prime versus zoom

Messages
3,614
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
right, i dont want to start world war 3 but im in a bit of a pickle. at the beginning of every year i write a list of equipment that i want and try and get it within the year but i am having a lens dilemma.

i do portraits, anything from fashion to formal, and was wondering what type of lenses people use for portraits. i was eyeing up a tamron 28-75mm but then i thought what if i bought a 30mm f2.8 and upgrade my 50mm to f1.4 and then it pretty much covers the range, however is there much difference noticable. would the IQ of a prime be more noticable against a third party zoom?

my plan was to have a sony 50mm f1.4, 30mm f2.8 macro, tamron 90mm f2.8 macro and then have a carl zeiss 16-80mm for any neccessary situations, but then thought that zooms would simply save space but i want the best IQ possible at budget, and dont want to feel ripped off if you know what i mean.
 
Broadly speaking, you get a prime for its low f/number, and a zoom for focal length range.

That's the big difference, not IQ.
 
Broadly speaking, you get a prime for its low f/number, and a zoom for focal length range.


I disagree.. Without having anything to back it up..
 
I disagree.. Without having anything to back it up..

Zooms don't do f/1.4 or f/1.8, primes do.

And primes don't zoom ;)

You can argue image quality, size, weight, price etc, but there are no hard and fast rules on any of those things, on either side.
 
You can argue image quality, size, weight, price etc, but there are no hard and fast rules on any of those things, on either side.

I ahvent seen anything that comes close to the quality my 300mm L f2.8 gives... there isnt a zoom made that could produce the same quality shot.
 
Get the Trinities

35, 85, 135. Job done.

Btw, portrait lens are 85, 100 & 135 traditionally speaking.
 
Get the Trinities

35, 85, 135. Job done.

Btw, portrait lens are 85, 100 & 135 traditionally speaking.

I love my 135 f2 prime nearly as much as my 300 and will be getting rid of my 24-70 when I get a shorter prime.. probably the 35mm
 
I ahvent seen anything that comes close to the quality my 300mm L f2.8 gives... there isnt a zoom made that could produce the same quality shot.

Haha! Yes :) AFAIK, that particular lens has the finest image quality of any lens, anywhere, at any price.

But if IQ is your argument in favour of primes, I have four zooms that are all sharper than the 50 1.8 and 30 1.4 primes that I used to own. However, the zooms are completely useless at f/2 :D
 
Haha! Yes :) AFAIK, that particular lens has the finest image quality of any lens, anywhere, at any price.

But if IQ is your argument in favour of primes, I have four zooms that are all sharper than the 50 1.8 and 30 1.4 primes that I used to own. However, the zooms are completely useless at f/2 :D

I haven't heard of any zoom that goes to f/2... unless I'm mistaken?

And the image quality and color contrast are much better on the primes I've used - I'm sure my 35mm L 1.4 can beat any of your zooms any day.
 
i think the only trouble that puts me off primes is the fact that im a sony user and so the only cheap primes for me are the 30mm f2.8 macro, 50mm f1.8 and the f1.4, and you could count the 90mm f2.8 macro. another debate is about third party lenses, would for example a tamron 28-75mm be beaten by the 50mm f1.4(or 1.8 for that matter) purely because it is also OEM glass.
 
I haven't heard of any zoom that goes to f/2... unless I'm mistaken?

And the image quality and color contrast are much better on the primes I've used - I'm sure my 35mm L 1.4 can beat any of your zooms any day.

Which means that Hoppy is correct and zooms are indeed useless at F2... ;)
 
I haven't heard of any zoom that goes to f/2... unless I'm mistaken?

Haha yes! That's my point. Zooms don't go to f/2 (although a couple of Olympus Four Thirds zooms do) or f/1.8, or f/1.4. That is the unique territory of primes.

And the image quality and color contrast are much better on the primes I've used - I'm sure my 35mm L 1.4 can beat any of your zooms any day.

I didn't say that primes are not sharp, or not sharper than zooms! They can be, but they are not always, that's the point.

