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

[480sparky]

...a smaller zoom range usually = less distortion, which answers my question.

FIFY.

 

[cgw]

Next time: dxomark.com

 

[JoeW]

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.

First, the quality of a zoom can vary greatly. Professional grade lens will generally be sharper than prosumer or kit zooms. They will generally have a larger sweet spot.

Second, if you're focused specifically on "distortion"--that happens with every lens beyond about a 50-55mm lens on a full frame camera. I can put a 35mm lens on a full-frame body and you'll see distortion in the shape of windows or doors (a keystone effect).

Third, GENERALLY speaking, the more "super" the zoom is (ie: 28-300 vs. 28-75), the softer it will get, the more distortion you'll see. The wider the range of the lens, the more pieces of glass inside the lens, the more complex it is.

As others have suggested, go test the lens. It's pretty straight forward. Set the body on a tripod (so it isn't moving). First use a focus card or tent--you can make your own or buy them pretty inexpensively. That would work for indoors and closer. Then go outside (again with the tripod and all the same settings for ISO, aperture, shutter speed) and start by shooting the maximum distance (so 300mm on your really big zoom) and then comparable distances (so 105mm on all of them and 75mm on all of them),

What I bet you'll find is this: all 3 of those lenses are soft at the extremes (so 28mm and 80mm and then 105mm, 200mm, and 300mm). All zooms generally are. But as you test on equal distances, you may discover that your 28-300 is really a 70-200 in terms of sharpness and distortion.

 

[480sparky]

..... I can put a 35mm lens on a full-frame body and you'll see distortion in the shape of windows or doors (a keystone effect)......

That's perspective, not distortion.

Distortion is pin-cushioning, barrel or compound.

 

[petrochemist]

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.

In all cases the greater the range of focal lengths the more compromises are needed in the design. With today's lenses this is much less of a problem than it used to be.

Larger zoom ranges are more convenient (at least if the range is relevant to the photographers interests). With a good superzoom the drop in quality may not be noticeable in the final presentation.

I think only around 1% of my lenses are superzooms, but they are older models so I'll only consider them in situations where changing lens is right out.

 

[adamhiram]

Select the lenses you want to compare and an equivalent camera body.
The-Digital-Picture

 

[zombiesniper]

I'm going to answer a bit different. With a question and an answer.

Have you noticed any of your current lenses lacking, (image quality, contrast, autofocus, etc)?
If you haven't noticed an actual performance deficiency then why change anything?

If you have noticed a deficiency then that should guide you towards any changes that may need to be made.

Buying gear because a chart or review says lens X is sharper than lens Y without actually noticing any issues with lens Y is just marketing at work.

In short. If you notice a part of your gear is no longer performing up to your standards, then and only then should you upgrade. To do so before this is really a waste of money.

 

[JoeW]

That's perspective, not distortion.

Distortion is pin-cushioning, barrel or compound.

I've typically seen it referred to as barrel distortion.

Here's one source specifically referencing that: Lens Distortion: What Every Photographer Should Know | Click it Up a Notch®

Here's a look at a range of distortion (including what they refer to as "perspective distortion"). I'm clear that wide angle lenses can cause perspective distortion. But that wasn't what I was talking about (ie: not perspective). I was specifically referring to barrel distortion: What is Lens Distortion?

 

[Golem]

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

Yes, two zooms that split the range of an ultrazoom is usually a visble improvement.

As to carrying many lenses, even with ALL primes, three lenses is always enough. I own enough to carry several with small steps between them but I would NEVVUH actually carry more than three compact lenses.

Having several means I can "redesign" my kit, wider or closer steps, different choices at the extemes, but the final result is two or three lenses. 15-40-135 would be a kit with rather notable extremes, as compared to 25-50-90 or even just 24 & 65. No need to feel obliged to cover all possibilities. Just set your vision to match your two or three FLs at hand.

Dont shun slower lenses if you want a kit thats not burdensome !

 

[petrochemist]

As to carrying many lenses, even with ALL primes, three lenses is always enough.

