Primes over Zooms?!

topcatproduction

topcatproduction

Messages
500
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok so we all know that IQ is normally better with primes, and I know that the Sigma 17-70 that I use doesn't have a good IQ track record, but the difference seems a bit too much! After un-wrapping my new RS tripod I tried focussing on a couple of different objects from a foot or so away and my old Pentax 100mm (with EOS adapter) was possibly twice as sharp as the Sigma. The pentax is about 30 years old and fully manual and to me is an excellent lens- I still paid over £100 for it just under a year ago and dont regret it.

The lack of performance from the 17-70 is making me doubt the zooms performance and I am wondering whether to get rid of it, keep the kit lens and get a couple more primes- or could it be re-calibrated, replaced for the new version with HSM and OS, or would the Tamron 17-50 be better? I shoot a bit of everything which is the only reason I can see primes would be a bit of a pain :cuckoo:
 
The biggest hassle I see would be selling your zoom lens and only having access to one prime lens until you start to build up your kit. Of course if you buy 2 or more primes straight away this wouldn't really matter.

Have a look at your EXIF and see what your most common used focal lengths are then go from here, is you use the full range of your lens equally then primes might not be for you. But if you find that you only use the wide, tele and middle focal lenghts of the lens then primes may be the way to go.

I read a thread a while ago about someone using a basic script to extract the focal lengths from the EXIF, he then used the data to make a chart and figure out what his next lens purchase would be. I will see if I can find it.
 
Primes are great. I love my new 85mm f/1.8, extremely sharp wide open! However for distant landscapes Liveview focus tweaking is beneficial wide open.
100mm macro is another great lens, then there is 200mm f/2.8L, and the whole range of excellent L primes. Canon wideangles are a bit more problematic, 35L costs like a kidney, and 17mm TSE is a leg and an arm. Cheaper primes are not that good, so you may need old Leica R or Zeiss primes in that range, live view, tripod, and a lot of patience.
 
Get yourself a good zoom! Like a Canon 17-55 2.8, or the new 15-85. They are as sharp as you like. There are also plenty of soft primes.

Primes are mainly about low f/numbers, not necessarily sharpness.
 
For quality/price the "nifty fifty" is very hard to beat!

I used it on boxing day to take almost 150 shots of my niece's kids and was very pleased with the results!

In fact I found I was losing shots with the 28-135mm zoom because by the time I had zoomed to get the shot - it was gone!

.
 
I would go for a 28mm prime and maybe a 50mm. This will cover most of whats needed. The 28mm will be a reasonably wide lens that is surprisingly useful.
 
You can pick up and old Tamron 28mm f2.5 for virtually nothing on eBay. I love mine. :)
 
Thanks for all the replies! I dont have a massive budget, so maybe I would be better off with a tamron 17-50 (vc???) and an 85mm prime? I am also planning to change my 75-300 (:gag:) for a Canon 70-300 (IS USM) as I need the reach for when I go racing etc.

For primes (28mm, 35mm) within £200 how would the IQ compare to the tamron 17-50 for the wide/mid range?
 
well i cant compare but not only can primes be better than zooms but the tamron is third party glass so it still wont beat a decent zoom from canon, although i hear plenty of reviews about it being on par with the 17-55mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top