Primes over zooms

[Hythloday]

In a German magazine I read a lens test. 35 lenses on the Nikon D70. What struck me is that the primes performed worse than the zooms. The lenses tested were Nikons and Sigmas. The German magazine concluded that the primes performed "ünterduchschnittlich" (=below average).

It is also my experience that zooms produce sharper pictures than primes. I have had several Pentax primes: 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm, 135mm and 200mm. The build of the 28mm lens now is about the same as the 28mm lens I bought in 1980: the same number of elements, weight, length, etc. Manufacturers only develop new zoomlenses, no new prime lenses.

Although primes are less sharp than zooms, they give lens distortions.

Does anyone prefer using prime lenses over zoom lenses?

from what I understand so far most prime lenses are equally or as
sharp
as most of the zoom "L" lenses out there.

So do some people prefer to use prime lenses over zooms?

I would assume this would be just personal preference on this one...

 

[paul180756]

Sorry, but you're wrong about this. For perspective, changing your
focal length is exactly the same as cropping. Don't worry, you're
in good company -- this is a very common misconception.

Ok. Maybe I think wrong.

That's mean that - when I have 1Ds and 200/2.8, and I would like to buy 300mm f/2.8 lens, it cheaper for me will be buy 10D because with 200/2.8 I get pictures like from 1Ds and 300/2.8 nearly.
In this example size matrix - never mind,

Am I think well?

Paul

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

Sorry, but you're wrong about this. For perspective, changing your
focal length is exactly the same as cropping. Don't worry, you're
in good company -- this is a very common misconception.

Ok. Maybe I think wrong.
That's mean that - when I have 1Ds and 200/2.8, and I would like to
buy 300mm f/2.8 lens, it cheaper for me will be buy 10D because
with 200/2.8 I get pictures like from 1Ds and 300/2.8 nearly.
In this example size matrix - never mind,

Am I think well?

More or less. Of course, the 1Ds has higher resolution, which narrows the gap significantly -- but the 10D will put more pixels on the subject at any given focal length, so it does effectively increase your reach. If both cameras had the same pixel count, the difference would be even greater.

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

 

[paul180756]

Ok. Maybe I think wrong.
That's mean that - when I have 1Ds and 200/2.8, and I would like to
buy 300mm f/2.8 lens, it cheaper for me will be buy 10D because
with 200/2.8 I get pictures like from 1Ds and 300/2.8 nearly.
In this example size matrix - never mind,

Am I think well?

More or less. Of course, the 1Ds has higher resolution, which
narrows the gap significantly -- but the 10D will put more pixels
on the subject at any given focal length, so it does effectively
increase your reach. If both cameras had the same pixel count, the
difference would be even greater.

I can't belive it is true.
When I cut border my print taken 200mm lens to size-frame like 300mm
It will be photo like taken 300mm lens.

10D only cut border frame like a pair of scissors on print. It doesn't change look on 1,6x. Crop optic 1,6x it is only simple way of thinking.

Paul

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

paul wrote:
[snip]

I can't belive it is true.
When I cut border my print taken 200mm lens to size-frame like 300mm
It will be photo like taken 300mm lens.

Yep, indeed it will. Except for depth of field, of course.

10D only cut border frame like a pair of scissors on print. It
doesn't change look on 1,6x. Crop optic 1,6x it is only simple way
of thinking.

Believe it or not, that's the way it works.

If you don't believe me, try this:

(1) Set your camera on a tripod.

(2) Point it at a subject where the depth is easy to see.

(3) Shoot two frames, one with a 50 mm lens and one with a 100 mm lens.

(4) In Photoshop, crop the 50 mm one so that the field of view is the same as the 100 mm one.

(5) Scale both to the same size.

I guarantee that the only difference will be in depth of field (the 50 mm one will have twice as much as the 100 mm one, if you shot them at the same aperture). Why can I guarantee it? Because I've actually done this experiment.

Here's an article with some sample photos that were done exactly like this: [ http://jamesmskipper.tripod.com/jamesmskipper/perspective.html ]

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

 

[DaveClarkOne]

Balderdash. No one reading tests/reviews/field-testing Canon L primes and zooms will argue zooms are sharper. Primes are of course sharper. Me thinks a German translation is to blame...

Although primes are less sharp than zooms, they give lens distortions.

--
A picture is worth 1,000 reviews.

