While growing into photography and all through my career I've understood the underlying truth of lenses as being tools subject to a strict divide; that the very best optical results always come from prime/single focal length lenses while zoom lenses are useful for convenience and, while constantly improving, zooms will never, ever be as good as the best primes. The law of lenses was demonstrably true when I started in photography in the 1970s. Today, maybe not so much.
Back then you had three choices: good single focal length lenses, cheap and crappy zoom lenses or expensive and....usable zoom lenses. As zoom lenses improved there was a new thought wrinkle tossed in to appease the hurt feelings of people who really, really want to use zooms. It was a new amendment to the law which postulated that while zooms would never match the performance of the same range of individual prime lenses the shorter the zoom ratio the better your chances were of getting something decent out of your zoom. But the new amendment was always greeted with the sideways look of disdain and the assumption that pros and real artists always pulled a prime lens out of their bags when they were aiming for perfection.
Change comes slow when it's wrapped in unsubstantiated opinion. Somewhere in early 2000's camera makers started producing zoom lenses that gave film era primes a decent run for their money. In particular the optical performance of the more expensive 28-70mm f2.8, 24-70mm 2.8 and 80-200mm f2.8 lenses took a big leap forward. Followed by several extra-wide angle zooms. I remember being surprised and impressed by the first Canon EOS 20-35mm L zoom and then again by Nikon's 14-24mm zoom. For the first time these zooms actually produced better images (in most regards) than some of their contemporary single focal length brethren.
Ten years later the dam burst open and the majority of photographers opted to make the "holy trinity" of zooms (16-35, 24-70 and 70-200, all f2.8) their first choice for professional tools. But in spite of this lens makers continue to design, make and offer ever more complex and performance intensive primes. And some of us keep buying them. It makes me wonder where the truth lies. Or if there are different truths for every user.
In my mind, given the wonderful quality I'm getting from the Panasonic S-Pro zooms, and the great optical quality I see from Canon and Nikon premium zoom lenses, I'm starting to wonder if the only reasons to own prime lenses anymore are for situations that call for very fast apertures (and every new prime seems to be entered into a race for the biggest maximum aperture) to create very, very narrow depth of field or....for bragging rights created by the enduring presupposition that the primes are "always" better.
I sometimes allow myself to be seduced by the promise of almost infinite quality available from some prime lenses. How else to explain the expenditure of $2300 for the Panasonic 50mm f1.4 when I have a perfectly serviceable Sigma 45mm, a Zeiss 50mm f1.7, and a few other adapted 50s; along with two different, high quality zooms that cover the same 50mm focal length. I've never had occasion to use the S-Pro 50mm for any commercial assignment at anywhere near its maximum aperture and while I like the manual focus clutch mechanism it's hardly worth the money I paid for the lens. I understand that if I had a style of photography that was dependent on shooting everything wide open this would be a good solution for that focal length but therein lies the rub.
There are a number of times that I do want to shoot with a fast lens wide open but usually it's not at the focal length of the lens at hand. I might see a shot that would look great at 30mm or 90mm or 75mm or 22mm but which looks boring at 50mm. It's true that I could buy lenses that are approximate to almost every focal length I might want to use but I'd be carrying around a bag (or several bags) with dozens of pounds of lenses in it. And then I'd have to sort through the selection, find the right lens, remove the existing lens from the camera, place the chosen lens on the camera and then watch as whatever subject I was getting ready to photograph exits the area and vanishes altogether. Wholly un-photographed.
Many photographers of my age (plus or minus ten, or even twenty years) point to the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson and announce that he did quite well as a photographer and only used his 50mm lens 90% of the time. The implication being that HCB declined to use zooms or even a big range of lenses because he found them unworthy. The reality, I suspect, is two fold: First there were no zooms available in the time period during which he worked, and secondly, he traveled extensively and often declared that he worked best when he packed lightly. He was concerned not with getting the perfect shot but in capturing the perfect moment - which is a much different thing. He was also intent on navigating through public spaces in the most anonymous and discreet way possible. One small camera clutched by his side in one hand so as not to call attention to himself...
I find myself in a quandary created by my own situation of having a foot in each camp; mostly as a result of living through the tumultuous evolution of lenses. From the primacy and availability of single focal length lenses to an age where zooms are ubiquitous, accepted, acknowledged and mostly given parity with primes by all but the most dedicated or deluded photographers and clients.
