Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 293096" data-attributes="member: 12496">I am a zoom fan.&nbsp; I was using Nikon F in the old days when prime lenses were all there was (had 24, 50, 105, and 200 mm chosen to span the needs), and today, I definitely appreciate good zoom lens.Primes are typically faster, maybe f/1.8, and zooms of course are are not (except for compacts and camcorders).&nbsp; But I frankly doubt many DSLR users shoot at f/1.8 much of the time.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />And primes are smaller and lighter (but definitely are limited to one focal length - not versatile).But better and sharper is quite relative.&nbsp;&nbsp; Primes are sharper than an inexpensive long zooms (kit lens, etc), but the more expensive DSLR f/2.8 zoom lenses will compare extremely well to any of them, arguably sharper than many primes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 293096, member: 12496"] I am a zoom fan. I was using Nikon F in the old days when prime lenses were all there was (had 24, 50, 105, and 200 mm chosen to span the needs), and today, I definitely appreciate good zoom lens. Primes are typically faster, maybe f/1.8, and zooms of course are are not (except for compacts and camcorders). But I frankly doubt many DSLR users shoot at f/1.8 much of the time. :) And primes are smaller and lighter (but definitely are limited to one focal length - not versatile). But better and sharper is quite relative. Primes are sharper than an inexpensive long zooms (kit lens, etc), but the more expensive DSLR f/2.8 zoom lenses will compare extremely well to any of them, arguably sharper than many primes. [/QUOTE]

Verification