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

[mujana]

ok...compare them to the 14-35mm F2.0 Zuiko...or the 35-100mm F2.0 Zuiko lens...hm I doubt if there's any difference.

 

[Chato]

Thanks for the explanation.

After reading your post I checked around the Web, and it would appear
that using SQF is sort of an accurate "poor mans" guide to lens
quality. Not as accurate as MTF, but a good ball park way of
determining quality.
But even though I am a fan of high quality zooms, all things being
equal, I still believe that primes give a higher quality. Often
enough in todays world this "difference" is academic.

Yeah, I believe that too. But, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster,
proof is hard to find. I set up my tripod in my back yard and shot
the following (no redeeming artistic value):

with a 16-85VR set to 55mm and a 55mm f.2.8 Micro Nikkor, both at
f/5.6. Now we know who'll win that one, but what I got was

16-85VR



55 Micro



I can't see any useful difference.

Here's your Nikor after I post processed...

Of course, the sun decided to come out while I was changing lenses
but I don't think that affects the results.

--
Leonard Migliore

I don't know Leonard, I would think the sun coming out would make a Big difference...

When I look at the grain of the wood, even your original Nikor shot shows more detail.

Dave

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Of course, the sun decided to come out while I was changing lenses
but I don't think that affects the results.

--
Leonard Migliore

I don't know Leonard, I would think the sun coming out would make a
Big difference...

When I look at the grain of the wood, even your original Nikor shot
shows more detail.

Dave

Thanks for the PP. I'll have to try again in consistent light.

But the zoom doesn't die horribly in this comparison, does it?

--
Leonard Migliore

 

[Chato]

Of course, the sun decided to come out while I was changing lenses
but I don't think that affects the results.

--
Leonard Migliore

I don't know Leonard, I would think the sun coming out would make a
Big difference...

When I look at the grain of the wood, even your original Nikor shot
shows more detail.

Dave

Thanks for the PP. I'll have to try again in consistent light.

But the zoom doesn't die horribly in this comparison, does it?

--
Leonard Migliore

No it didn't, and as I've said, my favorite walk around lens is a 28-105, 2.8

But that lens is very heavy...

I for one am not going to get excited about differences that are so small as to be academic - But there IS more detail in the grain of the (dark) wood, even in Your comparison without my "corrections."
And take a look at that little "button" like thing stuck into the wood.

Dave

 

[tko]

What apeture was it tested at?

 

[Chris59]

The problem lies with "no brainers". It is not difficult to do the testing for yourself and NOT to rely on hearsay or "testing" about which you may know little of the methodology.

Zooms are getting better and some are sharper in some instances than prime lenses. However, as others have pointed out, this is mainly because of the amount of development focussed (sorry) on zooms and the relatively little development time and money spent on improving primes.

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".

Indeed, now that digital and DSLRs are "coming of age" and demand is increasng, we will be seeing more improved primes, especially standard and wide angle coming from the major manufacturers.

That primes are "better" in terms of image quality than zooms is not a myth. It is perhaps less true today than in the past but as the emphasis on development shifts back towards primes a little, the gap will again widen.

 

[springbock]

First of all, PP is probably the worst tester in the business.

Why would you say that? What poof do you have for such a brazen statement. Popular Photography has been around since 1937 and is the worlds largest imaging magazine with an editorial staff twice the size of its nearest competitor. Let me guess... you think their method, developed by a professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology and senior scientist at the Eastman Kodak Company is hog wash, or maybe you could do better!..... give me a break.

Riddle

me this - why are they the only ones who bother to give funny color
ratings at different print sizes?

I don't care if they are the only ones using a colored graph. I like it, it makes it easier for people to readily see a lenses performance at different print sizes.

Did they test wide open?

Did you look at the apertures in the vertical column on the left side. They test at every full stop.

Their testing is so old fashioned and just plain crippled it's not even
funny.

If it's so old fashioned why couldn't you read their simple graph?