That depends on the subject types that interest you. Three lenses is not enough for me when visiting the zoo!
I need at least a macro, a really fast lens, a long telephoto & a std zoom.

I often use a very wide range of focal lengths at motorsports events too, telephotos out to ~600mm at one end & fisheyes at the other.

 

[Golem]

First, the quality of a zoom can vary greatly. Professional grade lens will generally be sharper than prosumer or kit zooms. They will generally have a larger sweet spot.

Second, if you're focused specifically on "distortion"--that happens with every lens beyond about a 50-55mm lens on a full frame camera. I can put a 35mm lens on a full-frame body and you'll see distortion in the shape of windows or doors (a keystone effect).

Third, GENERALLY speaking, the more "super" the zoom is (ie: 28-300 vs. 28-75), the softer it will get, the more distortion you'll see. The wider the range of the lens, the more pieces of glass inside the lens, the more complex it is.

As others have suggested, go test the lens. It's pretty straight forward. Set the body on a tripod (so it isn't moving). First use a focus card or tent--you can make your own or buy them pretty inexpensively. That would work for indoors and closer. Then go outside (again with the tripod and all the same settings for ISO, aperture, shutter speed) and start by shooting the maximum distance (so 300mm on your really big zoom) and then comparable distances (so 105mm on all of them and 75mm on all of them),

What I bet you'll find is this: all 3 of those lenses are soft at the extremes (so 28mm and 80mm and then 105mm, 200mm, and 300mm). All zooms generally are. But as you test on equal distances, you may discover that your 28-300 is really a 70-200 in terms of sharpness and distortion.

Keystoning is NOT distortion. Its not an optical flaw. Its actually the way the scene really looks, altho humans tend to see "what we know" (or think we know) rather than what is really there. We know that (most) buildings do not taper upwards, so we think we see the wall as parallel and squared up.

You can get keystoning with a pinhole optic, which by its nature cannot possibly distort a scene.

 

[Golem]

That depends on the subject types that interest you. Three lenses is not enough for me when visiting the zoo!
I need at least a macro, a really fast lens, a long telephoto & a std zoom.

I often use a very wide range of focal lengths at motorsports events too, telephotos out to ~600mm at one end & fisheyes at the other.

Three lenses is always enough. The fact that folks like yourself insist on carrying more doesnt change that. An experienced user sets their vision to match the lenses he has chosen to bring.

Acoarst choosing the three lenses would be related to the situation. Altho I would rather avoid it, I can pack a 12-100, 100-300, and an 8-18. Thaz ultrawide thru supertele if Im forced into needing that. You can do likewise for a larger format but the weight gets serious :-(

 

[petrochemist]

Three lenses is always enough. The fact that folks like yourself insist on carrying more doesnt change that. An experienced user sets their vision to match the lenses he has chosen to bring.

Acoarst choosing the three lenses would be related to the situation. Altho I would rather avoid it, I can pack a 12-100, 100-300, and an 8-18. Thaz ultrawide thru supertele if Im forced into needing that. You can do likewise for a larger format but the weight gets serious :-(

Of course photographers set their vision on the lenses they have available. I've gone round with just a 50mm prime on many occasions and most of the time recently I've stuck to a maximum of three.
Despite this there are trips where an expanded set of options is preferable, the fact you never need more doesn't make it a universal truth.

 

[Golem]

Of course photographers set their vision on the lenses they have available. I've gone round with just a 50mm prime on many occasions and most of the time recently I've stuck to a maximum of three.
Despite this there are trips where an expanded set of options is preferable, the fact you never need more doesn't make it a universal truth.

It appears that 24-90-300 would leave you wanting to expand both ends and also fill in the middle. While thaz not really necessary, yes, that would be "more flexible". But its unnecessary to bringing home results.

 

[zombiesniper]

It appears that 24-90-300 would leave you wanting to expand both ends and also fill in the middle. While thaz not really necessary, yes, that would be "more flexible". But its unnecessary to bringing home results.

I would want both longer and shorter. I have from 7.5mm to around 1000mm with 4 lenses and a teleconverter.