comparing 35mm prime to 24-70 zoom

seventythree

seventythree

Messages
810
Name
Allan
Edit My Images
Yes
Just messing around around tonight. Trying to justify keeping the 35mm f1.8 lens when i have now got a 24-70mm f2.8.

i've taken the two shots below as a comparison. Not sure how much you can compare these two, but now i have the zoom i cant see myself being able to take it off the camera.

i know it has 1 stop in its favour, but will this really be that noticeable?


both at f2.8, 35mm on tripod with sb600 mounted to the camera.

35mm f1.8
4272053905_e2f2f71ccc_o.jpg


24-70mm f2.8
4272054191_4f1180771d_o.jpg
 
sell it LOL, if you wont use it in low light then i think the 24-70 is very very nice
 
Visible differences there - prime offers a brighter image with more contrast and attractive fall-off rather than blur - check out around the head of the character furthest left
 
Marac said:
sell it LOL, if you wont use it in low light then i think the 24-70 is very very nice
Click to expand...

yeh, i have shot in low light plenty, but even with the kit lens, the high iso of the d90 seems to perform well. I'm more than happy to use the d90 with a f2.8 in low light.

AndWhyNot said:
Visible differences there - prime offers a brighter image with more contrast and attractive fall-off rather than blur - check out around the head of the character furthest left
Click to expand...

food for thought there!


one thing i think i can see is bad CA's on the second image around the left wing? i cant see these on the original image, even at 100%. might just be the resize and web upload :shrug:

cheers, al
 
Hard to choose between them! Colour looks better in the second one to me if pushed.
 
"Visible differences there - prime offers a brighter image with more contrast and attractive fall-off rather than blur - check out around the head of the character furthest left"

Yup. Ditto the comment about CA.

Prime wins hand down for me, faster too and that might just come in handy one day.

I'd sell the zoom :lol:
 
Are you sure both of those were at f/2.8? There is less depth of field in the second pic and it's lighter... :thinking:
 
I think the main subject is sharper in No2. There seems to a halo on part of the subject in No2.
Not sure the test is a good comparison.
Was the processing identical?
 
woof woof said:
"Visible differences there - prime offers a brighter image with more contrast and attractive fall-off rather than blur - check out around the head of the character furthest left"

Yup. Ditto the comment about CA.

Prime wins hand down for me, faster too and that might just come in handy one day.

I'd sell the zoom :lol:
Click to expand...

haha, only had it 2 weeks!!

HoppyUK said:
Are you sure both of those were at f/2.8? There is less depth of field in the second pic and it's lighter... :thinking:
Click to expand...

absolutely, exif is fully intact

arclight said:
I think the main subject is sharper in No2. There seems to a halo on part of the subject in No2.
Not sure the test is a good comparison.
Was the processing identical?
Click to expand...

it was almost. i never moved the tripod , and the 24-70 is a good 6" longer, so i had to crop little bit from the prime's image to make them the same size.

i applied the same USM to both images after resizing, but i can easily do another comparison, if someone were to suggest a better test image or control measures.

it's not like the two lenses can be directly compared as they fill different roles etc, but i was just trying to compare IQ from a £180 lens with a £1200 lens.

cheers, Al
 
seventythree said:
haha, only had it 2 weeks!!

absolutely, exif is fully intact

it was almost. i never moved the tripod , and the 24-70 is a good 6" longer, so i had to crop little bit from the prime's image to make them the same size.

i applied the same USM to both images after resizing, but i can easily do another comparison, if someone were to suggest a better test image or control measures.

it's not like the two lenses can be directly compared as they fill different roles etc, but i was just trying to compare IQ from a £180 lens with a £1200 lens.

cheers, Al
Click to expand...

Exif doesn't show that you cropped the first image, which explains why there is more depth of field - you are effectively shooting with a smaller format = more depth of field.

You are not really comparing a £180 lens with a £1200 lens - you are comparing a compact prime with a low f/number, to a high end zoom. With the latter, there's a lot of lens there (ie it's six inches longer) and a lot of money goes into the build quality.

To be honest, I wouldn't have thought there'd be much in the image quality - the difference is that the prime can go to f/1.8 and the zoom can zoom! If you want to compare them, shoot a distant target to eliminate the variables you're getting with this test, and minimise focusing errors and field curvature (they will be minimised by greater depth of field at distance).
 
How much is versatility and ease of use worth to you?

If you have to look at pictures THAT closely to find a difference - then there isn't any.

With the two pics side by side, you can see differences. If you put them on different pages, so it takes you 1 minute to look at the second image having looked at the first (so your mind cannot directly compare) then see if the second image looks bad......

