G
Guest
Till:
I am not sure what to call "worse" in this case. It is a fact that construction of range finder lenses is physically easier than those for SLRs. This means that SLR lenses will always be somewhat compromised in their capabilities (resolution, flare resistance) compared to the former, apart from the fact that you talk about comparing prime versus zoom. What I understand from reading many reports is that you will see a difference between the 24-85 and the G primes. However, you are talking about small differences and it is up to you what you really want - G lenses and theoretical maximum capability or the versatility of SLR zooms with slightly less resolution/contrast etc. For me it was easy. The 24-85 is an outstanding lens and it is simply great for travel pics due to its handy zoom range and low distortion/good contrast. I don't earn a living making pictures which need to blown up to giant proportions, and so the decision versatility combined with excellent imaging characteristics was a no brainer.
You are more correct to compare to the MF zooms, although those don't go down to 24 mm - and that is a fantastically useful angle on trips. Besides, I personally would advice even thinking about MF systems - they represent doomed obsolete technology. Guess where my preferences lie....
I am not sure what to call "worse" in this case. It is a fact that construction of range finder lenses is physically easier than those for SLRs. This means that SLR lenses will always be somewhat compromised in their capabilities (resolution, flare resistance) compared to the former, apart from the fact that you talk about comparing prime versus zoom. What I understand from reading many reports is that you will see a difference between the 24-85 and the G primes. However, you are talking about small differences and it is up to you what you really want - G lenses and theoretical maximum capability or the versatility of SLR zooms with slightly less resolution/contrast etc. For me it was easy. The 24-85 is an outstanding lens and it is simply great for travel pics due to its handy zoom range and low distortion/good contrast. I don't earn a living making pictures which need to blown up to giant proportions, and so the decision versatility combined with excellent imaging characteristics was a no brainer.
You are more correct to compare to the MF zooms, although those don't go down to 24 mm - and that is a fantastically useful angle on trips. Besides, I personally would advice even thinking about MF systems - they represent doomed obsolete technology. Guess where my preferences lie....