How else to explain it?
I raise the question after using a number of zooms over the past few weeks. And most recently after having used the new (to me) Panasonic/Leica 50-200mm f2.8-f4.0 zoom on a GH5. While I have a bunch of random primes for the m4:3 system the two most recent zooms, the 50-200mm and the 12-60mm Panasonic/Leica lenses, are giving me results that are every bit as good or better -- from a photographic standpoint -- than the prime lenses. The only real benefit I get from the primes at this point is the ability to use wider apertures for pictorial effect. But that's profoundly offset by the ability of a zoom to cover so many focal lengths well.
I laughed to myself the other night. I had a 16mm f1.4 Sigma lens mounted on my GX8 camera and I was using the combo as a fourth video camera for a project. I presumed that I should be using the fastest lens possible until I thought through the process. I would be pre-focusing the lens to cover a range and then turn the camera on and leave it unattended for an hour. It would crank away creating endless 4K video files. But you already see the disconnection here, I'm sure. How on earth would the fast aperture (even if it's crazy sharp) help me keep a fairly wide range of performers in acceptable focus? Of course shooting at f1.4 would be silly. I selected f4.0 instead and focused carefully so the plane of sharpness would start at the closer performer and progressively fall off behind her. But since she was at 18 feet the f4.0 aperture would just about cover both her and the two performers on the other side of her. At f1.4? Not a chance. But at f4.0 the performance, especially for video, would have been equivalent with a zoom.
When I talked to a friend about the same project and about my frustration at not getting great close-up shots of performers (mostly from a compositional point of view) from a long distance he immediately suggested that I needed to get a 300mm or 400mm f2.8 lens for the full frame system and that would take care of my problem. There were a few issues with that solution. Either one of those lenses would cost me half the price of a new car. But that wouldn't matter since neither focal length is available for my system. And either choice would be extremely heavy. I'd need to buy a much more expensive video tripod and head to hold it all.
Since either lens would have a fixed focal length I'd have absolutely no control over composition as the performers moved closer and further away from my fixed location. Changing lenses during the shoot was a non-starter concept as the performance ran continuously and the video needed to be continuous as well. A fast enough zoom on a smaller format was exactly what I needed and having the ability to go from a mild telephoto point of view to an extreme telephoto one with the turn of a ring was just right.
Of course, there are times when the fast primes are just what the doctor ordered but those times are quickly getting narrowed down by the ever increasing positive evolution of zooms combined with better and better camera sensors.
Just thinking here but are primes destined to follow VHS tapes to the trash heaps of history? Will photographers continue to buy expensive, heavy and fast primes after zooms catch up with current prime lens performance? For many of us the real (and embarrassing) question is whether even our current (lack of) technical skills all but mask any current optical advantage of primes over zooms.
So, hypothetical: If you dropped me into some beautiful city and tasked me to make great images would I rather have a bag full of primes or one really well chosen zoom. Would I go with one body and one lens? Something like an S1 and the 50mm? Or a Leica digital rangefinder and a 35mm? Or would it be something more flexible like the S1R and a wider ranging zoom like the 24-105mm?
With the primes one might find oneself ignoring anything that didn't fit into the provided frame. With the zoom you'd have more options for composition but fewer options for really low light.
You can only carry so much. You can only make so many compositional selections. What is the right mix and, are we even asking the right questions?
I have a foot in both time periods. Both sides of the prejudice. I loved my Leica M3 with the 50mm Summicron. I took one to Paris as an only camera and had a blast not having to make too many choices. But then again, I loved the Sony RX10 3 with it's 24-600mm lens (which was remarkably good!!!) and the opportunity to shoot just about anything.
I'd be curious to know where readers stand on the issue. Or if there is really an issue or whether I'm just making another mountain out of a mole hill.
29 comments:
Although I have not been a working photographer for as long as you, I have bounced between primes and zooms in every system I have used, largely driven by the feeling that I am missing out on something when using one or the other.
At one point my primes approach was to have multiple bodies with the most used primes attached and at the ready, but that required many more batteries, memory cards, and considerable effort to make sure all were set up the same for each shoot — and I still felt like I needed to swap lenses often to fill in the gaps between whatever primes were on the cameras...