You say that your 35L 1.4 can beat any of my zooms for image quality, but I'm afraid it cannot. My 70-200L 4 IS is sharper. Compare these MTF graphs from Canon.

35L 1.4
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=151&modelid=7304

70-200L 4 IS
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=14260

In terms of absolutes, the only thing you can say that primes are better at than zooms is low f/numbers. Zooms can't get anywhere near them. For shallow depth of field, or low light photography, primes are peerless.

But you cannot say, as an absolute, that primes are sharper, or cheaper, or smaller/lighter, or 'better' in any other way.
 
For the best IQ it simply has to be a prime, every time and not just wide open but at every aperture setting.
 
For the best IQ it simply has to be a prime, every time and not just wide open but at every aperture setting.

But that's not the best IQ every time!

My 70-200mm has better IQ wide open than my 50mm F1.8 and 30mm F1.4 did at F4. Primes are usually better IQ but not every time.
 
For the best IQ it simply has to be a prime, every time and not just wide open but at every aperture setting.

Why? How?

Sorry, but that's simply untrue. Primes do not always have better IQ. Have you never used a top quality zoom? I can't think of any aspect of lens performance or image quality where a prime would show any benefit over my 70-200L 4 zoom. Except at lower f/numbers than f/4 obviously - that is where primes score, and it's a major advantage.

70-200L is a very good zoom admitedly, but it's not unique. Very sharp all over (better than the 35L 1.4 as posted above, both resolution and contrast), sharp at the short end, sharp at the long end, very low distortion, almost no vignetting, lovely bokeh (circular aperture), fast focusing, four stops of IS and it's even cheaper than a 35L... :shrug:

If you buy a prime and don't use it at low f/numbers, there is probably a zoom that will be generally more useful, with equal IQ.
 
I am buying both, in my opinion, zoom lenses are convenient for covering a wide range of focal length but at the same time I am building up my prime cos they cover low light situations, their lower aperture are faster than my zooms which are at f/4 plus they are relatively light.

135L F2 will be my next purchase. :love:
 
Why compare a 35mm lens with a zoom that doesn't have that focal length in its range?
 
i shoot alot of portraits at f2.8, would a prime be better at that aperture than a zoom because i hear zooms are terrible when wide open, well certain ones aren't. really an ideal set-up for me is a 35mm, 50mm 85mm and a macro lens 100mm possibly, but that would cost nearly £3000 because sony dont have a 35mm f1.8 or 85mm f1.8 which i cant wait until they do.

i never have trouble reaching images because they are planned and not spontaneous, so i could always zoom with my feet.
 
Sony's achilles heel at the moment is its limited selection of glass. However, most of its 'G' and Zeiss lenses are very, very good, and fortunately for the OP, it is quite well served in the short to medium portrait area.
The Sony 35/F1.4, 50/F1.4, 85/F1.4 and 135/F1.8 primes will most likely outresolve your sensor at f2.8 as well as seriously deplete your bank balance. To be honest, if you're spending that sort of mony you should also consider the A850/A900 full frame cameras.

However the Zeiss Sonnar 24-75 has an enviable reputation for quality, and I doubt if you'll be disappointed with it. It'll be marginally softer than the primes at the edges at F2.8 though, so it's up to you whether that's important. If you shoot your images with nice diffuse backgrounds then a little edge softness will get lost anyway.

Mike.
 
"Why? How?

Sorry, but that's simply untrue..."

Soz mate but it is true.

Prime lenses are designed to one length whereas a zoom is designed to work at many lengths and therefore must include compromises to be a jack of all lengths.

The best prime should always be better than the best zoom and if your zooms are better than your primes I think that all that shows is that you need better primes.

I suppose one reason for zooms potentially being better than primes is that the world is full of brand new computer aided zooms with the best coatings these days whereas there are relatively fewer new primes but a new state of the art prime should still be better than a new state of the art zoom.
 
I'd have thought so, but many primes are pre digital, from the age of film.

Even so, people are still raving about primes designed decades ago but I'd have thought that something must have been learned over the years and I expect that today there's probably greater use of exotic glass, better manufacturing accuracy and much much better lens coatings.
 
