what you have is a sort of "apples to oranges" issue. the only 2 zoom lenses made which were comparable to prime lenses at defined focal lengths were the Vivitar 90-180mm f4.5 Flat Field Macro Zoom and the Zeiss 70-300mm AF zoom; this one being for the Contax AF SLRs. other than that, no zoom lens will be as good at, let's say 100mm as a 100mm prime lens.

this is why i never have used zoom lenses. the use of newer glass and coatings do not change the laws of optics. prime lenses for precise subjects is how i was taught. i do remember in my youth (before electricity) folks would buy zoom lenses only because they could not afford the lenses in the prime focal lengths.

what i seem to hear today is weight, size, features and convenience are most important. i don't know, just too old i guess. but i do remember one Connecticut summer spent photographing in a blackberry bog in Marlboro with a Mamiya RB67 and lenses. it was positively miserable but the photos came out great.

so there you go. as the late, great David Vestal succinctly stated "you get out of it what you put into it". the right camera, format, film, lens and tripod are what factor into my photography.

i've gotta be honest with all you folks, "just good enough" isn't for me, so i admit to being a snob. but i have and am still willing to eat peanut butter for 6 months to get that right piece of equipment: so feel free to have at me! :)

as a dedicated Nikon user, i have also owned and used the Canon F1 and F1N camera bodies. i can't think of any other Canon bodies i'd rather own. the most professional and durable bodies Canon ever made, you could (not that you'd want to) drive nails with them!

in my not so humble opinion, having used Minolta gear for the last 40 years, you cannot go wrong. the sr and srt bodies are great and the lenses, especially the wide angles, are spectacular and can be readily had on the secondary markets - good luck!!!

oh, i don't know - you are able to take the picture(s) and isn't that the point? besides using film makes for more efficient photography as you are, ahem, "limited" by the exposures in the roll.

one of the reasons i love winter with medium and large format cameras are the possibilities inherent in nature and people. so, please, don't feel film is passe' or archaic.

my favorite digital camera is (and how you know why i use only film!) is the 6 megapixel Contax N Digital - just can't find one for under $2,000.00!

i do believe if you want archival, the only way to go is film. it is analog and with proper care, will last at least 100 years. we've just finished printing a 105 year old glass plate negative, which will now reside in a museum in the State of Maine.

using only film, i continue to use my darkroom for black and white developing and printing. i enjoy the "limits" if you will, of dodging and burning. it has, over the decades, made me a better photographer. i also enjoy developing slide film.

hi, i currently use both a Nikon F6 slr and a Nikon S3 (2005) rangefinder. both are great cameras, but so si my leica m3, minolta kx (w/aes finder) and the Canon F1 bodies. all are great, pro level and will last forever!

hi folks,

okay, now you know i do not use digital, but film. even so, i do know a couple of professionals. their method to avoid card failure is to use 3 or 4 cards, swapping them out every now and then during an assignment. that way, if one does go bad, they have not lost out on their total production.
hope this is of some assistance.

hi,
we have a stack of shattered filters in our repair facility that have saved the front element of the lens. we also have a stack of front elements which did not, sadly, have a filter on them.

while i will never say never, we rarely do not recall any front element damage brought into us caused by a destroyed filter.

my associate has been in the photo tech business for 45 years and has seen a lot of everything.

again, it's a personal thing as to whether a person wishes to use a filter on the lens. as for me, i've been in many situations where the filter has saved my lens and find it good insurance for myself.

i don't know if these are still made, but the Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 is a fine lens and is generally acknowledged to be one of the best.
i've used 50, 60 and 100mm macro lenses on my 35mm cameras and i do tend to like the 60mm macro for portraiture. if i'm a little too far back from the person i'm photographing, i just move forward a little.
i do hope you are successful in finding that perfect macro lens for your use. they are really special lenses and great for portraiture.

replacing an expensive uv filter is much cheaper than replacing the front element of your lens. all my lenses (30+) have good quality uv filters on them, along with the appropriate lens hood.
i would really recommend you use uv filters for at least, protection of the front element. good luck with your question!

hi, and from another new person, welcome to the Hog. the main reason you see the small local shops closing, is digital imaging is part of the greater electronics industry. for instance, in order for a local pentax dealer to continue as a pentax digital retailer, he had to buy $100,000 worth of cameras - this in a city with a population of 117,000!. simply could not happen.
since i only use film, and not digital, my advice is to go ahead and set up a b&w darkroom, buy a couple great film cameras and the lenses you want, and have at it!!!

just as an aside, the minolta rokkor lenses in the focal lengths of 16mm, 21mm, 24mm, 28mm and the long telephotos (300-500mm) are so good that e leitz (leica) used them, rebadged, for their leicaflex slr lenses.
not bad, eh!