Are primes (still) better than zooms?

[paulski66]

Sometimes primes are better, sometimes zooms are better. Depends on the job at hand.

Sometimes you need a screwdriver, sometimes you need a hammer...

 

[Abe R Ration]

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?

Primes are usually smaller and brighter. Usually also less distortions, less chromatic aberrations, less flare and so on.

Primes tend to be better optically, but this is not something written in stone. Modern computer aided design and coatings allow zooms to perform really well, and a modern zoom may well be in many ways superior opcaily to an older prime, at least at it's best focal lengths.

But not all lenses are the same - Leica 50/2 APO Summicron is unbeatable prime, while Industar-69 is as lousy a lens can be inspite of being a prime.

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)?

If we exclude the very fastest lenses, then a more expensive primes almost always perform better than their less expensive siblings. However the very fast lenses might not do so as it's difficult and expensive to make a very fast lens very good.

 

[CreeDo]

From what I understand, they are and always will be, because the zoom needs to make certain sacrifices in order to get the zoom ability. More glass elements, less light, maybe a longer-than-absolutely-necessary tube where light can be lost.

For sharpness, zooms have a sweet spot. I think to get a zoom that is at its maximum sharpness throughout the entire zoom range, they would have to use a ton of extra glass and make it a lot heavier. So they settle for making a lens with a sweet spot, and when you're not zoomed to that exact sweet spot, you're settling for 95% of whatever sharpness the lens is capable of.

The prime is always dishing out 100% of what it's capable of, and doesn't lose that extra bit of light, so it should always be a little better.

But that's all other things being equal. A $2000 canon 100-400 zoom, while it loses to their 400mm prime, probably beats the hell out the $150 Rokinon 500mm.