Modern primes vs zoom IQ- how narrow is the gap?

When I got my 61MP Sony I became very IQ conscious when it came to picking lenses for it. I decided to go with primes for the lenses I use most, which is wide angle, but went zoom for telephoto (70-300).

When doing my research, I ran into a lot of articles that said modern zooms have really narrowed the IQ gap, and I find that to be very believable and consistent with my limited experience. You might have to pay more for a really good zoom, but if it can take the place of 3 or even 4 lenses, it probably makes sense.

I do not regret my decision to go with primes for my WA needs as I love my lenses, but thought it might be an interesting discussion in case I decide I need to expand my collection of glass.

Please share your thoughts.

--
Cheers,
Ray

raylinds said:

When I got my 61MP Sony I became very IQ conscious when it came to picking lenses for it. I decided to go with primes for the lenses I use most, which is wide angle, but went zoom for telephoto (70-300).

When doing my research, I ran into a lot of articles that said modern zooms have really narrowed the IQ gap, and I find that to be very believable and consistent with my limited experience. You might have to pay more for a really good zoom, but if it can take the place of 3 or even 4 lenses, it probably makes sense.

I do not regret my decision to go with primes for my WA needs as I love my lenses, but thought it might be an interesting discussion in case I decide I need to expand my collection of glass.

Please share your thoughts.

Click to expand...

I've always preferred prime lenses and haven't really owned that many zooms, over the years, and the few zooms I've owned have been in the 24-70 range.

Just the same, I do agree that some of the upper level zooms are excellent and are probably better than the lower priced primes.

I believe that most of us (myself included) would be very happy with a good zoom lens.

Not sure to your system, but for mine (M43), the IQ between Prime and zoom, including those consumer grade cheapy zoom lenses, could be small. Specially under real life shooting instead of Lab testing.

e.g. the 14-45 f/3.5-4.5 or the 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 has IQ be very closed to the premium 12-35 f/2.8 on similar focal length and f/stop.

12-35 f/2.8 indeed has IQ not weaker than the renowned Panasonic Leica 15 f/1.7, not to mention the cheaper 14 f/2.5...

Speed and size could be the only advantages of prime lens IMHO.

IMHO if there would be zoom lenses of your system that are optimized for the high resolution of your particular model (only variable here I think), no reason its zoom lenses could be worse.

I had an old concept deeply implanted in my mind for 3~4 decades since film slr days that prime is for absolute IQ, and superzoom lens should be avoided. 7 years ago I bought a 10x zoom lens for my wide to lure her moving to use ILC from bridge cameras, the IQ of such lens had burst my long bias view on superzoom lens...

Give zoom lens a chance. Under the modern day lens design, manufacturing and all sort of corrections (in-camera or through RAW conversion, PP etc), zoom can also be very good.

My 2 cents.

Considering recent designs, the photographer is probably a bigger variable than the lens as far as sharpness. Unless a person uses a solid tripod and works very carefully it will be hard to see the difference -- if there is a difference. Flare may be another matter.

Among my Panasonic and Olympus lenses, zooms and primes, the variance in sharpness equals about 3 points on the ACR Clarity slider. My hands vary more than that through the course of a day. My Olympus 12-100 is probably the sharpest of my bunch, but also the most susceptible to flare. None of my primes are notably better than the zooms.

I expect how much coffee I drink makes more difference than whether I use prime or zoom. That and lens or body stabilization.

Gato

I suspect that a lot more effort (and money...) is spent in designing zoom lenses simply because there is greater demand for those compared to prime.*

* that may not be true here but members here are a tiny minority of the buying public.

raylinds said:

When doing my research, I ran into a lot of articles that said modern zooms have really narrowed the IQ gap, and I find that to be very believable and consistent with my limited experience.

Click to expand...

What about older zooms? When I got my Sony, I already had two Canon lenses, including EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM released in 1999.

I was prepared to get a newer Sony zoom if not satisfied with the Canon. I was satisfied, and am happy with it.











- Richard

I have a couple of primes and several zoom lenses. The zooms keep up except for shooting the zooms at the extremes of focal length where vignetting and some loss of sharpness may occur.

With the quality of equipment today, for normal use -- what gap?7

My f/1.2-1.4 and longer f/2 primes beat my f/4 zooms at f/1.2-1.4-2 every time.

Zooms are very good these days. Resolution, contrast, flare resistance, it's all there. Primes are smaller, brighter, and maybe sometimes a tiny bit sharper, especially in the corners.

But the real difference is usually rendering. The transition from in focus to out of focus is smoother. The bokeh less busy/better controlled. That kind of thing.

This may matter a whole lot to, say, a portrait photographer, and not at all to a landscape shooter.

I think these days choosing a prime over a (good) zoom is less about IQ and more about size, speed and character (plus price, usually).

No zoom can match the speed and size of a fast prime. Even a slow prime - say f/2.8 is so vastly smaller than any f/2.8 zoom.

From what I can see, there is no zoom that can match the bokeh and character (however defined) of a good prime.

But whatever you value the most - one of these qualities or convenience and flexibility - it is wonderful to have so many good options available to us (almost too many - more choice than I could possibly afford!).

alcelc said:

Not sure to your system, but for mine (M43), the IQ between Prime and zoom, including those consumer grade cheapy zoom lenses, could be small. Specially under real life shooting instead of Lab testing.

e.g. the 14-45 f/3.5-4.5 or the 14-140 f/3.5-5.6 has IQ be very closed to the premium 12-35 f/2.8 on similar focal length and f/stop.

