Reading mode: Light Dark

Are primes (still) better than zooms?

Go to last post
B

BobT

Forum Pro
Messages
13,217
Solutions
1
Reaction score
213
Location
MN, US
Use to be that prime lenses were always superior to zoom lenses. Not quite so anymore, from what I'm understanding. So thought I'd just ask the "experts" (don't get too cocky....that's anyone other than me) if prime lenses are still the chosen option when the ultimate IQ is at stake?

If so, are all/any prime lenses better? Or is this distinction reserved for only the top level(and most expensive) prime lenses? Example: the 50 1.8 econo prime lenses vs. the 50mm f1.2 prime lens (other than build quality and f-stop difference)?
 
I find that generally speaking when comparing primes vs zooms of the same generation, the primes will be better. I'm sure you can find exceptions when comparing maybe an older prime to a newer zoom. Zooms are much, much better then they were back in the 70's.
 
BobT said:
Use to be that prime lenses were always superior to zoom lenses. Not quite so anymore, from what I'm understanding. So thought I'd just ask the "experts" (don't get too cocky....that's anyone other than me) if prime lenses are still the chosen option when the ultimate IQ is at stake?

If so, are all/any prime lenses better? Or is this distinction reserved for only the top level(and most expensive) prime lenses? Example: the 50 1.8 econo prime lenses vs. the 50mm f1.2 prime lens (other than build quality and f-stop difference)?
Click to expand...
Most of my primes are better than most of my zooms.

But I have rented a Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8, and it was considerably better than all of my lenses, in terms of sharpness, flatness of field, and amount of chromatic aberration.
 
No idea, but I sure like them more. Primes give me the shooting experience I strongly prefer, and of course a good prime is an excellent performer optically as well.
 
yardcoyote,

2 things.

1) Can you explain the "shooting experience" that you find more satisfying when using primes?

2) You mentioned "good" primes. Are there any "bad" primes?
 
BobT said:
Are there any "bad" primes?
Click to expand...
My Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4 is a bad prime.

I fell off a cliff into the ocean, taking my Nikon F2 and that lens with it. The camera was ruined but the lens still works, sort of. The aperture is broken and fixed to fully open and there is lots of gunk between the lens elements. It works only for portraits and then only when closely focused.
 
Depends on the lens. For example the new canon 100-400 is just as sharp or slightly sharper than the 400 5.6 but it is less sharp than the new 400 DO.

Essentially you get what you pay for in most cases.
 
BobT said:
Use to be that prime lenses were always superior to zoom lenses. Not quite so anymore, from what I'm understanding. So thought I'd just ask the "experts" (don't get too cocky....that's anyone other than me) if prime lenses are still the chosen option when the ultimate IQ is at stake?
Click to expand...
Using cameras with today's high resolution sensors primes will produce the ultimate IQ.
BobT said:
If so, are all/any prime lenses better? Or is this distinction reserved for only the top level(and most expensive) prime lenses? Example: the 50 1.8 econo prime lenses vs. the 50mm f1.2 prime lens (other than build quality and f-stop difference)?
Click to expand...
Almost always yes.
 
Last edited:
The shooting experience thing is hard to describe, but obvious when you, well, experience it. If you have a prime, put it on the camera and go out and take pictures of things. Not just things that are "appropriate" to that focal length, but everything you find interesting. Try to find a way to use that lens to find a good shot. If you don't have a prime, use your zoom--set it at one point and don't move it. Either way, you will find you work differently at a fixed focal length than you do when you zoom. You spend less time manipulating the camera, more time moving your body and finding new ways to look at things. I'm not saying it's better, just that's it's different than shooting with a zoom, and I find it much more fun.

A good prime of course, is one of good quality optically and that focuses easily and quietly enough to suit you. It must be fast enough to work well at the light levels you prefer to shoot at and adequately sharp at the apertures you prefer to use. If this sounds sort of subjective, it sort of is.

Note that good does not mean either ultra fast or terribly expensive. My little street lens, the Pentax 21mm Limited, has a slow maximum aperture of f/3.2, and I bought it used for a low price, but it's great for its purpose in my work, which is street style, walkaround, and car shooting outdoors. Its color rendering is excellent and it's super small and light and sharp as the proverbial tack. A good lens for me, but someone else might not find it useful at all.
 
wow. It must be an incredible lens optically that you didn't just write it off as a loss!
 