Haha yes! That's my point. Zooms don't go to f/2 (although a couple of Olympus Four Thirds zooms do) or f/1.8, or f/1.4. That is the unique territory of primes.



I didn't say that primes are not sharp, or not sharper than zooms! They can be, but they are not always, that's the point.

You say that your 35L 1.4 can beat any of my zooms for image quality, but I'm afraid it cannot. My 70-200L 4 IS is sharper. Compare these MTF graphs from Canon.

35L 1.4
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=151&modelid=7304

70-200L 4 IS
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=14260

In terms of absolutes, the only thing you can say that primes are better at than zooms is low f/numbers. Zooms can't get anywhere near them. For shallow depth of field, or low light photography, primes are peerless.

But you cannot say, as an absolute, that primes are sharper, or cheaper, or smaller/lighter, or 'better' in any other way.

Not sure how that's a valid comparison - 35mm doesn't fall anywhere between 70-200mm...

You're better off comparing the 85mm, 135mm, and 200mm primes.... in which case it'd lose (at those specific focal lengths).

And I'm not bashing the 70-200L 4 IS lens - it's a fantastic lens and probably the next one I am buying (for weddings).
 
Why compare a 35mm lens with a zoom that doesn't have that focal length in its range?

Because that's the comparison that xil3 drew, when stating that his 35L 1.4 had better IQ than any of my zooms. Compared to the 70-200L 4 it emphatically does not. I could have said EF-S 17-55 2.8, because that is sharper most of the time too, but not in all areas. Here's the comparable Canon MTF graph for the 17-55 2.8 http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=12955

"Why? How?

Sorry, but that's simply untrue..."

Soz mate but it is true.

Prime lenses are designed to one length whereas a zoom is designed to work at many lengths and therefore must include compromises to be a jack of all lengths.

The best prime should always be better than the best zoom and if your zooms are better than your primes I think that all that shows is that you need better primes.

I suppose one reason for zooms potentially being better than primes is that the world is full of brand new computer aided zooms with the best coatings these days whereas there are relatively fewer new primes but a new state of the art prime should still be better than a new state of the art zoom.

The evidence just doesn't support that claim. The problem with the 'primes are sharper' argument is that while it may be true in many cases (it certainly used to be true 20 years ago) it is not always the case today and everything has to be qualified with phrases like 'apart from so and so' and 'except for lens x'. Whereas if you simply say, as I have done, that primes can do lower f/numbers than zooms, much lower, then that is invariably a fact.

Lens design requires compromises and generally speaking the big areas for compromise are focal length range vs low f/number vs full-frame/crop sensor coverage. Not forgetting cost! You can't have it all ways and in the main the way is boils down is that zooms can be very sharp but must have relatively high f/numbers, while if you want a low f/number like f/1.8 or even f/1.2 you simply cannot achieve that with a zoom.

Sensor format is the other major issue and EF-S lenses have a big advantage here. The even smaller 4/3rds format is the reason why Olympus can squeeze an f/2 aperture out of one or two of their zooms.

There are other ways you can cut it and maybe the new Canon 100L 2.8 IS macro is a good example. That is a modest spec on paper with not a very low f/number for a prime, but it is sensationally sharp. Here's the MTF for that http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=155&modelid=19091

The incredibly sharp 300L 2.8 (mentioned earlier) is another example of how the different compromises can be made if sharpness is the number one consideration, regardless of cost using mega-expensive glass including fluorite. This is what you get for £4k, overall the sharpest lens I think you can buy anywhere http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7317

Finally, if primes are always sharper, take a look at this shocker - the revered nifty-fifty 50 1.8 :eek: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=152&modelid=7306 One of the reasons I sold mine.
 