Then they picked a really funny set of primes. You see, a decent
prime is F1.4, and F2.0 is almost slow for a prime, while F2.8 is
fast for a zoom. So normally you'd be comparing say, F1.4 to F2.8, a
whole other difference in performance, DOF, and light gathering.
You'd almost think they cherry picked the lenses to make the zooms
look good.

It costs big bucks to make a fast prime. Sure, at F5.6 most zooms
look pretty good, even the kit lenses. Go to F2.8 that's twice the
lens diameter, 4 times the glass needed, maybe 8 times the cost or
more. Lens speed costs big time.

Tell you what. Compare a 50MM F1.4, a 85MM F1.8, or a 135MM F2.0 to
the nearest zoom and we'll see what happens.

So, I wouldn't read PP and proclaim myself an expert and all the old
pros obsolete. It takes more than one quick read to equal experience.

I'm not claiming to be an expert and never once implied that. The Popular Photography testers are the experts... geeze.

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

 

[springbock]

spt_gb wrote:
It's too simplistic, it doesn't tell us about chromatic aberrations
(shining a monochromatic laser through the lens can't possibly do
this), it doesn't tell us about corner performance vs center,
vignetting or image distortion.

Take some time to read at least one of their tests in full and you wouldn't be saying something like that. What the heck, I'll make it easy for you. This is part of their test of the Canon 70-200 f4 IS...

"Good distortion control, too, with Slight barrel distortion (0.18%) seen at 70mm, Slight pincushion (0.20%) at both 135mm and at 200mm (0.29%). Light falloff was gone by f/4.5 at 70mm, by f/6.3 at 135mm, and by f/5.6 at 200mm. This is no macro lens, although at 200mm it achieves a respectable 1:4.35 magnification (45.5 inches). At 135mm, it gets to 1:6.33; at 70mm, 1:11.4. With IS at 200mm"

Web review sites like SLRGEAR and
PhotoZone give you better data sets and more lenses. Find me a good
prime and then a better zoom from these data sets.

You said NO good zoom is better than a good prime! I gave proof that
you are wrong. You seem to be one of these "photographers so set in
their outdated attitudes when it comes to image quality with primes
and zooms"

Trot over to SLRGEAR.COM and compare the blur plots for the 70-200
f/2.8 with the 200 f/2.0, the prime is sharper at all equivalent
apertures.

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

--

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

 

[springbock]

The problem lies with "no brainers". It is not difficult to do the
testing for yourself and NOT to rely on hearsay or "testing" about
which you may know little of the methodology.

Zooms are getting better and some are sharper in some instances than
prime lenses. However, as others have pointed out, this is mainly
because of the amount of development focussed (sorry) on zooms and
the relatively little development time and money spent on improving
primes.

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,

Now I haven't checked how close your average prime can focus... but can many of them focus as close as the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5? This lens has a minimum focusing distance of 20cm (7.9") throughout the entire zoom range. Maximum magnification of 1:2.3. Maybe close focusing zooms are not common place... just yet. But surely this lens demonstrates that it can be done.

and are lighter, smasller
and cheaper. True, you are limited to the one focal length but that
is their only "weakness".

Indeed, now that digital and DSLRs are "coming of age" and demand is
increasng, we will be seeing more improved primes, especially
standard and wide angle coming from the major manufacturers.

That primes are "better" in terms of image quality than zooms is not
a myth. It is perhaps less true today than in the past but as the
emphasis on development shifts back towards primes a little, the gap
will again widen.

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

 

[springbock]

I just thought of another zoom lens that is very good when it comes to minimum close focusing.

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM = 58.8in
Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM = 74.4"
Canon 70-200 f4 IS = 45.5 inches @ 200mm
Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM = 39.4in

These zooms focus much closer in this comparison but I haven't checked to see what the minimum focusing distance of other 200mm prime manufactures are.

It does appear their are some myths floating around on this forum. I think people should do their own research and not listen to forum members, and that includes me.

