Telephoto vs. Zoom lens

[chris h]

I did a search and really didn't see the answer I was looking for so here it is.

I shoot a Pentax 645 Medium format. Right now I'm happy with my 75 f2.8 lens, however I'd like to expand my options. I was debating between the 150 f3.5 Telephoto and the 80-160 f4.5 Zoom lens. While eventually I'd like to get both, it's not realistic to get both right now.

I mainly shoot landscapes, urban architecture, and some portrait stuff. For that reason I'm kinda leaning towards the 150 Telephoto. I think it would probably serve the bulk of my needs and what it didn't would be served just fine by my 75 f2.8 lens.

Am I wrong in my thinking? Is the telephoto a bit too specific where I could save the money and just buy a nice zoom instead and let it serve multiple purposes?

Which route would you go and why?

[Xia_Ke]

I would opt for the 150mm since you already have the low end of the zoom covered with the 75mm 2.8 and also for the larger 3.5 aperture of the tele over the 4.5 of the zoom. If carrying multiple lenses is going to pose an issue for you though, I would opt for the zoom and leave the 75mm at home.

[Anbesol]

I'm going to disagree with Xia and say the zoom, the aperture is not even a full stop difference and I think that with 2 primes you'll end up doing a lot more cropping. Having said that though, performance would take precedent over everything else. Find out which one gives you better performance and get that - if its a draw, I would go for the zoom.

[chris h]

Xia, that's kinda what I was thinking. But I didn't know if I was overthinking things. I just didn't know if I would be limiting myself with those two lens choices. However, Anbesol does have a good point about performance.

As far as cropping, hadn't really considered that. I might burn a couple of rolls on my old 35mm with the zoom lens set at both extremes and see what sort of results I get. While unscientific, it would probably give me a decent idea of what sort of limitations I might suffer, if any.

[photophorous]

I don't know anything about those specific lenses, but one area where many zooms suffer in comparison to primes is distortion. If you're shooting architecture, you don't want distortion. I personally prefer shooting with primes, but there are times when a zoom makes more sense. I guess I would have to research those lenses to see what difference in quality you should expect.

Paul

[ComicDom1]

Xia, that's kinda what I was thinking. But I didn't know if I was overthinking things. I just didn't know if I would be limiting myself with those two lens choices. However, Anbesol does have a good point about performance.

As far as cropping, hadn't really considered that. I might burn a couple of rolls on my old 35mm with the zoom lens set at both extremes and see what sort of results I get. While unscientific, it would probably give me a decent idea of what sort of limitations I might suffer, if any.

Chris, whats funny is that it takes a little time to figure out you own shooting style and favorite lens. I think we all go through some of that.

Jason

[walterick]

I'm a prime addict and 2.8 lenses are my heroin I use primes for everything serious and zooms for everything not.

Paul made the excellent point that zoom lenses tend to have a lot more distortion than primes, in addition to being slower particularly at the longer ends. Is that 80-160 a fixed aperature zoom?

[drg]

Zooms in MF cameras are at best a compromise. There have been a few exceptions over the years, but the cost of those is enormous. The need for quick focal length adjustment is or probably should be very rare when shooting Medium Format.

The 75mm is a 'normal' length for this size of film, not unlike a 50mm in 35mm size. You can extrapolate accordingly to a 150mm as a short telephoto.

For architecture, you will be far better served by a 150mm lens with a big tripod. It will provide that slight compression to the photograph that is often associated with architectural photos. For the 'wide' effect, a 30mm (if you can find one) is about the maximum that will be affordable and usable. A 40-45mm (I don't know off the top of my head what is readily available in the Pentax mount in the used market) is more than enough for most work.

If you are truly going to be dedicated to this style of shooting, be prepared to lug gear. The better a tripod you can get the better, a decent light meter, a changing bag and multiple film backs/cartridges/magazines.

If you want to buy a zoom, see if you can shoot with it under a variety of conditions before investing much. Many are flawed at one end or the other with either distortion (chromaticism, barrel, etc.) or many just have problems with light falloff in the corners.

I would stick with the primes and plan my carry choices around the shooting I planned to do at a particular moment and time.

Best wishes and am looking forward to photos!

[ComicDom1]

Thats good to know Drg. I favor primes myself. Seems like since I already have an 80mm coming, a 150 would be the best choice.

[chris h]

Zooms in MF cameras are at best a compromise. There have been a few exceptions over the years, but the cost of those is enormous. The need for quick focal length adjustment is or probably should be very rare when shooting Medium Format.

The 75mm is a 'normal' length for this size of film, not unlike a 50mm in 35mm size. You can extrapolate accordingly to a 150mm as a short telephoto.

For architecture, you will be far better served by a 150mm lens with a big tripod. It will provide that slight compression to the photograph that is often associated with architectural photos. For the 'wide' effect, a 30mm (if you can find one) is about the maximum that will be affordable and usable. A 40-45mm (I don't know off the top of my head what is readily available in the Pentax mount in the used market) is more than enough for most work.

If you are truly going to be dedicated to this style of shooting, be prepared to lug gear. The better a tripod you can get the better, a decent light meter, a changing bag and multiple film backs/cartridges/magazines.

If you want to buy a zoom, see if you can shoot with it under a variety of conditions before investing much. Many are flawed at one end or the other with either distortion (chromaticism, barrel, etc.) or many just have problems with light falloff in the corners.

I would stick with the primes and plan my carry choices around the shooting I planned to do at a particular moment and time.

Best wishes and am looking forward to photos!

Thanks for the reply. It pretty much sums up what I was sorta thinking.

There's actually a place near me that has a NIB 150mm lens. Of course, they also have a wide angle as well. Of the two, right now I'd rather have the 150. Of course, it's $400.00. I had thought about selling my Beseler 45 CM and using that money to buy the lens. I have two enlargers and no dark room (almost criminal isn't it???).

We'll see.

Thanks for the reply.

[Xia_Ke]

...I have two enlargers and no dark room (almost criminal isn't it???)....

:mad2: That's it, forget the lens and spend the $400 on wood to build a little room

[chris h]

:mad2: That's it, forget the lens and spend the $400 on wood to build a little room

LOL, but I'd still have the other enlarger.

[ComicDom1]

Sell the enlarger and get a V700 or V750 scanner. You are going to have to get your negatives into the computer somehow!

Jason