Great example of prime vs. zoom sharpness

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

And it is unlikely that you never will.

Should of course be:

And it is unlikely that you ever will.

 

[Derek Hawkins]

If you used AF with either a D30 or D60 then it may say more about the AF accuracy with a particular camera/lens combo than about the sharpness of a particular lens. Neither camera auto focuses accurately enough to draw a conclusion regarding lenses using AF IMO even though your conclusion may be correct. Having the 28-70L, 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8 means I can draw my own conclusions using MF at a later date. I'm able to MF more accurately and more consistently with a D60 than it can AF.

As some of you have noticed, Dave over at the imaging resource
goofed and posted a resolution chart with taken with a 28-70L
instead of 100mm fixed focal length lens. He now has both posted:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10D/E10DPICS.HTM

Some people claim that the 28-70L is as sharp (or even sharper)
than a good prime. Still others have claimed that all lenses are
equally sharp when stopped down. I don't agree with either of
these statements and I don't think they're supported by the tests:
mine, photodo's, and now Dave's.

Here's a comparison of my 28-70L with my 50mm f/1.8 at F8. Last
time I posted this, I was told by some that I had a bad copy of the
28-70L. IMO, the softness in my 28-70L seems comparable to others
that I've seen.

http://www.pbase.com/parr/2870lvs50mm18

I really enjoy my 28-70L, but I've never seen an example where the
28-70L rivals a good prime.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Michael Martin]

As some of you have noticed, Dave over at the imaging resource
goofed and posted a resolution chart with taken with a 28-70L
instead of 100mm fixed focal length lens. He now has both posted:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10D/E10DPICS.HTM

Some people claim that the 28-70L is as sharp (or even sharper)
than a good prime. Still others have claimed that all lenses are
equally sharp when stopped down. I don't agree with either of
these statements and I don't think they're supported by the tests:
mine, photodo's, and now Dave's.

Here's a comparison of my 28-70L with my 50mm f/1.8 at F8. Last
time I posted this, I was told by some that I had a bad copy of the
28-70L. IMO, the softness in my 28-70L seems comparable to others
that I've seen.

http://www.pbase.com/parr/2870lvs50mm18

I really enjoy my 28-70L, but I've never seen an example where the
28-70L rivals a good prime.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

Actually when you compare the original (not resized) versions of these images there is very little difference. If we were all shooting film we might notice the difference in sharpness, but with digital and the advent of unsharp mask it would be very easy to make a print from each lens and have one be just as sharp as the other.

 

[Ron Parr]

If you used AF with either a D30 or D60 then it may say more about
the AF accuracy with a particular camera/lens combo than about the
sharpness of a particular lens. Neither camera auto focuses
accurately enough to draw a conclusion regarding lenses using AF
IMO even though your conclusion may be correct. Having the 28-70L,
50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8 means I can draw my own conclusions using
MF at a later date. I'm able to MF more accurately and more
consistently with a D60 than it can AF.

If you read my added comments above, you'll you'll see that I'm interested in the AF issue too. In one set of shots I've added, there is a wide range of depths covered, and the 50mm seems sharper at all depths. However, I agree that more testing would be good.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Ron Parr]

Actually when you compare the original (not resized) versions of
these images there is very little difference. If we were all
shooting film we might notice the difference in sharpness, but with
digital and the advent of unsharp mask it would be very easy to
make a print from each lens and have one be just as sharp as the
other.

I've only been looking at the originals and there is a very big difference to me.

When you start with a sharper original, you can enlarge more and/or crop more. The flexibility of zooms needs to be weighted against the fact that you can crop more with primes. This means that getting the framing just right is less important with primes.

These are all factors that one needs to weigh when deciding about shooting with a prime vs. a zoom. There are pros and cons of each. I'm not pushing one over the other as the perfect solution for all cases. I'm just trying to underscore the differences so people can decide for themselves.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Steven-T]

I came from a film background, so primes are my preference. I just pick up a Canon 1D and a 50/1.4 to start.

Twice every yea for a few weks, I go to "exotic" places for my vacation for pciture shooting, e.g Deserts, snow mointains, etc. Other considerations aside, how big is a factor for sensor dust when choosing between primes vs zooms, in relation to more frequent lens change?

Steven

Actually when you compare the original (not resized) versions of
these images there is very little difference. If we were all
shooting film we might notice the difference in sharpness, but with
digital and the advent of unsharp mask it would be very easy to
make a print from each lens and have one be just as sharp as the
other.

I've only been looking at the originals and there is a very big
difference to me.

When you start with a sharper original, you can enlarge more and/or
crop more. The flexibility of zooms needs to be weighted against
the fact that you can crop more with primes. This means that
getting the framing just right is less important with primes.

