Non L primes vs L zooms

Weetobix

Weetobix

Messages
787
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Canon 24-70 2.8L which stays on my camera 90% of the time and will be aquiring a 70-200 2.8 L IS II at some point in the not too distant future.

My question is, in terms of image quality, how do you think they compare to some of the non-L primes, such as the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8?
I've been considering some more primes (other than my 50 1.8) and was wondering if I'd see any image quality increase/decrease with the non L primes

This will be on a 5DmkII, so full frame

Anyone had such experience?
 
Last edited:
The 50mm f/1.4 is just as sharp, if not just a tad sharper than the 24-70 IMO. 50mm becomes a little soft at f/1.4, but that's only to be expected.

A.
 
For me any difference in image quality between a good modern zoom and a good modern prime is going to be, honestly, so small it'll be insignificant and irrelevant. I'd therefore only choose a prime over a zoom in instances when I wanted a wider aperture or macro.
 
All my primes are sharper than my zooms if taken at the same length and aperture
 
woof woof said:
For me any difference in image quality between a good modern zoom and a good modern prime is going to be, honestly, so small it'll be insignificant and irrelevant. I'd therefore only choose a prime over a zoom in instances when I wanted a wider aperture or macro.
Click to expand...

Nailed. On head. Except sometimes I will take a prime just to have a very light setup. That's always a trade for IS though above 17mm (for me), something to consider. I think when canon gets that 24-70/2.8L IS out, FF users will enjoy the same dilemma..

On the 7D I have the 10-22 & 17-55 EF-S lenses + the 70-200/2.8L IS II .. they're wonderful lenses (especially the 70-200) and have made me get rid of all my primes that aren't well usable at f/2 or faster (except 100/2.8 macro). These include the 35/2, 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 ..

I still have the siggy 30/1.4, 85/1.8 and looking to get the 135/2L. And maybe a 8mm fisheye or something crazy like that. And a 400+ :)

No, I don't have a 50mm prime. I had one but gave it to my mom :) I think Canon needs to refresh their 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 by now..
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the link there manualfocus-g.

There's plenty of cases where a non-L may perform better than an L. For example, there's probably non-L zooms that can better the 28-300 L, let alone non-L primes. However, the 28-300 offers good quality across a very wide zoom range, and to do that canon employed some large bits of UD glass, making the lens an L.

The point is that for a relatively unambitious lens specification, such as 50mm F1.8, then it doesn't require any special glass at all to make a lens that can perform very well. No special glass means not an L, it doesn't mean not a good lens.
 
85mm and 50mm primes can offer very sharp image, with wonderful DOF, something that zoom can't quite do, maybe with the exception of 70-200mm at the long end. The L zooms will win out on the saturation (can be done in post), and may have less ghosting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top