Login
Zooms: You Can't Have It All
...Another interesting zoom option that I wasn't aware of: Bill B. tells us that Canon makes an RF 24–105mm ƒ/4 L for its full-frame mirrorless (FFM) R cameras. If I were shooting FFM and wanted a zoom, that's one I'd look at. (The idea in these posts being that I could really use something longer than the common 70mm at the long end—some readers agree and some don't.)
I read a few online reviews of the Canon, though, and it's funny what people complain about. One guy said, "The first thing that I noticed about the lens was all of the plastic in the build of the lens. I don't have confidence in a plastic lens. I expected more for the money spent." Another said, "It is a wonderful lens. But, I'd like to see it at ƒ/2 or 2.8; it'd be a unique asset without a doubt."
No you wouldn't. What was that old joke about lenses, applied to zooms? Something along the lines of: "Good range, high speed, reasonable price and weight—pick any two."
There's no reason not to shoot with zooms any more. Their optical quality is somewhat variable, but no more so than that of primes, and you can't tell the difference in pictures as to what was shot with what. I used to say that the disadvantage of zooms was that a zoom was as big as the biggest lens it replaced and as slow as the slowest lens it replaced. That might not be exactly true any more. The big advantage being that, well, it zooms.
I have to say AI is proving more useful than I thought it was going to be. However, when I asked it, "What is Canon's fastest zoom?", it answered, "Canon's fastest zoom lens depends on the specific focal length range and mount, but a notable example is the Canon 50mm ƒ/0.95, a vintage rangefinder lens." Okay then, still a few bugs in the system. But if you imagine a 24–105mm ƒ/2 zoom, it's not going to be compact and reasonably priced. It's going to be enormous and very, very expensive. Bigger and costlier than Canon's shelf-queen RF 28–70mm ƒ/2 L USM, which weighs a good chunk over three pounds and costs a good chunk over three grand. That one strikes me as the perfect lens to own for bragging rights but to leave at home when you actually go out to photograph. I would use it for putting on the mantel and admiring. Having said that, there
Of course, just as price sensitivity varies greatly depending on how prosperous you are, weight also depends on context. I imagine if you're a photographer who regularly uses extreme telephotos and telephoto zooms, which are large and heavy, then a mid-range zoom that is large and heavy for its class might not seem all that bad.
Best all-rounder, but
Probably the top zoom lens I know about is the OM System 12–100mm ƒ/4 IS PRO: a sterling lens that has no real weaknesses over a broad range, and has excellent IS in conjunction with the best of the cameras it fits, and it's relatively small and reasonably priced. But: it's for the 4/3 sensor. (It's always something.) Charlie Ewers said, two days ago, "The Olympus 12–100mm (24–200mm equivalent) had the best everyday zoom range I've used extensively. Now that I've switched to Fuji, I really like the 16–80mm (24–120mm-e), but sometimes I still miss the extra range on the long end." I don't have that Fuji, but that's the only one that suits.
I should really get that 16–80mm for my Fuji. I need some experience with up-to-date good (not cheap, not just "okay") zooms.
Probably the cheapest way to get a good zoom, for beginners, is to settle on one of the recently outmoded DSLRs and find a good utility zoom for one of those cameras that got good reviews in its day. Ian Bilson recommends the old AF Zoom Nikkor 28–105mm ƒ/3.5–4.5D that B&H lists in "9" condition for $139. There are many others. Don't go too crazy looking for perfection; one could while away many useless hours researching outdated DSLR zooms on the internet. I have to mention that historically, I haven't had good luck with Nikkor zooms. I've owned several and even used one for a while as my main lens. People talk about cropping to achieve the equivalent of more reach on high-res sensors; ironically, I had to crop my Nikkor zoom when I used it wide open just to get rid of the smeary corners.
The most interesting of the Nikkor zooms I had (remembering that I'm not a fan of zooms and don't have that much experience) was the Nikkor Series E 75–150mm ƒ/3.5. A 2x zoom from 1980 meant for the economy EM camera, it had a cult following among fashion photographers because it was very flattering to models. In those days when you couldn't manipulate results, it made skin look smooth and had enough resolution but not too much. One of those lenses that was "bad" but in a good way. I had to buy three of them to get one good one: one had fungus, and another was so loose that the zoom setting would creep if you looked at it sideways. It was a "one-touch" zoom, meaning, rotate to focus and slide the same ring to change the focal-length setting—one-touch zooms were all the rage for a while in the late '70s and early '80s. I didn't like them. It was rumored that Nikon was repeatedly urged to issue the exact same optics in a more robust lensmount, but they never did. Ken Rockwell reports that Galen Rowell, very famous back in those decades as a nature and wildlife photographer and the author of bestsellers that were very popular with photography aficionados, used and liked the 75–150mm Series E.
I wouldn't get one today. Along those lines, I guess I should also mention that I have a pretty strong policy to prefer current lenses that were designed specifically to go with whatever camera I'm using. Based on long long experience and recurring frustrations; life's too short. Although, of course, like you, probably, I'll do whatever I want.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