These are all factors that one needs to weigh when deciding about
shooting with a prime vs. a zoom. There are pros and cons of each.
I'm not pushing one over the other as the perfect solution for all
cases. I'm just trying to underscore the differences so people can
decide for themselves.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[everett yee]

Ron, thanks for the tests and objective remarks. I find them interesting because I own some of the same lenses. I'm interested in knowing if you own and have tested any other primes besides the 50 mm 1.8.

Everett

As some of you have noticed, Dave over at the imaging resource
goofed and posted a resolution chart with taken with a 28-70L
instead of 100mm fixed focal length lens. He now has both posted:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10D/E10DPICS.HTM

Some people claim that the 28-70L is as sharp (or even sharper)
than a good prime. Still others have claimed that all lenses are
equally sharp when stopped down. I don't agree with either of
these statements and I don't think they're supported by the tests:
mine, photodo's, and now Dave's.

Here's a comparison of my 28-70L with my 50mm f/1.8 at F8. Last
time I posted this, I was told by some that I had a bad copy of the
28-70L. IMO, the softness in my 28-70L seems comparable to others
that I've seen.

http://www.pbase.com/parr/2870lvs50mm18

I really enjoy my 28-70L, but I've never seen an example where the
28-70L rivals a good prime.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Ron Parr]

Ron, thanks for the tests and objective remarks. I find them
interesting because I own some of the same lenses. I'm interested
in knowing if you own and have tested any other primes besides the
50 mm 1.8.

I have a Sigma 105mm macro. I haven't done any direct comparisons because I don't have a good zoom in this range.

I have tried using both my 28-70L and 105mm for taking candid shots of my niece. The results are what one might expect: The 28-70L is more versatile and lets me take a wider range of shots. The 105mm produces sharper results. I like both for different reasons.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Ron Parr]

I came from a film background, so primes are my preference. I just
pick up a Canon 1D and a 50/1.4 to start.
Twice every yea for a few weks, I go to "exotic" places for my
vacation for pciture shooting, e.g Deserts, snow mointains, etc.
Other considerations aside, how big is a factor for sensor dust
when choosing between primes vs zooms, in relation to more frequent
lens change?

I don't think I use my gear frequently enough or in harsh enough conditions to really offer any great advice on this. Perhaps others with more experience would care to comment?

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Michael Martin]

Actually when you compare the original (not resized) versions of
these images there is very little difference. If we were all
shooting film we might notice the difference in sharpness, but with
digital and the advent of unsharp mask it would be very easy to
make a print from each lens and have one be just as sharp as the
other.

I've only been looking at the originals and there is a very big
difference to me.

When you start with a sharper original, you can enlarge more and/or
crop more. The flexibility of zooms needs to be weighted against
the fact that you can crop more with primes. This means that
getting the framing just right is less important with primes.

These are all factors that one needs to weigh when deciding about
shooting with a prime vs. a zoom. There are pros and cons of each.
I'm not pushing one over the other as the perfect solution for all
cases. I'm just trying to underscore the differences so people can
decide for themselves.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

--

Years ago when I turned pro I went from Primes to Zooms. When shooting a wedding these days you have to be ready for everything, unless I'm shooting formals there's no time to be switching lenses.

And Framing is very important. Very seldom do I ever crop my photos, even when I shot film.

Most labs rake you over the coals when your negatives don't fit there mask. You have to get it right on the first shot.

 

[Ron Parr]

And Framing is very important. Very seldom do I ever crop my
photos, even when I shot film.
Most labs rake you over the coals when your negatives don't fit
there mask. You have to get it right on the first shot.

How do you think things will change as printing from digital becomes more commonplace?

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Steve_Horn]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10D/E10DPICS.HTM
Here's a comparison of my 28-70L with my 50mm f/1.8 at F8. Last
time I posted this, I was told by some that I had a bad copy of the
28-70L. IMO, the softness in my 28-70L seems comparable to others
that I've seen.

I really enjoy my 28-70L, but I've never seen an example where the
28-70L rivals a good prime.

I hope to get a 10D this year, I have found this thread very interesting.

Rather than blow the whole lens budget on a 24-70L, I am beginning to think that I might be better with a consumer zoom (maybe 24-85 or 28-135 IS) plus some primes.

Anybody got any good or bad words to say about the 35 F2 and the 24 F2.8 (search is still down).

--

Steve Horn

 

[Guillermo Shashte]

Here's a comparison of my 28-70L with my 50mm f/1.8 at F8. Last
time I posted this, I was told by some that I had a bad copy of the
28-70L. IMO, the softness in my 28-70L seems comparable to others
that I've seen.

I am convinced that mine is a bad copy as the 28-135 performs better, very close to the 50/1.8 at f4.5.

All tests at 50mm, 1/125s and f4.5 tripod mounted
50/1.8



28-135IS



28-70/2.8



--
G. Shashte

 

[Forrest41926]

Not to be too much of a devil's advocate, but I actually prefer the
slightly brighter and redder bricks of the 28-70 L shot.

