Primes not worth it?

i don't believe for a minute that you can take one scenario, and use it to declare a winner either way.

you start out with zooms until you find the scenario that they don't work well for, then make the switch to prime glass.

Hi BHP!

The delivered wisdom is that a prime is a magnitude better than a
good zoom under the same conditions.

That's a bit oversimplified, I'd say, as it depends on the lenses at hand - and the conditions. Oh. And what you look at for determining "better".

Here's a very humble used FA 24-90 @f/8 set at 73mm contrasted with a
top quality prime 77mm also @ f/8.

f/8 equalises much of the advantage of a prime.

However, what strikes me the most is the difference in contrast and/or saturation. I'm at a loss at what caused this difference.
Was the white balance the same? Did the lighting change?

95% as sharp at one-tenth the price?

A used "Excellent" used copy of the 24-90 at a usually reputable store sells for 400 USD. Best legitimate price for a new 77 that I know of was 560 USD - now more like 670.

Looks like to me. And for casual
photography, the cost-benefit for a prime, even a used one, doesn't
seem to be there.

If you are only shooting at f/8 and narrower, you remove much of the appeal of a prime, IMO.
Also, not only resolution is important.

Cheers
Jens

Primes serve only 2 real functions, speed and portabillity. If you don't need those, and can afford the pro zooms, primes make little sense to own.
--

'I cried because I had no E-3. Then I met a man with no E-510'

Olympus E-410, E-330, Nikon D100 (IR) & Pentax K20D.
40 lenses of various types from most brands.

At f/8, even a coke bottle looks pretty good. Try shooting your cheap lens at f/2.8 and let us know how that works out!

The 77mm are too over exposed to see the quality..

But with the 77mm, I did buy it for the F1.8, bokeh, colors + mechanism.

But with a wide angel lens, or a lens for studio work, I would go with a zoom when I are going to shoot at it at f8-16 anyway.. Thats why I dont care if the 21mm ltd only has F3.5.

If the 16-45mm just was less kit feel too it, I would buy it directly and use it as a landscape and studio lens..

Thanks for the test,
Jonas

A. You cannot tell anything from onscreen jpegs in this size.

B. Your question is too simple. Some zooms are better than some primes at sharpness. My FA* 80-200 F2.8 is sharper at distance shooting at 200 mm. than my FA* 200 F4 Macro. But the macro is much better at its intended purpose, close-in shooting.

C. What matters to you? I have the FA 77 for the F1.8 speed. Otherwise I have several zooms at or near that focal length that are quite good. If not for its speed the FA 77 wouldn't have interested me.

D. Zooms have gotten better in recent years faster than improvements in prime lenses. But there are still many things that primes will do somewhat better. It depends on how exacting one is, and that varies with individuals. There are some people who just don't notice image quality at all.

E. Are both of those lenses autofocusing accurately?

F. The FA 24-90 is not a "humble" lens by any means, although it was not too expensive. It is actually very good.

Joe

As others have noted, this particular is stopped down enough to hide the differences that would be apparent at larger apertures, and of course, the zoom is completely incapable of opening up as wide as the prime. But I'd agree - in the situations where stopping way down is an acceptable option, a zoom can often do just about as well.

As a newcomer, if you buy into
that dogma you can face some daunting prices.

On the contrary, one reason I prefer primes over zooms in man cases is because, depending on which ones you are looking at, the primes can be a considerably cheaper (as well as lighter) way of getting the same IQ.

For instance, if I want to shoot telephoto at f/2.8, the DA*50-135/2.8 is by all accounts a great lens, albeit pretty big and heavy. But for a fraction of the price - and size/weight - I can shoot with a 50, a 100, and/or a 135. In fact, the three together don't cost a third of the zoom, and don't weight any more, either - but if I don't mind giving up the flexibility of the zoom (and usually, I don't), I don't* need to have all three lenses with me.

Yeah, but not if you shoot it at f8;)

I want the 50-135! but think it would be little too heavy..

Jonas

BHPhotog wrote:

Is the 77mm "better" in absolute terms? Absolutely. But is the zoom
95% as sharp at one-tenth the price? Looks like to me. And for casual
photography, the cost-benefit for a prime, even a used one, doesn't
seem to be there.

Zooms usually reach their peeks around f8-f11 so it's not surprising. Try to compare the FA77 at f4 or f5.6 and you'll probably see a bigger difference. Now, sharpness is not everything. Just compare a lightweigth prime like the DA40/2.8 with the 16-50/2.8. Or the FA77 with the relatively compact (for a zoom) 50-135/2.8. And the FA77 is sharp at f/1.8.

You made two mistakes with this comparison... the first being your having shot both lenses at f8. Any modern lens should appear halfway decent at this Ap - totally negating that the 77 is worlds faster, smaller, better built, has better rendering, can manipulate DOF, can shoot in low light... etc. etc. etc. The second being that you mistake sharpness as the mark of a good lens - simply put, most lenses are 'sharp'... that is hardly the lone criteria for overall quality.

Now in a world where you walk around shooting snapshots at f8 with your consumer zoom in good light.... sure, you probably should have stuck to a compact. In the real world I'll take the 77.

-Mouse

BHPhotog wrote:

The delivered wisdom is that a prime is a magnitude better than a
good zoom under the same conditions. As a newcomer, if you buy into
that dogma you can face some daunting prices. However, how
much"better" is a prime?

Here's a very humble used FA 24-90 @f/8 set at 73mm contrasted with a
top quality prime 77mm also @ f/8. Both shot in RAW, no
post-processing, same conditions, tripod mount, stabilization off and
2 second delay to minimize blur.

24-90:

And the 77:

Is the 77mm "better" in absolute terms? Absolutely. But is the zoom
95% as sharp at one-tenth the price? Looks like to me. And for casual
photography, the cost-benefit for a prime, even a used one, doesn't
seem to be there.

I guess excellence is the enemy of the good in this case.

Sorry, but the hypothesis, the resulting tests, and conclusions...oh, why bother....
--

'Photography is not like painting,' Cartier-Bresson told the Washington Post in 1957. 'There is a creative fraction of a second when you are taking a picture. Your eye must see a composition or an expression that life itself offers you, and you must know with intuition when to click the camera. That is the moment the photographer is creative,'

There are a some "flaws" in this test.

1. The processing is different. I can tell there was a considerable amount of sharpening added as well as a difference in contrast between the 2. Even then, the 77 does show a bit better micro contrast and detail in the dark areas.

2. F8 is stopped down a bit and takes out a lot of the issues one may encounter when shooting a zoom. I shoot with a Sigma 17-70 in the daylight @ F8 and it can go up against just about anything. At F4, the zooms may not do quite as good, especially in the finer points. Primes start to shine then.

There are a number of qualities that make a lens good, great or just plain suck. I do not rank my lenses as 1,2,3... but do have a tier one and tier 2 for the best group and second best. The Sigma 17-70 stopped down can be nearly as good as anything but it is in my second tier along with my sharpest lens, the Rokunar 90 macro. The F50/1,7, A28/2.8 and K45-125/4 are in my tier one and produce sharp photos at all usable apertures and pretty much nail the finer points.

One image does not a fair comparison make.

Here is an example where the FA24-90 blows the 77 limited away;
At 24mm:

This proof is about as valid as yours, but the real proof would come via a comparison of the virtues of each lens over a range of conditions, rather than comparing only one image.

If the scope of what/how you shoot is covered by your simple comparison, I'd say you don't have a need for a 77 Limited. The FA24-90 is a very nice lens and handles shots like this with ease.

GMT minus 7

One lens leads to another.
http://www.gorgephotos.com/