Do you notice the difference between Zooms and Primes?

[niteschaos]

I'm trying to decide on wether to get a Rokkor-X 135mm or perhaps a more versitle Minolta MD 50-135mm for my Minolta XG-1. I know the primes are sharper for the same price, but do you guys notice a difference? I mainly shoot black and white and enlarge to 8x10 inch prints. I've only used 50mm and 28mm Rokkor-X primes and am pleased with the quality. What can I expect out of a zoom of the same price? I know there is a difference, but is it that noticeable in 8x10 enlargements from a 35mm?

[Michael Fanelli]

I'm trying to decide on wether to get a Rokkor-X 135mm or perhaps a more versitle Minolta MD 50-135mm for my Minolta XG-1. I know the primes are sharper for the same price, but do you guys notice a difference? I mainly shoot black and white and enlarge to 8x10 inch prints. I've only used 50mm and 28mm Rokkor-X primes and am pleased with the quality. What can I expect out of a zoom of the same price? I know there is a difference, but is it that noticeable in 8x10 enlargements from a 35mm?

My Minolta ignorance is showing. Are these lenses the old style no longer made? If so, then the difference might go to primes in a signifigant way. Older zooms were not always that good.

If these are Maxum lenses, the difference between a high quality zoom and a high quality prime is minimal. For 8x10, I really doubt you'd see any difference at all. You can thank computer technology for today's excellent zoom designs!

[Gerry Widen]

As Michael said the difference between a high quality zoom and a prime is minimal. But I can clearly see the difference between my consumer zoom and both my better zoom and primes.

[another view]

Sure there's a difference - they're bigger and heavier!

Of course there are some real differences - size and weight can contribute to image quality if you're handholding in low light, at a relatively slow shutter speed. Other than that, primes are usually faster than zooms and may have a little distortion at certain focal lengths.

I personally think that people make way to big of a deal out of distortion though. If you are photographing brick walls as your subject, like for architectural work, then it's more of an issue but in most cases (like 99.9% of the time for most photographers) it's going to be hard to even recognize. I can say that I've never taken any picture, or ever seen one taken by someone else, that I thought "Wow, that's a great shot - except for that little bit of barrel distortion at the left side of the frame!". OK, rant over... ;)

I use my primes when I need a fast lens for low light and zooms for most everything else. I don't think you'll see a difference in an 8x10 print as long as your technique is good - as in tripod when possible, etc. Being a Nikon shooter, I don't know Minolta glass specifically, but some of Nikon's less expensive zooms do a great job. Have to admit that I have an 85 prime that I'll use because nothing else looks like it. I'm sure Minolta would be the same way. Hey, where's Clemmie?!

[niteschaos]

I don't what the pro level of manual focus lenses are called, but I'm sure I'm in the consumer lens side of things. I also like to shoot in low light situations and that was why I was leaning towards the primes. I shoot mainly landscapes, but I also occasionally do sports like road and mountain biking, where speed is great and a tripod won't always do. My only concern is that I'll find myself away from my pack and at too much of a magnification to get a nice shot, as in the 100 or 135mm that I'm thinking of getting.

[another view]

"Away from the pack" is a great way to get a unique image...

[Clemmie]

So long as the Weight of the lens won't kill you - for this one tips the scales at a full 16 ounces - you should strongly consider the Minolta 70-210 f/4. One of the sharpest lenses ever made, period - and built like a tank, with all metal construction (thus the weight).

I own two of these in the first generation Maxxum version, which were built directly from the MD original. I found mine on eBay, in Mint condition, for $41 and $57. When the MD versions come up, they usually go for slightly less than that.

I'll agree with a-v that the size and weight can be quite useful for shooting stability. This lens in combination with my Maxxum 7 makes a very solid, well balanced combo. You should experience the same effect with your XG-1, which is basically the same mass as the Maxxum 7.

For even more stability, you can add a good Monopod to the package. Gives you the additional stability to shoot several notches slower than you could by hand alone, without hampering your mobility like a tripod would. If you're not too shaky, you can easily achieve steady shots down to 1/15 second at 200mm, for example. Also doubles as a good 'walking stick' when not attached to the camera - and many come with a comfortable hand grip specifically for this purpose. I can personally recommend Davis & Sanford's 'TrailBlazer' Monopod - $25 at B&H.

[Clemmie]

Hey, where's Clemmie?!

Driving.....as usual. Am camped for the night at Mount Vernon, Texas - where it's 40 degrees and falling fast - so I bet it's COLD up your way.

For those who need it, Minolta's 85/1.4 'G' ('G' is the Pro stuff) is pretty highly acclaimed. I don't have one, though, as they cost more than my entire collection (cameras included).
-------------------------
For Michael (and anyone else interested) - Minolta's MD mount (and the earlier MC) are the older manual-focus gear, from the pre-Maxxum era. Most of the range is long out of production.

The X-370 camera, and a few 'kit lenses', are still available New in the MD mount - though I'd say it's a safe bet they don't have to crank up the production line very often.

And of course, MC/MD and Maxxum-AF mounts are not compatible.

Many of the first few years of Maxxum lenses were built directly from their prior MD counterparts (just add the AF drive cogs and change the mounting flange) - and are among the finest lenses ever produced in the Maxxum lineup. Maxxum was introduced in 1985 - so most of the AF lenses from then into about 1993 or so, were MD derivatives.

The plastic-barreled 'ultralights' that have taken over since then, just can't compare in overall build quality. Computer Design has maintained the excellent Optical quality - but for overall feel, there's just no comparison. The 'classics' have them beat all the way.

[Lionheart]

I'm trying to decide on wether to get a Rokkor-X 135mm or perhaps a more versitle Minolta MD 50-135mm for my Minolta XG-1. I know the primes are sharper for the same price, but do you guys notice a difference? I mainly shoot black and white and enlarge to 8x10 inch prints. I've only used 50mm and 28mm Rokkor-X primes and am pleased with the quality. What can I expect out of a zoom of the same price? I know there is a difference, but is it that noticeable in 8x10 enlargements from a 35mm?

I think it depends on how much cropping you do. If you're printing the entire frame, a good zoom will match up well with a prime up to 5x7. At 8x10 you'll start seeing some edge softness (a lot of which can also be due to enlarging wide open on the enlarging lens). Cropping really brings out the differences in sharpness between the zoom and prime, especially if you're cropping away from the center of the image. And if you're stacking teleconverters, forget the zoom, not even a contest. I just did a test on that matching the canon 70-200 f2.8L+ 2x TC against the 400 f5.6L. Here's the link to that if you're interested. 400mm f5.6L vs 70-200 f2.8L+2x TC tests