Now I am largely a content zoom user, as with contemporary 2.8 zooms, rarely feel that I am missing out on any image quality that would be available with a prime. Now I only use a prime when I am not shooting paid work and want to keep the camera gear to a minimum.
Makes good sense to me Aaron. I'm pretty much doing exactly the same thing. Thanks for the feedback.
I'm not a pro, thus my point may be out of context, but I use either a Fuji xe3 or a olympus omd em10 ii and usually bring two zooms (a wide angle and a tele) plus a wide aperture prime (f:1.8 or 2.0) in the "normal" range (35 to 50 mm on full frame) for low light shots. My zooms are not the f:2.8 pro ones, as they would be heavy, and the prime takes care of that. But then I rarely print larger than a3 so quality is not really an issue for me. I suppose that if I were to print very large my setup might prove inadequate.
I have been taking the Panasonic FZ2500 with me when I travel for the same reasons the Sony R10 would work for you (thinking about getting one). I remember when the Television Studio camera I manned had a turret with 3 primes. Only got caught once or twice turning the lens turret as the director was "taking" the shot.
Frank, I remember seeing those turrets on 16mm movie cameras as well. It's actually and interesting way to handle stuff.
I am waiting to see if Sony comes out with yet another upgrade to the RX10 series. I'd buy the version 5 if it keeps all the good stuff on the 4 and adds some additional firepower in the way of video specs.
I really feel that if they came and took away all of my cameras and lenses, less one of each, I could survive just fine with my G9 and the 12-60 Lumix/Leica.
I'm pretty darn close to agreeing with you 100% Mr. Weekes.
As you suggest, progress in optics had brought the performance of zooms to a totally sufficient (your word, Kirk) level. I once had this argument with someone, and I wound up showing him a stack of prints. "Which ones were taken with a zoom?" I asked. His guesses were a lot worse than the expected 50% wrong! And this was at least 20 years ago. So far as the image goes, with decent light there's not going to be significant difference. I can shoot an outdoor event with an Olympus EM-1 MKII with battery grip and the 12-100/4 zoom lens. No need for a bag while negotiating crowds, no need to change a lens or a battery, and you could print any frame at 16x20.
On the other hand, you won't see me lugging a "holy trinity" when traveling, or street shooting, or doing low light shots of musicians in clubs. A Ricoh GRIII is my street camera, and my favorite prime for low light is the Olympus OM 100/2. With a Sony mirrorless body, all those wonderful old primes come alive. I like the smaller Zeiss Contax lenses from the 80's. The Sony a7c would make a great "HCB wanna be" platform for them.
Interesting that this should come up just now. I have been using an XT-4 with several primes but was beginning a new project where I wanted my work to be less buttoned down, more free and lyrical (these are goals, mind, not necessarily descriptions of what I'm getting!). I got the 16-80 zoom for the range I wanted. I did some quick comparisons with my primes and decided I wasn't giving much if anything away. I'm shooting in mostly cloudy daylight w/o a tripod, sometimes in the rain. Prints are about 16x22 image size and I'm perfectly happy. But another current project is using medium format with a half-dozen primes in the bag, on a tripod. Near to parking and using paved paths to roll my bag to where I need to go, so it works. The change between the two approaches is actually quite stimulating.
I have a good set of primes for my camera, and access to an outstanding mid-range zoom. (My wife owns it, but I can use it at will.) The zoom is nice when I'm taking pictures of my kids sometimes, but when I'm traveling, I carry 35 mm-equivalent and 90 mm-equivalent primes, and occasionally borrow my wife's 150 mm-equivalent prime. I've tried the zoom, and it is very good, and when it's on my camera, it's almost always at the longest end and I'm wishing for just a little bit more reach to frame things just right...
I am a couple of decades younger than you, Kirk, so I can't blame it on age-induced HCB-worship, but once my brain locked in on a short tele view of the world, it's all I can see. I really enjoy walking around new places with imaginary 90 mm-e frame lines floating in front of me, so I don't feel much pull to change that. I'll leave the zooms and the wide diversity of photos they provide to those with a lot more talent and versatility than I'll ever have.
If I lost everything but the Fuji XT-3 and 16-55 f/2.8, I'm thinking I could still do the vast majority of my stills and video work. But yes, I'm like most in that a few select primes are fun to play with. Necessary? Hardly. But fun nonetheless.
