Digital BW, The Print

Sam;

A well designed prime will always be better than a well-designed zoom. Not to get into the really tedious physics of it, just consider the issue of light slowing (bending), diffracting, and ultimately coming to focus at different points after being broken into various parts of the spectrum. A high speed prime with perhaps 7 to 8 elements obviously will have less problem than a zoom with 15 - 20 odd elements. Add the additional surfaces which give considerably more flare with a resulting loss of contrast, and you should start to (excuse me for this) "get the picture" as it were.

The down side? Hope your back is in better shape . . . while any prime will weigh less than a zoom, when you end up carrying 3 or more lenses to make up the difference, the weight issue is nullified. Obviously the ideal situation is to have both, or perhaps a zoom, and maybe one really good prime in a focal length you favour when shooting. I have a couple of high end zooms, but when I am walking through city streets (I always have a camera with me), I tend to carry a 20 or 24 and a 45gn (the lense is as flat as a pancake and makes for a really nice package).

A real problem with wide angle zooms crops up with most photographers inability to understand the need for a really GOOD lenshood. While all those nice molded sculptures they give you with a 17-35 or whatever you buy, the hood is of MINIMAL help even at the wide end and totally useless at the longer end. In a lense that is extremely susceptible to flare (ALL wide angle zooms), it only serves more as a bumper to protect it from whacks and bangs.

Consider what film people use if you want more solid guidance. Documentary people shooting 16 or super 16 will travel with a zoom, AND usually a set of three or four hi-speed primes. NO ONE in the feature film end would shoot anything with a zoom . . . they can't afford the loss in quality. Remember that these are people who insist of their gear being stripped and calibrated on a regular basis . . . they can afford and insist on, the absolute best that is available.

good luck
Paul Aparycki

  And I'm also wondering whether it might not be better to give up the 
  benefit of zooming and get the 24mm and 35mm f/1.4 L prime lenses. I 
  have the 35mm f/2.0 prime and the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom and think I 
  see a big difference between them - even with (film) cameras nowhere 
  near as good as the 1Ds MK II. So if the f/1.4 L primes yield better 
  images than the f/2.8 & f/4.0 L zooms, then by using the primes I'd 
  get the better-image benefit plus at least two stops of speed.

  Or at least so it seems to me. I'd appreciate any advice about all this.
  --
  Sam

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]