12-35 f/2.8 indeed has IQ not weaker than the renowned Panasonic Leica 15 f/1.7, not to mention the cheaper 14 f/2.5...

Speed and size could be the only advantages of prime lens IMHO.

IMHO if there would be zoom lenses of your system that are optimized for the high resolution of your particular model (only variable here I think), no reason its zoom lenses could be worse.

I had an old concept deeply implanted in my mind for 3~4 decades since film slr days that prime is for absolute IQ, and superzoom lens should be avoided. 7 years ago I bought a 10x zoom lens for my wide to lure her moving to use ILC from bridge cameras, the IQ of such lens had burst my long bias view on superzoom lens...

Give zoom lens a chance. Under the modern day lens design, manufacturing and all sort of corrections (in-camera or through RAW conversion, PP etc), zoom can also be very good.

My 2 cents.

Click to expand...

I use m43 gear as well and in my experience, I think that you may be right about, "speed and size could be the only advantages of prime lens." I haven't owned enough gear to do comparisons with all these different lenses that you mention, but I wills say that the couple of cheaper zooms that I've had, slow as they may be seem plenty sharp, as do the couple of primes that I own. I get the feeling that the modern tech allows for very sharp and fairly inexpensive zooms. That being said, I still feel like my Pana/Leica 25mm 1.4 has some kind of special mojo... but I'll admit that this might just be in my head.

Primes are particularly nice a small format system like m43 as they allow one to get a couple of stops more light which allows one to shoot at lower ISOs and deal with less noise. That's a big advantage for me, with the DOF control being less of one as I'm not someone who really pushes it with the shallow DOF... but that being said, when I'm using a fast lens, I'll often taken a few shots that exploit the shallow DOF that I can get with the thing. As convenient and versatile as the mid range zoom that I use (12-60mm, 24-120mm FF equivalent), shooting with a prime is maybe as much as anything else, a different sort of experience and one that I'm getting more into. For a long time, I'd hang out mostly at the wider end of the zoom that I use, but using the 50mm equivalent prime that I have is closer to how I actually see and there's something nice about being forced to use that kind of perspective rather than one that widens or squashes things...

Honestly, this is quite a fascinating question to ponder! Ideally, what you might want to do, is to get multiple primes with a camera for each- it's not a budget friendly idea that's for sure, but still it's an option. Alternatively, someone can finally make an adaptable sensor that can curve (flex) to the necessary extent depending on which focal length is being used!

I was a dedicated prime lens user, but then I was also a LF and MF guy. All in the past.

My lens range covers 14mm up to to 600mm and even longer if you factor in the 1.4 TC. Of that 6 zooms and only two primes. I buy primes for specific effects and capabilities hence a 90mm macro and an 85mm 1:4. Self explanatory why I have those primes I think.



Primes are a touch sharper, less prone to aberrations and are better corrected for barrel and pin cushion distortion. I think the sharpness difference between primes and zooms is the least of the differences. Just in general of course. Exceptions abound.

Despite all that zooms are now the go to for me. Convenience, less lens changing, cheaper when looking at all the focal lengths they cover, more precise framing when in movement constrained spaces, less weight in the bag but admittedly more in the hand.

Never had much interest in zooms. Too big, regardless of quality.

Joe Bagadonuts said:

Never had much interest in zooms. Too big, regardless of quality.

Click to expand...

You get massive primes and tiny zooms. Has to be more to it than size.

HappyMartin said:

Joe Bagadonuts said:

Never had much interest in zooms. Too big, regardless of quality.

Click to expand...

You get massive primes and tiny zooms. Has to be more to it than size.

Click to expand...

I shoot Pentax, I have tiny primes.

Joe Bagadonuts said:

HappyMartin said:

Joe Bagadonuts said:

Never had much interest in zooms. Too big, regardless of quality.

Click to expand...

You get massive primes and tiny zooms. Has to be more to it than size.

Click to expand...

I shoot Pentax, I have tiny primes.

Click to expand...

can remember my 35 mm limited most expensive lens id ever bought ,the olympus kit 12 42 lens was sharper.

Don

Due to the added optical complexity, zooms are likely to vary more copy to copy.

Roger Cicala discussed "copy variation" in an article in the past and mentioned that.

Modern top-of-the-line zooms are very, very good, as close to a "bag of primes" that you can get... if you're satisfied with f/2.8 that is.

raylinds said:

When I got my 61MP Sony I became very IQ conscious when it came to picking lenses for it. I decided to go with primes for the lenses I use most, which is wide angle, but went zoom for telephoto (70-300).

When doing my research, I ran into a lot of articles that said modern zooms have really narrowed the IQ gap, and I find that to be very believable and consistent with my limited experience. You might have to pay more for a really good zoom, but if it can take the place of 3 or even 4 lenses, it probably makes sense.

I do not regret my decision to go with primes for my WA needs as I love my lenses, but thought it might be an interesting discussion in case I decide I need to expand my collection of glass.

Please share your thoughts.

Click to expand...

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knew very little about photography when I decided to buy the awesome Nikon D70; learned quickly that this expensive camera didn't make me a good photographer.
Http://kristerp.wordpress.com