William Robb wrote: > > From: "Cotty" > >>> 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.
This is exactly right. You can get amazingly good zooms -- FA*80-200/2.8 is damned close to the quality of a top-notch prime -- but the better quality the zoom, the bigger the size/weight penalty you seem to pay. The 80-200/2.8 is one big and heavy beast. I'd probably gain precious little image quality switching to the 200/2.8 prime, but I'd lighten my camera bag a lot. (Of course, I'd also lose a lot of focal length options, which is why I have the zoom and not the prime. yet...) -- 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.