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

 

[dennis paterson]

Agreed. Where are the fast wider primes with IS? Or contemporary rival's to Canon's legendary FD 55mm F1.2 L (with rare earth glass), that humbled Leica? Arguably Sigma's new 50 F1.4 is a try towards that. Now there is a really interesting lens comparison. But then if we don't all buy one, Canon & Nikon Marketing dept's will steer Eng. Dev. to say see, there is no demand. For how many years did we think Canon EF couldn't make a cracker wide: prime or zoom? Even now Canon cannot reply to Nikon's stellar 14-24, a breakthrough lens.

The best I know is selected Leica R or Zeiss glass with adapters and so no AF . In Asia this is a common solution for imaging enthusiasts.

 

[Chato]

I just thought of another zoom lens that is very good when it comes
to minimum close focusing.

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM = 58.8in

Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM = 39.4in

The zoom focusses much closer in this comparison but I haven't
checked to see what the minimum focusing distance of other 200mm
prime manufactures are.
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde

My Sigma 180mm focuses down to 18 inches, and at that focal lenght you get pretty tight shots...

Dave

 

[springbock]

Were not including dedicated marco lenses are we? Oh no... wait a minute you're being humorous ;-)

I just thought of another zoom lens that is very good when it comes
to minimum close focusing.

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM = 58.8in

Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM = 39.4in

The zoom focusses much closer in this comparison but I haven't
checked to see what the minimum focusing distance of other 200mm
prime manufactures are.
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde

My Sigma 180mm focuses down to 18 inches, and at that focal lenght
you get pretty tight shots...

Dave

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

 

[Chris59]

The reference to primes and macro work refers to QUALITY not to how close they can focus. There is not a single zoom lens that can compete in image quality with a true macro prime, not even close.

 

[springbock]

The reference to primes and macro work refers to QUALITY not to how
close they can focus. There is not a single zoom lens that can
compete in image quality with a true macro prime, not even close.

Sorry... my mistake. I know a zoom can't do macro (1:1). But if you are saying that a good zoom with extension tubes or close up filters etc. can't come close to a true macro lens then maybe you are right. I haven't seen enough tests on this. But I will say that I have seen some pretty sharp pics with these types of setups.

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

 

[Chato]

Were not including dedicated marco lenses are we? Oh no... wait a
minute you're being humorous ;-)

No sorry, no joke. While I find it's reach a bit too short for wildlife photograph, I often carry it with me.
It's an awesome lens, tack sharp, and good for anything, as Well as Macro.

Wazza matter? You don't like shooting flowers and bugs from 18 inches? And shooting boids from a hundred yards?

Dave

I just thought of another zoom lens that is very good when it comes
to minimum close focusing.

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM = 58.8in

Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM = 39.4in

The zoom focusses much closer in this comparison but I haven't
checked to see what the minimum focusing distance of other 200mm
prime manufactures are.
--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde

My Sigma 180mm focuses down to 18 inches, and at that focal lenght
you get pretty tight shots...

Dave

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

 

[Chris59]

Agreed. My opinion on this is that as sensors begin to resolve more and the diffraction limits of lenses become more and more apparent, manufacturers will have to improve their standard and wide angle primes. Indeed I think it is starting now and that we will soon see improved versions of the more popular focal lengths.

 

[K1000Photographer]

When I looked, the Pentax comparison was missing. I know the 50/1.7 is a great prime but the 24-90 is also very good.

It really does get subjective, since objective tests are not alway done in objective nor consistent ways. One also does not know what their criteria for excellence is when viewing photographic prints.

I do have a couple of zooms that are pretty good and for the most part, are near prime quality. Even then, my best digital zoom is still a notch below my best primes. Why? It goes beyond resolution and sheer contrast. It covers the ability to capture the accurate differences in color and shading that are so difficult to do correctly.

 

[james570]

• I found that in the last 56 years of my life, the phenomenonbut I found that runs true in every discipline. And that is, people get too close to the forest and can't see the trees. They become, what I've always called as a purist and are locked in to their own prejudices.

 

[james570]

--Some people just can't see the forest through the trees. People sure do become puriist and think that if they go too far in one direction. They fall off the end of the earth.