I was just wondering. If you get say the Nikon 24-70 2.8 lens. Will that be equal in quality to, lets say the 50mm 1.4 Prime lens? Obviously the aperture allows for better bokeh, lets more light in etc. But how does the image quality compare? Do decent prime lenses always have higher quality than decent zoom lenses?
Can zoom lenses compare in quality to prime?
(33 posts) (19 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
I don't have the 24-70 and I am primarily a prime lens shooter but I think in real world situations, aside from extra light and better bokeh, the difference is mostly negligible. You might get better slightly better contrast and sharpness straight out of the camera but if you are doing any post-processing you can compensate and there wont be a very noticeable difference. I use a 50mm for about 80% of shots at a wedding, and never saw the need for a midrange zoom so there might be people that could compare those two in particular better than I can. I do use the 17-35 2.8 quite a bit though and that is an excellent lens that holds up well to primes in my opinion.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Me OTOH prefere the IQ from primes, but I'm using zooms, as they give me more flexibility than primes - especially in fast changing environment.
Posted 2 years ago # -
My 18-135mm Nikon zoom has better sharpness than my 50mm f1.8D and 28mm f2.8D primes .I thought my observations were wrong but lens test results confirmed it . So even cheap zooms can give better results ( sharpnesswise ) than primes .
I also had arguments in this forum about cheap zooms beating $2000 glass in sharpness ( like the 17-35mm f2.8 above ) which was not taken very well , but it is not what we are discussing now. I guess you are comparing expensive primes with expensive zooms here.
Posted 2 years ago # -
About, the cheap zooms, I actually recently bought a 28-80 3.3-5.6 zoom. The king of dirt cheap, but good quality zoom lenses. It was 80 dollars and for the price I was extremely happy with the results. Only problem was I use the R-Strap which keeps the camera at your waist. This is usually not a problem but the lens must have bumped something and the internal barrel that comes out while zooming got bent and the lens would not zoom or focus to infinity. I'm going to buy another one just to have but those lenses are built cheap. They are great if you are careful with them though.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So why do people bother with primes? Is it because you can get good quality glass relatively cheap? Compared to say, the 70-200 2.8.
Posted 2 years ago # -
They're light, small (relatively), fast and sharp. Some are cheap too. :-)
And they have the "feel" to them. I just recently bought a Porst CR3 camera with a 50mm f/1.9 prime (all manual of course). I love the way it handles.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Yes! Both my AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR and AF 80-400 f/4.5-5.6G VR zooms are two of the sharpest lenses in my arsenal. But, I do also own a bunch of fast short primes specifically for both their light-gathering ability, and for achieving optimal subject-isolation by employing shallow depth-of-field. Plus, I enjoy the discipline of framing for specific focal lengths.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Why ppl buy primes... To get 1.4, to travel light. As much as I love my 24-70 I would love to have 24/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 in my bag (prefferably the ones made by zeiss)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Paperman said:
My 18-135mm Nikon zoom has better sharpness than my 50mm f1.8D and 28mm f2.8D primes .I thought my observations were wrong but lens test results confirmed it . So even cheap zooms can give better results ( sharpnesswise ) than primes .If the 18-135mm kit zoom is sharper than the 50mm F1.8D, then you need to get the AF fine tuned.
Personally I love primes, and have sold off most of my zooms as a result.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
-
Quick answer is no. I have the the following lenses:
f/1.4G: 24mm, 50mm, 85mm
f/2.8G: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 (VRII), 60mm MicroI have owned these Primes: 20 D, 24 D, 28 D, 35 f/2 D, 50 1.8D, 60 D Micro, 85 1.8, 105 G
And these Zooms: 18-35, 18-200, 12-24 f/4, 18-55, 55-200, 70-300 VR, 18-105So I can honestly tell you I see a difference. Since the new G primes came out, I am using those more than my 2.8 zoom lenses . . .
If you are shooting in camera JPG, stop reading this thread and learn about RAW. No point investing in better glass, if you are using training wheels.
Next, if you are shooting a D70, upgrade your camera before getting new glass1) Zooms add distortion that a Prime does not
2) You have to compare Pro Zooms to Pro Primes. Don't compare the $1800 24-70mm lens with the $240 28mm f/2.8D. Compare it to the new 1.4 Pro primes.
3) Lenses operate best 2 stops from wide open typically. So a 1.4 prime, will operate best at a 2.8, where a 2.8 zoom works ideally at a 5.6. What about a 5.6 zoom? Try f/11.If you really have to ask if zoom lenses are better than primes, then you don't know enough about photography to be investing in pro lenses anyway. Take some classes and read some books and learn about lenses and how they work. You will be able to answer for yourself if Primes are better than Zooms in quality.
