Vic, Quite reasonable rambling. I would add to it two things.
1) The other factor of zooms vs. primes is purely what one enjoys using. Much like saying that a PZ-1p or MZ-S can run circles around a SuperProgram or MX. Some just prefer the style and handling and subsequent flow that goes with one or the other. I personally find that using a prime helps me (forces me) to be more conscientious about my shots (including better technique). This doesn't mean that the zoom couldn't be used identically, just that I tend to be more sloppy and quick. Ideally it would be nice to have a set of primes and good zooms and pick the right tool at the right time. Unfortunately for me, I can't justify both - too many other things taking up my funds. 2) Faster lenses as you say gives you the ability to see in the viewfinder easier. When I shoot weddings, I find frequently that receptions are in very dim lighting. Focusing is a real issue and any speed here helps - not shooting aperture, just viewing aperture. However, the other big advantage of a faster lens is the ability to have a greater range of DOF control. There are times when I like to be able to open up to blur the background more. 3) Sorry, just thought of another. Many times there are compromises in zooms where closest focusing is not anywhere near the equivalent prime. Not always true, but quite often. Bruce Thursday, November 14, 2002, 9:08:08 AM, you wrote: Pac> Brad I agreed with you that I would buy the 20-34/4 over the 24/2 but not Pac> because they are equal and that modern zooms are equal to primes. Pac> Life is a compromise and so too are lenses. The problem photographers get Pac> into (I think) is getting too anal about the quality of the lenses. You can Pac> have the greatest lens in the world but if you don't use it, it is not much Pac> good. (Bear with me here folks) Pac> An average performing lens in the hands of a capable photographer with good Pac> technique will result in better pictures than a great lens with poor Pac> technique. In addition, if you are taking pictures for yourself, or even for Pac> publication at no bigger than say 11 by 14, I don't think it really matters. Pac> Good technique is the more important factor than the quality of the lens. Pac> Okay, the 24/2 will give a better image (all else being equal) than the Pac> 20-35f4. But I doubt anyone could really see the difference anyway so who Pac> cares. Pac> Now the zoom is much more useful than the straight 24, so in my book it wins Pac> out. I will use it more than the straight 24 and I wouldn't care about the Pac> slight increase in quality I would get from the 24mm. Pac> But to say the zoom is equal to the 24 is going too far. It might be as sharp Pac> but distortion would likely be more, contrast probably would not be as good Pac> etc etc. Does it matter, in 95 per cent of the time no, in 5 per cent --maybe. Pac> Now the other issue is photographers always wanting the best possible lens. Pac> Why? Because we feel that, all else being equal, we do not want inferior Pac> images because we cheaped out on the glass. It's a good argument providing Pac> the photographer's technique is flawless. If technique is not perfect we Pac> might as well use cheap, third rate glass. Pac> The final argument of course is the whole low light argument where the 24 Pac> gives you that extra stop. I say fine if you want to shoot wide open and Pac> accept softer images great. The main reason I like fast lenses is not to Pac> shoot them wide open, but the nice bright view through the camera's finder... Pac> My rambling is getting out of hand... Pac> Vic