In reality, you only see ONE image. The one you have taken. Nobody sees two comparitive pictures in real life, just the one in front of them.
 
Duncan.F said:
Just spotted the 'N' word......sorry!

Dunc
Click to expand...

:thinking::shrug::thinking:

Lensflare said:
How much is versatility and ease of use worth to you?

If you have to look at pictures THAT closely to find a difference - then there isn't any.

With the two pics side by side, you can see differences. If you put them on different pages, so it takes you 1 minute to look at the second image having looked at the first (so your mind cannot directly compare) then see if the second image looks bad......

In reality, you only see ONE image. The one you have taken. Nobody sees two comparitive pictures in real life, just the one in front of them.
Click to expand...

that is a very good point.

i love both lenses for very different reasons anyway.

cheers, Al
 
HoppyUK said:
Exif doesn't show that you cropped the first image, which explains why there is more depth of field - you are effectively shooting with a smaller format = more depth of field.
Click to expand...
Cropping an image doesn't suddenly change the depth of field in it.

Perhaps there has been some rounding of figures done by the manufacturer, this is not exactly an unknown phenomenon. Maybe the 27-70 is slightly wider than f2.8 when wide open, or the 35mm is slightly smaller than f2.8 when stopped down. Also, the two lenses render the out of focus areas differently.
 
mustanir said:
Cropping an image doesn't suddenly change the depth of field in it.

Perhaps there has been some rounding of figures done by the manufacturer, this is not exactly an unknown phenomenon. Maybe the 27-70 is slightly wider than f2.8 when wide open, or the 35mm is slightly smaller than f2.8 when stopped down. Also, the two lenses render the out of focus areas differently.
Click to expand...

Cropping an image does change the depth of field. It is effectively a format change, and an altered degree of enlargement. Same reason as you get more DoF with crop format cameras compared to full frame. It is a technique sometimes used to increase depth of field when all other options have been exhausted. I have used it with macro for example.

Basically this, if you need more DoF, move back or zoom back, then crop the image to the required framing. You need to crop quite hard to make a really big difference though - cropping 50% of the frame gains exactly one stop of DoF. You can do it well enough with a hi-res full frame sensor, as there is still enough IQ in reserve to give a good result.
 
This has been an interesting and informative thread. Taking everything said above into account, I'd get rid of the prime as the differences don't justify both (and perhaps buy a lens type/length not covered). I'd only keep both if I was making money from image sales at that length.
 
PhotoTalk said:
This has been an interesting and informative thread. Taking everything said above into account, I'd get rid of the prime as the differences don't justify both (and perhaps buy a lens type/length not covered). I'd only keep both if I was making money from image sales at that length.
Click to expand...

Cheers, i guess its a something that many people think about long and hard when they don't rely on lenses to pay the mortgage. Initially my thoughts were to keep both. The 35mm looks like it was made to be on the d90, its nice and light and i'm happy to go walkabout with it, but when you throw another option in there (kit lens), it changes things slightly.

I have been trying to sell the 18-105 kit lens, and i did until i found a spec of something behind the front element. I informed the buyer and we decided that a full refund was the best thing to do. From what i'm led to believe, this lens will probably be completely unaffected by this, but will de value it somewhat. So really i have 3 options:

sell the prime and gain £160 or so.

sell the kit lens and gain £100 or so (if i keep this lens it is still covered for another 30 months or so under a 'whatever happens' policy)

sell both and stick with 3 lenses: 10-24, 24-70, 70-300

Al
 
seventythree said:
cheers, i guess its a something that many people think about long and hard, when they dont rely on lenses to pay the mortgage. Initially my thoughts were to keep both . the 35mm looks like it was made to be on the d90, its nice and light and i'm happy to go walkabout with it, but when you throw another option in there (kit lens), it changes things slightly.

i have been trying to sell the 18-105 kit lens, and i did until i found a spec of something behind the front element. i informed the buyer and we decided tht a full refund was the best thing to do. From what i'm led to believe, this lens will probably be completely unaffected by this, but will de value it somewhat. So really i have 3 options:

sell the prime and gain £160 or so.

sell the kit lens and gain £100 or so (if i keep this lens it is still covered for another 30 months or so under a 'whatever happens' policy)

sell both and stick with 3 lenses: 10-24, 24-70, 70-300

Al
Click to expand...

Get rid of kit lens, I doubt you'll ever use it again. A tiny spec of dust is quite usual, and won't affect performance or price much.
Keep the prime unless you are short of cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top