Primes always have better IQ than Zooms.... Not

[springbock]

Or.... "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." or from some people on this forum.
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde

 

[jrtrent]

Prime lenses ARE generally sharper across the whole image than zooms,
generally they are also faster, have less vignetting, less
distortion, better contrast, less chromatic aberrations, able to do
macro in a way zooms can only dream about, and are lighter, smasller
and cheaper. True, you are limited to the one focal length but that
is their only "weakness".

I don't disagree with your statement in general, but the only focal length I really care about is a particular format's 50mm equivalent. After reading lens tests from several sources, I can't find a 30 or 35mm normal prime from any manufacturer that, at least on paper, can match the kit zoom that came with my GX-1S. All the primes have higher geometric distortion and higher chromatic aberrations than the kit zoom at 35mm and F/8 (my most-used aperture). A few were better in vignetting, but the kit zoom is less than 1EV down at the corners even wide open (and only 0.23EV down at F/8). The kit zoom even has higher resolution, especially in the corners, than several of the primes. I still want a normal prime that is smaller and faster than my kit zoom, but not at the cost of increased distortion, higher chromatic aberrations, and less even corner to corner resolution.

 

[K1000Photographer]

I have the *ist DS with DA18-55, which is the very same camera and lens you have. The lens is one of the best kit lenses but is trash compared to almost every lens I have. It is fairly sharp but the bokeh is rougher than broken glass and the way it captures contrast makes photos look flat and odd.

 

[jrtrent]

It is fairly sharp but the
bokeh is rougher than broken glass and the way it captures contrast
makes photos look flat and odd.

Thanks; that's something you don't read in a lens review.

 

[Scott Eaton]

PP caters to amatuers with little knowledge of color/optical science, and uses testing models that in previous years has pronounced (among other things) that consumer print films are superior to professional ones because they have "more contrast and more garrish saturation".

I've had numerous discussions in the past with their editorial staff, and actually a few of them published in that mag. If you honestly take these guys as a bunch of rocket scientists wearing lab coats and using high tech instruments to do these tests you are sadly mistaken. I wouldn't classify them as total idiots, but the fact is they are trying to sell magazines, and one way to do that is publish articles that reinforce the self esteem of amatuers without the tools to establish the limits of their own tools. If Pop Photo evaluated loudspeakers they'd conclude the brands that play the loudest without catching fire are the best. Reading their mag, along with some of the dribble by Ken Rockwell and I can feel the I.Q. points get sucked out of my skull.

For years I was one of the biggest anti-zoom bigots there was, but now 99% of my shooting is made with zooms. The main reason being that sufficient advances have been made with optical technology to level the playing field and little has been done to improve prime lenses because of their decreasing demand. My 17-50 Tamron 2.8 at the long end for instance can keep up with any 50mm made by anybody at only a stop or two down. There's also a lot of denial by brand fetish gear heads that many if not most classic wide angle primes are very over rated in the first place, and it wasn't until they were tested with high MP dSLRs that photogs realized their 24mm brand name prime actually sucked.

However, the simple fact that kit zooms (most notably Canon) have obvious and blatant issues compared to more expensive zooms is fact enough that zooms have sufficient variability that at most they might be able to match a prime, but buyer beware. A fixed 85mm or 50mm prime made by anybody is guaranteed to perform well at all aperatures, but the same is not true of any zoom in a similiar focal range.

Last, before ripping on people who disagree with you perhaps you need to do some more shooting and less arguing. I'm not seeing a whole lot of work linked to your name, which is a sommon syndrome of somebody who takes Pop Photo too seriously.

 

[Scott Eaton]

What is needed is some decent FF primes below 50 that are contemporary, not > recycled mid-90's models or earlier.

Case in point...Canon's classic wide primes which are some of the worst coke bottles ever made that simply lack a return deposit.

The reason many wide zooms perform so well compared to classic wide primes is the older primes were garbage to begin with, Canon's being some of the worst.

There's no engineering reason a 20 or 24mm fixed prime shoulndn't behave as superbly as a 50 or 85 or 100mm prime. However, current R&D limits the need because of the market.

 

[K1000Photographer]

That is a major problem. Reviews cover what can be measured by machines. It does not mean it covers what is noticeable to the human eye.

 

[springbock]

PP caters to amatuers with little knowledge of color/optical
science, and uses testing models that in previous years has
pronounced (among other things) that consumer print films are
superior to professional ones because they have "more contrast and
more garrish saturation".

LOL... provide links to prove your statements!

I've had numerous discussions in the past with their editorial staff,
and actually a few of them published in that mag.

LOL... provide links to prove your statements!

If you honestly
take these guys as a bunch of rocket scientists wearing lab coats and
using high tech instruments to do these tests you are sadly mistaken.

I wouldn't classify them as total idiots, but the fact is they are
trying to sell magazines, and one way to do that is publish articles
that reinforce the self esteem of amatuers without the tools to
establish the limits of their own tools.

LOL... provide links to prove your statements!

If Pop Photo evaluated
loudspeakers they'd conclude the brands that play the loudest without
catching fire are the best.

Reading their mag, along with some of the
dribble by Ken Rockwell and I can feel the I.Q. points get sucked out
of my skull.

That explains everything.

For years I was one of the biggest anti-zoom bigots there was, but
now 99% of my shooting is made with zooms. The main reason being that
sufficient advances have been made with optical technology to level
the playing field and little has been done to improve prime lenses
because of their decreasing demand. My 17-50 Tamron 2.8 at the long
end for instance can keep up with any 50mm made by anybody at only a
stop or two down. There's also a lot of denial by brand fetish gear
heads that many if not most classic wide angle primes are very over
rated in the first place, and it wasn't until they were tested with
high MP dSLRs that photogs realized their 24mm brand name prime
actually sucked.

However, the simple fact that kit zooms (most notably Canon) have
obvious and blatant issues compared to more expensive zooms is fact
enough that zooms have sufficient variability that at most they might
be able to match a prime, but buyer beware. A fixed 85mm or 50mm
prime made by anybody is guaranteed to perform well at all
aperatures, but the same is not true of any zoom in a similiar focal
range.

Well duh... most top notch zooms start out at a much wider angle than 50mm and top out at 50 or maybe 70mm. So expecting to find a very good zoom that has 50mm and 85mm in it's range is not realistic and unfair. Now if you take 2 lenses that could cover from say 17 or 18mm up to 200mm, then you could find some that perform very well at all apertures.

Last, before ripping on people who disagree with you perhaps you need
to do some more shooting and less arguing. I'm not seeing a whole lot
of work linked to your name, which is a sommon syndrome of somebody
who takes Pop Photo too seriously.

LOL!!!... I went through your last 125 posts and you have posted a total of 5 pictures and 1 was a duplicate which equals 4 pics!!!

In my last 125 posts (including the 19 in this thread, which I didn't think was appropriate for my photos). I have posted 19 or 20 non duplicate pictures. Thats 5 times what you have posted!

So maybe YOU need to do some more shooting with your camera instead of your mouth! If according to your theory, there is a correlation between taking Pop Photo too seriously and the amount of pictures one takes, then maybe you should read Pop Photo more often.

--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde

 

[WBirch]

A prime lens will always be sharper than a zoom in my experience.
Using a prime lens well is a RPIA though versus a good quality zoom.
Shooting raw and knowing PS helps, but a prime offers best sharpness
when you use it properly. No question.

WB.
=============