Now convenience . . . that is something else.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@Drab
What is the point of buying a speedy lens if you can't use it at f1.8 & 2.8 ??Then it is also not fair to compare both at 18-135's minimum aperture of +/- f4.5 at 50 mm - not that it even gets close to the miserable 1250 lw/ph border value of 50mm at f1.8 .
At f5.6 , you will see more figures in 18-135's favor - I bet you were thinking 50mm would be better by far .
Same at f8 ...
Please have a look yourself .
Posted 2 years ago # -
Paperman said:
@Drab
What is the point of buying a speedy lens if you can't use it at f1.8 & 2.8 ??Then it is also not fair to compare both at 18-135's minimum aperture of +/- f4.5 at 50 mm - not that it even gets close to the miserable 1250 lw/ph border value of 50mm at f1.8 .
At f5.6 , you will see more figures in 18-135's favor - I bet you were thinking 50mm would be better by far .
Same at f8 ...
Please have a look yourself .
Even though I don't see support in those MTFs for your initial claim:
If you can see the difference between 1871 and 1963 LW/PH colour me impressed! (oh, but wait, those numbers are in the 50's favor @ 5.6! (35mm on the zoom, it's a bloody tie by any measure @ 70))Regardless, comparing ANY 1.8 lens at 1.8 to ANY 3.5 lens at 3.5 is the definition of apples to oranges.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I am not with you - are you saying the difference is negligible ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Paperman said:
I am not with you - are you saying the difference is negligible ?Negligible to non-existent (within the margin of error) for all apples to apples comparisons.
I'm not claiming the 50 is sharper, I'm saying your initial claim (and subsequent dismissal of those who tried to correct you) that the 18-135 is sharper is dead wrong.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The results show in 8/10 cases - maybe more , the 18-135mm is sharper - visible to the eye or not .
So I am not "dead wrong" ( that would have meant the 50 mm was sharper than the 18-135mm ).
And at no condition the 18-135mm gives drastic results of 1250 lw/ph ( I bet that is visible ) .
Owning both lenses , I don't benefit anything by winning/losing this argument.
Posted 2 years ago # -
And you were the one who said :
If the 18-135mm kit zoom is sharper than the 50mm F1.8D, then you need to get the AF fine tuned.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Paperman said:
The results show in 8/10 cases - maybe more , the 18-135mm is sharper - visible to the eye or not .So I am not "dead wrong" ( that would have meant the 50 mm was sharper than the 18-135mm ).
And at no condition the 18-135mm gives drastic results of 1250 lw/ph ( I bet that is visible ) .
ONLY when you compare apples to oranges. The ONLY way to compare lenses is f-stop to f-stop.
Paperman said:
And you were the one who said :really?
PB PM said:
If the 18-135mm kit zoom is sharper than the 50mm F1.8D, then you need to get the AF fine tuned.Posted 2 years ago # -
Ooops,wasn't you ...I thought I was answering him . You have the same tone :-)
I based my comparison at f5.6 & f8 actually ... And considering you said the differences are marginal , you surely couldn't be talking about the apple/orange comparison at f 1.8 .
Posted 2 years ago # -
Paperman said:
Ooops,wasn't you ...I thought I was answering him . You have the same tone :-)I based my comparison at f5.6 & f8 actually ... And considering you said the differences are marginal , you surely couldn't be talking about the apple/orange comparison at f 1.8 .
If you're talking 5.6 & 8, why did you bring up the 1.8 number?
If you're talking 8, where does the 18-135 beat the 50? 2122 vs 2195? As I said, if you can see a 3.5% improvement in resolution you've got second-to-none eyes.Posted 2 years ago # -
Once again , I brought the subject up because someone said
"If the 18-135mm kit zoom is sharper than the 50mm F1.8D, then you need to get the AF fine tuned."
Just wanted to show my 50mm does not need tuning - it is just made that way .
Bye Drab ....Really
Posted 2 years ago # -
Newfie said:
I just fininshed watching a new youtube clip that pits the D4 against the 1DX and it clearly show the 1DX out performing the D4. What I did notice though is that the presenter fitted the D4 with an 85mm f1.4. I have that lens along with the 50mm f1.4 and the 105 f2.8. My experience is that the Nikon primes, except for the super teles, are slow focusing relative to the three 2.8 zooms. Whenever I use the 70-200 it is lightening fact and accurate, same for the 14-24 and 24-70.It seems that most reviews are often with prime lenses. Using one of the 2.8 zooms might yield a different outcome when comparing brands, especially considering Canon primes tend to focus faster.
What has your experience been?
Posted 9 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
