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

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...

You are painting with a broad brush IMHO, although I completely agree; a zoom can take the place of several primes and I usually have one on my camera. But, some things to consider:

1. Every zoom has different capabilities at different focal lengths. Most commonly a zoom is better at the wide end, but with 70-200s some brands are better at the long end.

2. The difference in resolution between a zoom and a prime (at the same aperture) is usually at the edges; in the center half of the image you rarely see much difference.

3. Zooms tend to have a more field curvature than primes and the curve changes at different focal lengths.

So, does it matter? In my opinion usually not but there are certain circumstances where it does. More pertinent for a forum discussion, I can take any zoom and, depending on what and how I shoot show that there is no difference or a significant difference between it and a prime. This makes for spirited discussion where people call each other names and stuff.

Once I wised up to the racket being run by the camera makers, I stopped buying expensive primes. They come with pathetic one-year warranties and are easy to break.

One can get a robust mult-year Apple Care plan on i-devices, but not on a lens costing several thousand $$$.

Mindful of this, it is best to treat lenses the way we do inkjet printer cartridges--as a consumable. This is why you see some companies luring buyers in with cheap bodies. It's the lenses (with their laughable warranty) where they mint the money.

And primes are the worst offender. Best to be happy with your zooms and avoid measurebating sites (there are so many--it's a minefield!!!) whose stock in trade is making mountains of insignificant differences.

Travis Nicky Bombastus said:

Once I wised up to the racket being run by the camera makers, I stopped buying expensive primes. They come with pathetic one-year warranties and are easy to break.

One can get a robust mult-year Apple Care plan on i-devices, but not on a lens costing several thousand $$$.

Mindful of this, it is best to treat lenses the way we do inkjet printer cartridges--as a consumable. This is why you see some companies luring buyers in with cheap bodies. It's the lenses (with their laughable warranty) where they mint the money.

And primes are the worst offender. Best to be happy with your zooms and avoid measurebating sites (there are so many--it's a minefield!!!) whose stock in trade is making mountains of insignificant differences.

Click to expand...

I must be really lucky than because I do a lot of traveling and hiking with my lenses (mostly prime) and have never broken a lens in almost 50 years of shooting. I will admit that the build quality on lenses from the 70s (I still have quite a few) is MUCH better than current lenses (at least as far as durability- all metal vs. some plastic).

RCicala said:

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...

You are painting with a broad brush IMHO, although I completely agree; a zoom can take the place of several primes and I usually have one on my camera. But, some things to consider:

1. Every zoom has different capabilities at different focal lengths. Most commonly a zoom is better at the wide end, but with 70-200s some brands are better at the long end.

2. The difference in resolution between a zoom and a prime (at the same aperture) is usually at the edges; in the center half of the image you rarely see much difference.

3. Zooms tend to have a more field curvature than primes and the curve changes at different focal lengths.

So, does it matter? In my opinion usually not but there are certain circumstances where it does. More pertinent for a forum discussion, I can take any zoom and, depending on what and how I shoot show that there is no difference or a significant difference between it and a prime. This makes for spirited discussion where people call each other names and stuff.

Click to expand...

I wasn't intending to put forth an opinion as I have had a pro prime bias. I was just saying I have been reading that the IQ difference has narrowed over the years and I found the arguments believable and I was looking for the opinions of the members here who have probably had more experience with modern zooms than I do.

Your answer is helpful and I hope I don't start an argument. :-D

--
Cheers,
Ray

What ever lens works best for you is the best lens to own whether it be prime or zoom.

For my 61mp Sony I love my 24-105 F/4 and 12-24 F/4 "G" series lenses. I use an old A-Mount Minolta zoom for telephoto since I don't shoot a lot of telephoto and the A7RIV does out resolve the Minolta telephoto BUT is still get some pretty incredible pictures with it!

I have a 7Artisans 10mm rectangular fish eye that I picked up open box for $100. I love playing with this lens and get some really cool pictures although its IQ isn't perfect it is certainly plenty good enough for my purposes. My Meike 6mm round fisheye is the same way.

For Macro and Portraiture my Minolta 100mm F/2.8 macro A-Mount does an excellent job for both of these... could it be a bit sharper at the pixel level?.. yeah, if I wanted to analyze every pore on my subjects face.

Pixel peeping and worrying about every tiny little abbreviation gets silly and unproductive. I prefer to go out and take photos rather than worrying about the slightest little faults at the pixel level. The camera companies selling all these extreme IQ, extreme priced lenses (and their reviewer minions) are the ones driving the Pixel peepers IMHO