The exposure is slightly different. I noticed that too.

The L has better contrast and color rendition. The prime is sharper, but it's colors are a bit muted, while the L's are bright and vibrant. I've noticed the same thing with my 50/1.4 compared to my 16-35L; the 50 is dramatically sharper, but the 16 makes more pleasing colors. If I don't need cut-throat sharpness or big prints, I'll use the 16 instead of the 50 for it's colors.

 

[Forrest41926]

Twice every yea for a few weks, I go to "exotic" places for my
vacation for pciture shooting, e.g Deserts, snow mointains, etc.
Other considerations aside, how big is a factor for sensor dust
when choosing between primes vs zooms, in relation to more frequent
lens change?

I don't think I use my gear frequently enough or in harsh enough
conditions to really offer any great advice on this. Perhaps
others with more experience would care to comment?

I don't really think the conditions I use my gear in are that harsh, but other people seem to, so I'll offer my advice. I shoot on windy beaches, in the snow, rain forests, mountains, busy city, and sometimes in the shower ( girlfriend ).

I have three lenses ( 16-35L, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 Macro ), and tend to choose one when I leave. I think about what kind of photos I want, and mount whichever lens is most appropriate. I'll bring one or both of the others if I think I might need them, but a lot of the time, I'm too busy going after a particular kind of photo that I need my chosen lens for, to want to swich them and shoot something else.

But if I need to change lenses ( if I want to shoot landscapes and my girlfriend wants to shoot macros ), I just try not to be sloppy about it. If I'm at the beach ( sand, ocean spray ), on a dirty street, or have some other reason to worry, I won't change lenses. Otherwise I'll do it quickly, and try to point the camera body down ( so dust would have to go up into the camera ). I'm worried about the stuff inside the camera, but I'm also worried about the rear element of my lenses...

That said, I've had my D60 for most of a year, and haven't cleaned the CMOS once. I don't see dust in my photos. I'm sure it's there, but I don't see it. I also don't feel like I'm compromising my flexibility 99 times out of 100. ( Well ... flexibility to take photos I'm not really interested in, maybe. )













My tripod was set up in the middle of a river for a few of these, and you can see melting snow on the lens in one of them. When it's snowing, I'll go change lenses in the car...

Anyway, that's the very long way of saying I wouldn't worry about sensor dust when choosing prime or zoom lenses...

 

[Steve Deutsch]

I am surprised how easy it is to tell...

 

[Forrest41926]

I use primes mostly for the brighter apertures they offer, but also because they're smaller and lighter than zooms. Pretty much all the zooms I've ever had, I've used at one extreme or the other, so for me at least, they aren't any more versatile than a prime. Less, actually, because the zooms are darker and more limited in the situations they can be used. I guess I just don't take advantage of what zooms have to offer.

The sharpness is a great bonus!

 

[Derek Hawkins]

to consistently AF accurately provided it was properly adjusted at the factory. I'm able to consistenly get tack sharp AF images of small subjects even at f/1.4 but lets leave that for another time and thread.

If you used AF with either a D30 or D60 then it may say more about
the AF accuracy with a particular camera/lens combo than about the
sharpness of a particular lens. Neither camera auto focuses
accurately enough to draw a conclusion regarding lenses using AF
IMO even though your conclusion may be correct. Having the 28-70L,
50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8 means I can draw my own conclusions using
MF at a later date. I'm able to MF more accurately and more
consistently with a D60 than it can AF.

If you read my added comments above, you'll you'll see that I'm
interested in the AF issue too. In one set of shots I've added,
there is a wide range of depths covered, and the 50mm seems sharper
at all depths. However, I agree that more testing would be good.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Jim Hardy]

at times it took me up to 10 minutes
to decide which was better but i was able to pick
out the prime in every scene.

So if people only look at my prints for, say, an average of 9 minutes or less, I can safely go with the zoom?

;-)

Jim

 

[Paul Greenleaf]

I did test my 28-70 and 50 1.8 at 2.8. The 28-70 was just a littlle sharper.

As some of you have noticed, Dave over at the imaging resource
goofed and posted a resolution chart with taken with a 28-70L
instead of 100mm fixed focal length lens. He now has both posted:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10D/E10DPICS.HTM

Some people claim that the 28-70L is as sharp (or even sharper)
than a good prime. Still others have claimed that all lenses are
equally sharp when stopped down. I don't agree with either of
these statements and I don't think they're supported by the tests:
mine, photodo's, and now Dave's.

Here's a comparison of my 28-70L with my 50mm f/1.8 at F8. Last
time I posted this, I was told by some that I had a bad copy of the
28-70L. IMO, the softness in my 28-70L seems comparable to others
that I've seen.

http://www.pbase.com/parr/2870lvs50mm18

I really enjoy my 28-70L, but I've never seen an example where the
28-70L rivals a good prime.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/