 

[Hythloday]

They have their own testing method. There are no field tests. They take pictures of 9 stars and then see how sharp they are. It was about Nikon and Sigma primes. There is not many new prime lenses introduced. The manufacturers spend all their time on developing new zoom lenses.

Although primes are less sharp than zooms, they give lens distortions.

--
A picture is worth 1,000 reviews.

 

[wwp]

in his digital photo handbook says most pros set their zooms at one focal length and make small adjustments around it for a particular shoot. he recommends testing this by picking one focal length and spending a day with it. though the zooms 'may' not rival primes in many respects they 'can' present a bag of primes in one lens when used this way. it does require discipline, eliminating the plethora of choices petteri mentioned.
wayne
http://www.pbase.com/wwp

Does anyone prefer using prime lenses over zoom lenses?

from what I understand so far most prime lenses are equally or as
sharp
as most of the zoom "L" lenses out there.

So do some people prefer to use prime lenses over zooms?

I would assume this would be just personal preference on this one...

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

in his digital photo handbook says most pros set their zooms at one
focal length and make small adjustments around it for a particular
shoot. he recommends testing this by picking one focal length and
spending a day with it. though the zooms 'may' not rival primes in
many respects they 'can' present a bag of primes in one lens when
used this way. it does require discipline, eliminating the plethora
of choices petteri mentioned.

That's true. In fact, I've learned to use my 12-24 like a set of three primes (12, 17, 24). However, I'd still prefer not to have to deal with the flare and the bulk, and would love a couple of stops more brightness.

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

 

[Donald Cooper]

Sometimes you just can't believe everything you read!

Seriously, zooms are very good, no doubt about it, but I don't think anyone who used both would say they're better. Primes can be just a bit faster.

Which isn't to say that one test might not find them to be a tiny bit better in some regard. Reminds me of all the different medical trials that report somewhat conflicting findings .....

DSC

Although primes are less sharp than zooms, they give lens distortions.

--
A picture is worth 1,000 reviews.

 

[JoeSchmoe]

35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.8. I've returned the 24-70/2.8, as it was too heavy and too slow (and backfocused) compared to the primes. I may get a telephoto zoom such as the 70-200/2.8 IS, as zooming with my feet is less practical for longer distances. But for the kind of candid and portrait photography that I do, often in low light situations without flash, these fast primes are perfect.

Does anyone prefer using prime lenses over zoom lenses?

from what I understand so far most prime lenses are equally or as
sharp
as most of the zoom "L" lenses out there.

So do some people prefer to use prime lenses over zooms?

I would assume this would be just personal preference on this one...

--
http://www.pbase.com/joeschmoe

 

[Henrik Andersson]

In a German magazine I read a lens test. 35 lenses on the Nikon
D70. What struck me is that the primes performed worse than the
zooms. The lenses tested were Nikons and Sigmas. The German
magazine concluded that the primes performed "ünterduchschnittlich"
(=below average).

Wide angle and normal angle primes usually performs bad wide open, while zoom are much slower wide open and perform better. Using the same aparture the prime is better of course. Unless they had focus problem with the body ?

--
Henrik

 

[Wintermist]

For the most part I don't notice much of a differance but I do love my 24-70L it's very sharp for a zoom, and by far my shapest lens I own is a 105mm Sigma marco, I don't know if I just got a very good copy, but it's amazingly sharp as a macro and as a telephoto it even beats my 135L but not by much

Does anyone prefer using prime lenses over zoom lenses?

from what I understand so far most prime lenses are equally or as
sharp
as most of the zoom "L" lenses out there.

So do some people prefer to use prime lenses over zooms?

I would assume this would be just personal preference on this one...

--
No rest for the wicked!
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/wintermist

 

[Ulysses]

Ehhh??... Oh... hahahahahahahahah!!!

Too-sheigh!!!

OK, you use primes. But do you put stickers on them?

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)

--
Ulysses
http://www.ulyssesphotography.com

 

[paul180756]

Petteri

If you don't believe me, try this:

(1) Set your camera on a tripod.

Petteri I know that perspective is the same when the camera doesn't change place. In PS you can have photo like 100mm from 50mm.

But when you use 10D and you have 70mm and you take a portret, you have to change distanse from subject because you have crop frame like 112mm. When I have full frame and 100mm lens my distance is nearly the same, and we see full a head on a viewfinder.

But your foto is taken 70mm and my 100mm. And I will be have more pleasant background than you.

Thanks for discussion and link.