Doesn't it depend a bit on whether you photograph for a living? If you do then you will have to cater to clients' needs much of the time so being flexible would be good, so good zooms would seen to fit the bill. But if you shoot for fun or art then you probably, if you had to, get away with one prime lens, couldn't you? Find a focal length you feel comfortable with and explore shooting with it to your heart's content. I don't need primes but I bought a couple with the idea that the constraint of using one would force me to think more. The jury is out on that but hope springs eternal.
Since I'm not a pro nor an artist, just someone who geeks out on photography in its various forms, I've tried to follow the advice of "experts," that primes are good and zooms are so-so. I've decided that primes are wasted on me. Here is my current arsenal, not counting the phone or film:
-Lumix LX7, for museums, other interiors, and just plain convenience, carried in a pouch on my belt.
-Lumix LX100, M4/3, for cities, street photography and cityscapes. Also when I want to travel light. It and the LX7 were my only cameras in Iceland a few years ago.
-Lumix GX8, with the 12-60mm Pan/Leica zoom, when I think I need something "serious." If we're traveling by car, I'll also include a longer zoom, and the perfectly adequate 25mm f/1.7. (I'll sometimes use a Contax 50mm when I want to do something different. But not too often.) Also my go-to for video.
-Lumix GF1, which I keep around for prosaic documentation, such as before/after on yard work.
-Fuji XT-1, with 18-55mm zoom, just for playing around. I sold my D700 and lenses in order to buy it. I think of it as a lighter (weight) D700, which I liked but was a beast.
Kirk, do you think you might be enticed by this little beauty from Zeiss?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/videos/photography/shoot-edit-and-share-with-the-full-frame-zeiss-zx1
This is like the exact thing I just went through over the last 6 weeks. With the death of Olympus, I have picked up some primes and a zoom. Specificly the Panasonic 20mm pancake, the Canon 50mm STM f1.8 (to use on speed booster) and now the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 to use on speed booster. When the 18-35mm is on the vitrox booster its a 25-50mm f1.2 lens, on my metabones booster its a 26-50mm f1.3 lens. The Canon turns into a 70mm f1.3 lens on either and is my favorite focal length. So I now have fast zoom and primes covered. I am not sure what I think is the best anymore.
I would say if you want test out the Olympus 100-400mm m43rds lens. I am fairly confident its the exact same as the Sigma 100-400mm for L-mount, just with an Olympus mark up and 200-800 range. That might give you wat you want for tight.
Also play with a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 boosted, the cheaper ($150 vs $650) voltrox adapter is the same optically now as the metabones. It just can't focus as lightning fast. So it can't do incamera focus stacking on the Olympus, which this lens does well. Watch Gerrard undone for the reviews, confidenced me over the Panasonic 10-25mm lens.
HCB wasn't interested in zooms when his usual shooting style was to focus his rangefinder Leica by feel before he raised it to his eye and shot. I don't think that works with a zoom.
Somebody mentioned Olympus E-M1-ii (and now iii) with the 12-100/4. I use that for still and video at events where I don't have too much mobility. With Olympus seemingly shutting down they have no resale value, so I'll be using them until they stop. Great stabilization for video, especially handheld or on a table-top tripod in my lap.
For L-mount, I was fortunate to get some Leica R APO lenses during the period when no one knew what they could be used for. Even though these are 20 year old designs, the 180/2.8 and 280/4 from that era outclass the latest Lumix 70-200/2.8. Sharper, lighter, and I usually have the time to focus manually. So the zoom stays on an S1R where the dual IBIS/OIS works nicely. And I use various interesting primes on an SL2.
Excuse me, but how would one use a zoom on a rangefinder Leica? Unless one attached that awful prism attachment that would sort of negate the small Leica size.
I'm the same age as you Kirk, and I love shooting "old school" with primes. I also enjoy the modern zooms with their great image quality and convenience. I don't think it is an either/or proposition. Depends on the day, the assignment and goal. Lately, I've been extremely impressed with the modern Zeiss and Voigtlander offerings for Sony AXX series. I truly hated the A7R2, but I hung in there because of the tremendous lens selection. Last year, I replaced the body with the A7R4 and it is a totally new experience. I don't give a damn about 61mp. In fact, they could've used the same sensor from my perspective. What improved were the EVF, the controls and the overall responsiveness. With these modern miracle primes like the Voigtlander 21mm f/1.4, I have the magnification focussing with superb optical excellence. I haven't enjoyed focussing a camera since my F3! The AF SLR's used crappy screens and it just got worse with digital SLR's. Now, there is not a better way to manually focus than these new mirrorless wonders. Very content with great primes and the occasional use of a zoom, when needed.
