On 2/14/08, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cotty" > Subject: Re: Oh, the temptation... > > > >> DA*200/2.8. > > > > Forgive my ignorance (and it is great), but why would anyone want a > > prime lens at this length when a 70 or 80 - 200 2.8 zoom is available > > (assuming of course optical performance of the zoom matches up to the > > prime) ? > > > I've yet to see a zoom lens that can match an excellent quality prime lens > in overall imaging quality. Zooms are generally not as sharp, though they > may be fairly close, but tend to have more optical aberrations and flare. > This is also not adressing size and weight issues, while both lenses would > be big, my guess is the zoom would be bigger and heavier. > Consequently, your parenthesized bit obviates your question. > > > William Robb >
Nikon 17-35 f2.8 AF-S & 14-24mm f2.8G, both outperform all but the rarest Zeiss and Leitz lenses in their ranges. The Zeiss 17-35mm f2.8 for the Contax N is even better than the Nikon. The 14-24 in particular is stunning at the wide end, possibly the best 14mm lens ever made. Also the Nikon 80-200 AF-S and Minolta/Sony 70-200 f2.8 G SSM are known to match or beat most f2.8 primes in their range. Downsides to all of these lenses is size. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