Yes, they have better bokeh even at the same f-stop and are brighter for the same f-stop.
 
Like cars, I think every lens has its "personality". Why bother to be obsessed with IQ? On a particular day, I go out with one camera, one lens. The pictures of that day are what the lens offered like a friend. The people who own many fast cars don't drive them at all. They enjoy looking at the cars i n their 10-car garage. Opposite to car collection, photography is not any expensive hobby.

In that regard, I'd buy whatever prime, zoom, rare, strange looking lenses that I find interesting. Many lenses that I have haven't been used to take even one picture, but they do look good on the cameras. If they don't, I pimp them, I mean I decorate them.

4e27300fa7db4bda885c08b17df7c6c6.jpg

07622957931e4cf091330173bf55f6b7.jpg
 
Last edited:
yardcoyote said:
wow. It must be an incredible lens optically that you didn't just write it off as a loss!
Click to expand...
It was insured! But I kept it simply because I find it hard to throw anything away that might have some value in the future.

I just dug it out of my box of old cameras and took this shot:

29f3b7a253734771b343d236b7668521.jpg

Low contrast with fixed f/1.4 aperture, and odd oblong-shaped bokeh because of the crud on the inside of the lens.

--

The Refracted Light

A website about the Art and Science of Photography
therefractedlight.blogspot.com therefractedlight.blogspot.com
 
The widest aperture lenses are all primes, so if "better" means shallower possible DoF then the answer is "yes".

The lenses with the fewest internal elements are primes. Each element absorbs a little light, reducing the total light transmitted. If "better" means "brighter", then the answer is "yes".

Zoom lenses can vary their focal length. If that convenience is "better", then the answer is "no".

Other factors are a bit more muddled, but in general for lenses of roughly the same generation:
  • Primes tend to be smaller and lighter
  • Primes have fewer internal parts to break
  • Primes tend to handle flare a little better (fewer elements for light to bounce off of)
  • Primes tend to have less CA, particularly when compared to the long end of a zoom
  • Primes tend to have less distortion, zoom often distort at the extreme ends
  • Zooms tend to be optimized for fast(er) AF
 
We may have found someone who is more of a packrat than I am. I would have cheerfully taken the money! Cool weirdball image, though.
 
yardcoyote said:
We may have found someone who is more of a packrat than I am. I would have cheerfully taken the money! Cool weirdball image, though.
Click to expand...
Oh, I did take the money, since they considered that the lens was a loss. Since I’ve moved lately, I am becoming somewhat less of a packrat, or at least am storing my things better :D
 
I can't tell which ones were taken with primes and which with zooms until I look at the EXIF.
 
richiebee said:
I can't tell which ones were taken with primes and which with zooms until I look at the EXIF.
Click to expand...
Often you can’t tell unless you pixel peep, which is FORBIDDEN :-D
 
I have a couple of prime lenses but almost never use them. There is just not that much of a difference for the type of photography I shoot. When going on a shoot, if I need wide angle, I grab the 14-24. If I need typical I grab the 24-70 and for a zoom I use the 70-200. Quick and easy and not enough of a difference to matter to me.
 
MediaArchivist said:
The widest aperture lenses are all primes, so if "better" means shallower possible DoF then the answer is "yes".

The lenses with the fewest internal elements are primes. Each element absorbs a little light, reducing the total light transmitted. If "better" means "brighter", then the answer is "yes".

Zoom lenses can vary their focal length. If that convenience is "better", then the answer is "no".

Other factors are a bit more muddled, but in general for lenses of roughly the same generation:
  • Primes tend to be smaller and lighter
  • Primes have fewer internal parts to break
  • Primes tend to handle flare a little better (fewer elements for light to bounce off of)
  • Primes tend to have less CA, particularly when compared to the long end of a zoom
  • Primes tend to have less distortion, zoom often distort at the extreme ends
  • Zooms tend to be optimized for fast(er) AF
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top