As a casual photographer at best, my walkabout choice is the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 on an M4/3 camera. Sharp, compact, virtually weightless. If I have delusions of attempting anything more serious, the Pan/Leica 12-60mm covers it.
Thanks for another thoughtful post.
For your situation, I fully endorse the "sufficiency" point of view.
In my situation, I am just a dilettante with caviar taste. I understand that by the time the Internet or your local printer has had its way with your images you might not be able to tell the difference. However, there is just a bit more sparkle and snap with the finest primes. Whether it be Leica, Otus, or Fuji GFX. I am drawn to fine primes like a moth to a flame. I can't help myself, then again, I am not running a business.
This is related to the "Audiophile" sickness, which I also have. Perhaps the distinction between gourmet vs gourmand might be excessively harsh, due to the pragmatic demands of commerce.
Ultimately, the other factors of image quality (composition, lighting, rapport with the subject) outweigh my obsession with sparkle and snap. You seem to have 99 percent of the formula nailed. I fiddle with the 1 percent that I can just purchase. :)
let me say once again how GOOD it is to have you posting again regularly. Thanks!
As a hobbyist who prefers landscapes, travel, and night city-scapes, i think my perfect kit would be S5 & 20-60 kit, along w/ my RX10iv. Though i own seven m4/3 primes, i use my 4 zooms 90% of the time!
Give me the equivalent of a Fuji x100v with interchangeable lenses in M-mount so I could use Leica M and Voigtlander M lenses too and I would be ecstatic. No, I cannot afford a Leica camera.
Zoom or or single focal length lens? Depends on how often and how quickly you (really) need to change the focal length. And how much weight you want to hold in your hand while shooting.
I have a Sony A7R3 and I could only afford f/4 zooms. Both the 24-105 mm and the 16-35 were surprisingly sharp even at f/4. But sharpness is only one criteria for technical picture quality. And man, were they heavy to carry around. The f/2.8 zooms would break both my back and my bank. The thing is, I like to shoot ar 2.8 or 2.0.
So I now have only primes, three in all: Sony 1.8 20mm and Batis 40 and 85mm. One lens (40mm) or two lensers (20+85mm) is generally all I need to bring with me. While these lenses are not small, they are not heavy. And yes, the image quality from the RAW files are stunning. Even when I do the zooming by cropping.
I could now go on about tripods, but I better leave it.
Hi, Kirk. As a longtime photo/video pro, I've always found a need for both depending on the situation--although I have to admit that the addition of the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, which rarely leaves my camera, sometimes makes me question why I have as many primes as I do!
Regarding your problem of not being able to get close enough to on-stage performers, I don't know what your final output files are, but if it's 1080p (which is still the norm for my clients), then can't you just crop into the 4K frame in post to essentially double your focal length? I rarely shoot 4K, but when I do it's with that very intention. Works great, with no hit to sharpness. And you can even orchestrate some nice zooms or closeups for emphasis as needed.
Just a shout out to christer3805 ...love your selection. Each one of the primes you have selected is truly excellent. As much as I love the modern zooms, there is not a single one that can replicate what each of your primes can muster! That 40mm is an amazing optic and one of my favorite lenses. I did a bit of a "shootout" two years ago with the best zooms I could find ...not a fair fight.
So, zooms when you need them. For that special pleasure that comes with seeing the "best" ...give me the Zeiss and Voigtlander primes. They really are better ...and smaller ...and lighter. etc.
Kirk, This article and the ensuing comments have just stirred so many emotions, conflicting thoughts and turmoil in me. As background I shot for over 20 years with just one camera system a Canon F1 with a wide assortment of only prime lenses - zooms were never good enough. I did own a Sinar 4X5 for the short time that I tried to make a living from photography but that was only a couple of years. Then digital started and GAS set in.
I have owned Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic (sound like anyone you know?). I too have had a sneaking suspicion that zooms are getting good. And then a recent bombshell! One of the most objective, picky and incorruptible reviewers I know, Lloyd Chambers, is beginning to conclude that the new Sony 12-24 2.8 is actually better than Zeiss primes which he had concluded were among the best. Sacrilege!