Paul

 

[Cryptnotic]

When I use a zoom lens, I tend to use one extreme or the other. For example, with the 16-35, 90% of the time I will shoot with it at 16mm or at 35mm, hardly ever in between. So I could have two primes. Two primes would be faster aperture and probably cheaper. Of course, having a zoom means I don't have to switch lenses. It's always a compromise, of course. It will really depend on what and how you are shooting. Ultimately, you're right, it's personal preference and choosing where you want to compromise.

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

If you don't believe me, try this:

(1) Set your camera on a tripod.

Petteri I know that perspective is the same when the camera doesn't
change place. In PS you can have photo like 100mm from 50mm.

But when you use 10D and you have 70mm and you take a portret, you
have to change distanse from subject because you have crop frame
like 112mm. When I have full frame and 100mm lens my distance is
nearly the same, and we see full a head on a viewfinder.
But your foto is taken 70mm and my 100mm. And I will be have more
pleasant background than you.

I'm still not quite sure I follow you. How will your background be more pleasant than mine?

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

 

[paul180756]

I'm still not quite sure I follow you. How will your background be
more pleasant than mine?

Because focal length 100mm give more nice bokeh (on a portret) than focal length 70mm when you take with the same distance. When you take photos where is only one flat like wall - it is never mind -
we have Photshop and can use crop down.

PAul

 

[John Christian]

A personal preference that is often based on convenience. Some people like to trade of that extra quality for convenience and buy a zoom with a long range. The L kind of glass can produce some amazing shots and very usable for all kinds of work. But if you are picky about quality and want sharpness wide open you'd want primes. So I like to say as Winnie the Pooh: why not get both?

When you shoot e.g. in your studio, there are many cases you dont need to shoot with a zoom because you can move yourself or pick a lens to frame correctly. The shallow dof you can produce with good primes is also a big plus, because when you are shooting in "controlled settings" you often want to have maximum sharpness, and as BigBad said here, a zoom needs to be stopped down one stop to get there.

I am currently only using one prime (in addition to my zooms), and that is the 100mm f2.8 macro which is the sharpest lens I have used. But when I can afford it I think I'll look for some of the good primes like the 50mm f1.4, 135mm f2L and 85mm f1.8 which are all very good primes. For trekking I will most probably only bring the 50mm and 100mm macro in addition to my zooms, but planning a shot e.g. in a studio or other place I would bring the other primes.

But when you are on the move and take "snapshots" or look for subjects, its hard to beat the zoom.

On another side, a prime will force you to take a certain type of picture. A friend of mine often sets out on trips with only a 50mm on is camera and forces his mind to only look for 50mm frames. I like to vary what kind of pictures I take everywhere so I need to quickly be able to frame a shot, and often find myself swapping often between a 17-40, 70-200 and a 100 macro. These allow me to take a whole range of picture types. The 70-200 is brilliant for isolating things at f2.8 and still retains enough sharpness to satisfy my requirements. Sometimes there is a small detail I want to shoot, and then the 100mm macro is used, either to get a sharp normal 100mm macro for isolating or get really close for those tiny details. The 17-40 is an alround wide lens that is very versatile and I often find that the close focusing distance on this lens enables some amazing closeups as well as the landscape shots.

--

John Christian
http://jclphoto.blogspot.com
http://photo.lonningdal.net

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

I'm still not quite sure I follow you. How will your background be
more pleasant than mine?

Because focal length 100mm give more nice bokeh (on a portret) than
focal length 70mm when you take with the same distance. When you
take photos where is only one flat like wall - it is never mind -
we have Photshop and can use crop down.

OK, so you are talking about depth of field.





(EOS-10D with 50/1.4.)

I don't find this an issue at the focal lengths we're talking about (short tele). You can often use a brighter lens for the same field of view, which offsets or even reverses this issue -- a 50/1.4 instead of an 85/1.8, an 85/1.8 instead of a 135/2.8, and so on. Below 50 mm or so, it does become an issue. I would occasionally like "more blur" if I'm using my 35/2.0 to shoot people, for example.



But this is a pretty minor nuance -- we're talking about one characteristic for one type of photography, and one for which there are workarounds (use a longer FL and back up, for example):



In other words, there certainly are good reasons to prefer larger formats (hell, I'll buy a full-frame or 1.3x DSLR as soon as Canon comes up with one that's somewhat smaller than an anvil and doesn't cost so much I'd have to sell a kidney to buy it) -- but I don't think this is a very good one.

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]