise I agree, I have never found much need for faster than f/2, and when I have owned 1.4s a few times (including now) its not been worth the extra bulk amd weight.

Actually I mostly use the faster standard zooms I have for chasing the grandchildren. Prefer the extra stops and quality of the primes otherwise.

 

Gerry