The best prime should always be better than the best zoom and if your zooms are better than your primes I think that all that shows is that you need better primes.
QUOTE]

but are you not therefore saying some zooms are better than some primes...

and therefore everyone is actually really in agreement in this thread, just stating things in a different way? :thinking: :)
 
The best prime should always be better than the best zoom and if your zooms are better than your primes I think that all that shows is that you need better primes.
QUOTE]

but are you not therefore saying some zooms are better than some primes...

and therefore everyone is actually really in agreement in this thread, just stating things in a different way? :thinking: :)

Well, I think he means that an L zoom may be better than a non-L prime.
 
Well, I think he means that an L zoom may be better than a non-L prime.

I have posted links that prove an L zoom can have better IQ than an L prime, and even that an EF-S zoom can have better IQ than an L prime.
 
something odd is going on with the quotes in this thread.... :shrug:
 
The evidence doesn't support my view that primes offer the best IQ?

What I personally believe is that a great many lenses are good enough but the best design and the highest image quality will always be that provided by the tool designed for the specific job and that tool will be a prime rather than a multi purpose zoom tool. Pick any zoom length or any aperture and the best prime will be better than the best zoom.

If you don't believe me go and ask Zeiss, Leica, Canon, Nikon or any other lens maker.

Of course some zooms are better than some primes and you have to remember that a lens can be good without being a Canon L lens.

This is all IMVHO and others are free to believe whatever makes them happy, although you could go and ask the manufacturers. :LOL:
 
Hey....If anyone is doing any fighting I want it to be young ladies in mud. :LOL:
 
The evidence doesn't support my view that primes offer the best IQ?

What I personally believe is that a great many lenses are good enough but the best design and the highest image quality will always be that provided by the tool designed for the specific job and that tool will be a prime rather than a multi purpose zoom tool. Pick any zoom length or any aperture and the best prime will be better than the best zoom.

If you don't believe me go and ask Zeiss, Leica, Canon, Nikon or any other lens maker.

Of course some zooms are better than some primes and you have to remember that a lens can be good without being a Canon L lens.

This is all IMVHO and others are free to believe whatever makes them happy, although you could go and ask the manufacturers. :LOL:

I agree with all of that. I have said the same, and posted examples proving it. But that is not what you said earlier. Which was:

For the best IQ it simply has to be a prime, every time and not just wide open but at every aperture setting.

No need for mud wrestlers, unfortunately.
 
so what would be a good recommendation for a portrait lens at a max budget of £350. i already have a 50mm f1.7 which is good but sometimes i miss the flexibility of a zoom espicially something like a tamron 28-75mm which is wide and has a decen telephoto.
 
With your budget of £350 expensive primes are going to be out of reach, and you're going to be limited to medium quality zooms. None are going to be tack sharp at full aperture and you'll have to go down a stop for best sharpness. There are several to choose from with the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 giving quite good sharpness, although AF isn't very fast. Also look out for the 28-75mm F2.8 Minolta on the second hand market.

If you haven't got a Minolta 70-210 F4 "Beercan" yet, it's a nice all round medium telephoto that is very nice at F5.6 and higher. Construction is all metal and of a much higher order than modern lenses. It's good for portraits at shorter focal lengths and candids at the longer end. It has a bit of CA at the edges but the bokeh is very nice and it has those nice rich Minolta colours. I got mine from London Camera Exchange for £99 but there are loads on ebay at around £120. Look for one with a hood as they often get lost.

Don't rule out a second hand Minolta 35-70 F4 mini-beercan either. It's sharp with nice colours and bokeh given the F4 limited maximum aperture, and you can pick them up for ridiculously cheap prices.

Mike.
 
I haven't heard of any zoom that goes to f/2... unless I'm mistaken?

And the image quality and color contrast are much better on the primes I've used - I'm sure my 35mm L 1.4 can beat any of your zooms any day.

My Zuiko 14-35 and 35-100 are both f2 zooms, 2 of the finest zooms money can buy.

Paul
 
My Zuiko 14-35 and 35-100 are both f2 zooms, 2 of the finest zooms money can buy.

Paul

That's cheating though isn't it. They only cover 4/3rds format, which is barely half the size of the regular crop-format APS-C sensor, and only a quarter the area of full frame.

Excellent lenses though they are, they cannot be made to work on any other format.
 
Back
Top