Universal Zoom Lens or multiple "more specific" lenses???

[phkc0704081]

I just read an article that compared using a Universal Zoom Lens (say a 28-300mm) vs having a few Primes. It mentioned the additional light distortion performed by the Ultra-zoom that ultimately reduces image quality when compared to a picture taken with a Prime.

I like to travel, so carrying 4 or 5 prime lenses with me isn't always practical, but would using Zoom lenses that have a smaller zoom range, say a 28-105, and an 80-200 improve my pictures? My assumption is yes, since the lens is more specific, but would like to make sure.

Thanks

 

[480sparky66 66]

IMHO, primes give you more image quality than zooms. And the wider range of a zoom lens, even less quality.

However.... do you really need that 'extra' image quality? I run with a 28-300 all day long and have never considered shooting with a prime for 99.9% of what I shoot.

 

[cgw144 169]

What gear have you traveled with in the past? What worked? What didn't?

 

[Ozzie_Traveller19]

I just read an article that compared using a Universal Zoom Lens (say a 28-300mm) vs having a few Primes. It mentioned the additional light distortion performed by the Ultra-zoom that ultimately reduces image quality when compared to a picture taken with a Prime. I like to travel, so carrying 4 or 5 prime lenses with me isn't always practical, but would using Zoom lenses that have a smaller zoom range, say a 28-105, and an 80-200 improve my pictures? My assumption is yes, since the lens is more specific, but would like to make sure.
Thanks

G'day mate

I am travelling Australia for 6-7-8 months every year, so for me size and weight of kit is very important.
If I were a commercial 'tog, I probably would choose 2 or 3 damn fine primes -or- short zooms plus maybe 2-bodies and put up with the weight and storage issues.

However, few of us are commercial 'togs, so usually, we can rearrange our priorities to come in with what I will call "plan-B". You will know from your style of images as to whether a short-zoom (maybe a 10-50) or longer-zoom (28-200 / 300) will suit better ... and whichever you choose, the old story of "buy the best you can afford" comes into the equation

Personally I am shooting with a Lumix FZ-2500 with its 20x zoom (of 24-480), and all the Aussie travel magazines I submit to are more than okay to accept its 20mpx images, even tho it is a 1"-sensor, often by-passed by others here and elsewhere. After all, a full page image in any of these mags only needs 8mpx of data!

Hope this helps
Phil

 

[phkc0704081]

IMHO, primes give you more image quality than zooms. And the wider range of a zoom lens, even less quality.

However.... do you really need that 'extra' image quality? I run with a 28-300 all day long and have never considered shooting with a prime for 99.9% of what I shoot.

I'm not planning on going with 100% primes. I currently travel with the following:

Tamron 15-30mm F2.8, Tamron 28-300 F3.5-6.3, and Tamron 150-600mm F5.0-6.3

I'm considering getting the Canon 28-105mm F4.0 and the Tamron 80-200 F2.8 to replace the Tamron 28-300. The idea would be to REDUCE, not ELIMINATE the distortion.

 

[cgw144 169]

No clue about your destinations or transportation but my traveling puts a premium on reduced weight and sheer baggage bulk. My preference is for Fuji MILCs, their tiny primes and/or premium fixed focal length p&s cameras. Never enjoyed fiddling with zooms. YMMV, as always.

 

[480sparky66 66]

I'm not planning on going with 100% primes. I currently travel with the following:

Tamron 15-30mm F2.8, Tamron 28-300 F3.5-6.3, and Tamron 150-600mm F5.0-6.3

I'm considering getting the Canon 28-105mm F4.0 and the Tamron 80-200 F2.8 to replace the Tamron 28-300. The idea would be to REDUCE, not ELIMINATE the distortion.

So would those 'do what you want them to do'? If so, you're golden.

 

[adamhiram]

In a more controlled environment it's nice to have higher end prime lenses available, but for more casual photography, I find versatility to be much more important than having the right prime for the shot. I have found that having a good normal zoom lens is really all I need for travel photography unless there is a specific shot I am looking to get. I have traveled with primes and got frustrated not having the right one at the right time, and have traveled with a large telephoto lens that I didn't take it out once. I would recommend a good normal zoom lens in the 24-70 range. f/2.8 is nice to have, f/4 should be fine in most situations, and even a kit lens should do the trick if you have enough light; you probably want to use a small enough aperture to still see what is in the background anyway. Mega-zoom lenses tend to be similar to kit lenses but with a bigger focal range if you think you'll need it.

 

[wfooshee]

I use either the 18-55 or my 70-300 for 90% of my general shooting. Once in a while I'll dig out the 10-24 if I'm in an enclosed space, or one of my primes if I need speed, but those aren't carry-with lenses. I don't own any wide-range zooms so I couldn't comment on that. Sounds convenient to have a 28-300 for "everything" coverage, but I don't think I need that.

 

[JoeW1 1]

A lens is a tool. Choose the appropriate tool for the right job. If you keep that in mind, you kind of answer the question.

Yes, zoom lenses (especially super Zooms) have distortion. Or they're soft at the extremes. Primes are almost always sharper.

If I'm in a studio or shooting items (products, macro) where the subject doesn't move, I almost always use a prime. If I'm walking around a city, doing street photography, I almost always use a zoom (25-70mm categories). If I'm shooting wildlife that moves, it's a long-range zoom. If it's wildlife going to a water hole or feeder, it's almost always a prime.

Primes will almost always have less distortion, be sharper, focus quicker (generally speaking). So you're going on a trip--think about what you'll be shooting. And think about the circumstances (like: you don't want to be swapping lens in a place with a lot of dust).

 

[phkc0704081]

I hear everyone on traveling light, more versatility, etc, and I appreciate the input. . However that's not what I came here for.

What I'm looking to know is if a lens with less zoom range will have less distortion that a lens with more zoom range. Will a 28-105 and an 80-200 have less distortion than a 28-300?

Note that not all of my shoots involve long range travel. I do a lot of local photography where I can work out of the back of my SUV, or shoots where I know I will / won't need lots of zoom.

 

[480sparky66 66]

There's no one answer to that question. There are good zooms, superb zooms, crappy zooms and sub-par zooms.

The only way to really know whether Lens A is better than Lens B is to use both under identical conditions and compare the results.

 

[phkc0704081]

Gotcha. Thanks.

 

[adamhiram]

What I'm looking to know is if a lens with less zoom range will have less distortion that a lens with more zoom range. Will a 28-105 and an 80-200 have less distortion than a 28-300?

Generally speaking, yes. Mega-zooms often sacrifice image quality and may have more distortion to provide the increased zoom range. Whether this is the case with the specific lenses you are considering, I cannot say.

 

[phkc0704081]

While I agree that different lenses are of different quality, made with different parts, etc, my impression is that all else being equal, a smaller zoom range = less distortion, which answers my question.