Sharpness in a photo is always very important to me. Hence I often have a prime as my everyday walk-around lens. The zoom lenses I have had simply could not compare to the primes in terms of sharpness or contrast. I therefore did not shoot very much with zooms in the past.
However, since using the D70 with the kit lens over the past 1-2 months, I now realized one important benefit of using zooms: they help tremendously in my photo composition!
I found for instance that I shoot many more photos with the zoom as my walk-around lens than with the Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4D, my previous favorite. And at f/5.6 the sharpness and contrast of the kit lens is comparable to the 50mm prime.
The zoom makes me take more photos perhaps due to the way I shoot: the view must first attract my attention. I then try to capture it with the D70, turning the zoom until the viewfinder either approximates the original view that I first saw or makes for a better composition. With a prime I simply would not shoot if the viewfinder did not give me the same perspective as the one I originally envisaged.
Also, is it just me, or do any others have the same experience -- that my 50mm does not give me the same perspective as my unaided eye, so that I don't shoot if what I see through the 50mm lens on the viewfinder is quite different from what I had seen without the camera? Despite the prevailing opinion that the 50mm lens is supposed to give a similar view as the unaided eye?
Sure, people often cited zooms for convenience over primes -- convenient as in replacing several primes covered by the zoom range, lighter weight, ability to shoot a photo opportunity that probably will not wait for one to change the prime to another more suitable.
For me, convenient as in helping me compose and take better photos. That is the only reason I need now to purchase a zoom over a prime.
Especially when these days zooms offer higher sharpness and contrast than previous generations eg the 70-200mm f/2.8D ED-IF VR and the 17-35mm f/2.8D, both of which have very good sharpness and contrast, and are comparable to the primes.
However, since using the D70 with the kit lens over the past 1-2 months, I now realized one important benefit of using zooms: they help tremendously in my photo composition!
I found for instance that I shoot many more photos with the zoom as my walk-around lens than with the Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4D, my previous favorite. And at f/5.6 the sharpness and contrast of the kit lens is comparable to the 50mm prime.
The zoom makes me take more photos perhaps due to the way I shoot: the view must first attract my attention. I then try to capture it with the D70, turning the zoom until the viewfinder either approximates the original view that I first saw or makes for a better composition. With a prime I simply would not shoot if the viewfinder did not give me the same perspective as the one I originally envisaged.
Also, is it just me, or do any others have the same experience -- that my 50mm does not give me the same perspective as my unaided eye, so that I don't shoot if what I see through the 50mm lens on the viewfinder is quite different from what I had seen without the camera? Despite the prevailing opinion that the 50mm lens is supposed to give a similar view as the unaided eye?
Sure, people often cited zooms for convenience over primes -- convenient as in replacing several primes covered by the zoom range, lighter weight, ability to shoot a photo opportunity that probably will not wait for one to change the prime to another more suitable.
For me, convenient as in helping me compose and take better photos. That is the only reason I need now to purchase a zoom over a prime.
Especially when these days zooms offer higher sharpness and contrast than previous generations eg the 70-200mm f/2.8D ED-IF VR and the 17-35mm f/2.8D, both of which have very good sharpness and contrast, and are comparable to the primes.