I now own Fuji, Sony and even a Phase One. I own the best prime lenses in each system. And yes, I can tell which ones are better when I look at side by side comparisons. But whenever I just grab a camera without thinking it is is always the Sony RX10 iv. Yes it has a superzoom which should be just awful. But it's not. The pictures are good. The other cameras can deliver better shots but the shots in the RX10 are still really good and when friends, family and even other picky photo enthusiasts look at my pictures the ones they ooh and aah over are more often than not shot on the RX10. Any real problems are invariably between my shoes and the viewfinder. If ever there was a case of the best camera is the one you have with you... and I always have a 24mm and 600mm available with me.
Now I feel better for having confessed my sins.
Thank you for your wonderful blog.
Jon Maxim
Hobby photographer, using a 24mm f1.4 and a 24-105mm f4. My camera (Sony A7R3) has a neat feature that allows you to press a custom button to switch the camera between FF and APS-C mode (i.e FF and 1.5 crop). In crop mode, the EVF, LCD, AF and metering all operate in crop mode as well. So my 24mm 1.4 becomes a 35mm f1.4 and my 24-105mm f4 becomes 35-150mm f4. The only downside (of course) is the resolution drops from 42Mp to 17Mp, but I've got good prints from 17Mp.
I saw a recent article about Adam Schultz, Joe Biden's campaign photographer. He wears 3 Sony A9m2 bodies, fitted with a 16-35mm f2.8, 85mm f1.4 and 100-400mm.
Speaking of 3 lens turrets, do you remember Leica's M 28-35-50, which wasn't a proper zoom as it wouldn't work at any intermediate focal lengths, but did adjust the viewframe as you changed from one focal length to another. Followed by the WATE ("wide angle Tri-Elmar") which was a zoom with 16-18-21 click stopped focal lengths. It was sharp and small, appeared in the mid 2000s and is still popular. As a result, the 28-35-50 became known as the MATE.
I like and use both. My current favourite lens is a prime-the Sigma 30mm 1.4 on my Sony A6000 body-but I am not opposed to zoom lenses at all. The 45mm field of view of the Sigma seems to suit me very well and I've used that lens with that camera almost exclusively for about a year now. I like the pictures I take with it. I have other cameras too and I use zooms with them. I would have no problem with something like an RX10 as my only camera. I tend to have a preference for small pancake lenses. There is something about a 2.8 pancake lens that appeals to me. I'm also a cheap bugger when it comes to camera gear and it really rubs me the wrong way if I have to spend more than 1k for a lens. Luckily there are some really nice, affordable options out there for cheapskates like me.
When I was a photojournalist, the early 20-35 2.8 and 80-200 2.8 zooms you mentioned hit the market, it was revolutionary. A two lens kit on two bodies (with a couple backups in the trunk, and maybe a TC in the bag along with a flash)handled the vast majority of all assignments. No more giant bag rattling around on my shoulder, no more swapping lenses.
Later in my career, working events as a corporate photographer, the 24-120 was a revolutionary one size fits all lens on one body with one flash/trigger, except for something in that bag both longer to get those podium shots discreetly (if moving from FF to DX crop in camera wasn't an option due to file size) and maybe something wider for those over-all environmental shots. Thats not a lot of lenses to lug any more.
I've looked to primes to provide a look, a way of seeing and a product that I can sell. (Gone are the old days of needing 1.4 to make an exposure happen on slow film). But those sorts of shoots tend to be very controlled and more of a personal nature. And have been back-burnered as people aren't hiring me to produce that work for them for money. I can see creating a headshot or portrait look around a specific lens. But those opportunities to do that for revenue are rare for people of my skill level ...
When working for money, many of us take on such varied assignments of wide scope over time that having "all" "the tools" at hand seems the primary requirement. Every focal length from 14 to 200 in 2/8? Please and thank you! A 14-24 at 14 that vastly outperforms the T Stop of my old fixed 14 which ate light like crazy? I'll take two. They perform to within a small percentage off of the Gold Standard Lenses? I'll take it!
Were I a PJ today I'd have a couple full frame bodies with 16-35 and 70-200 and some small body around my neck (crop would be fine) with something like a 24 or 35 to 70 or 85 equivalent as a quick-grab camera and to fill in the "gap".
Post a Comment