Good prime vs very good zoom - is there much difference?

ajax_andy

ajax_andy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,650
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
I have a Canon 50mm f/1.4 but hardly ever use it... mainly because the focus ring jams and it'll cost £100 to get it fixed. However I also like the flexibility of a zoom lens over a fixed prime.

My question is though if you took a good prime like the 50mm f/1.4 and compared it to say the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L, would the prime be sharper and produce better results?

I know a lot of people use primes purely because of how great they are, but when you compare a good prime at about £300 vs a top end zoom like the 20-70mm f/2.8 at many times that price, does the zoom actually catch up and even surpass the prime, or is it just a case of prime's will always be sharper and better?

Just some general musings really as debating whether to get my 50mm f/1.4 fixed :)
 
Canon prime will be definitely sharper than mk1 zoom, but not by much. mk2 - I am told is even closer. Considering you are only going to use that 50mm from f/2.2 the difference is not massive.
The 35mm f/1.4 are a bit better if you can go wider, or 85mm f/1.8 if you go longer.
 
Big advantage of primes is very low f/numbers. Upside of zooms is of course that they zoom. That's the basic trade-off in terms of optical compromise.

There are plenty of zooms sharper than a lot of primes, but ultimately primes win that one. In the 24-70 example that you cite, you'd be very hard pressed to see any improvement with a prime.

Edit: the main areas of optical design compromise are low f/numbers vs zoom range vs format coverage (ie FF vs APS-C) and you can't have them all. Then price overlays everything, as does size and weight.
 
Last edited:
I would say that primes are generaly sharper than any zoom.
Depending on price/model they can be very sharp wide open and get more so when closed down to say 2.8 like a pro zoom.

Then u have the option to shoot wider for some lovely bokeh and they are normaly smaller and lighter.

Some high end zooms like the 24-70 &70-200 can be near on as sharp though.

I wouldnt get rid of either my primes or zoms for the other. if I didnt need th versatility of the zooms I would swap for all primes.
 
pmac said:
I wouldnt get rid of either my primes or zoms for the other. if I didnt need th versatility of the zooms I would swap for all primes.
Click to expand...

That is one big if. I love my 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm macro (for being macro), not sure 50mm deserves the same status.
Even so I am now thinking about shifting the 85mm with some other stuff to fund nothing else but 70-200mm II - the daddy of all zooms. It is crazy to keep switching lenses in wedding and constantly debating what may be best next, when the zoom would do this all nearly as well or better (the long end)
 
Thanks for the replies everyone... I appreciate the more bokeh aspect of a prime due to the wider apertures, was more wondering about the sharpness of a top end zoom vs good prime.

I guess as with all things it comes down to many factors and looking at each lens individually... for example I think it's the Canon 135mm prime that's supposed to be one of the sharpest around, but I'd find that focal length hard to work with when doing weddings, whereas a 24-70mm much more versatile and therefore probably get better pics even if it wasn't as sharp
 
Just took this from Ken Rockwell's website... surely this can't be right?

"No zoom beats the cheapest 50mm fixed lens for sharpness, and your zoom probably has a lot more distortion."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fixed-lenses-take-better-pictures.htm

Fair enough about distortion, but the cheapest fixed lens will be sharper than any zoom?
 
daugirdas said:
That is one big if. I love my 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm macro (for being macro), not sure 50mm deserves the same status.
Even so I am now thinking about shifting the 85mm with some other stuff to fund nothing else but 70-200mm II - the daddy of all zooms. It is crazy to keep switching lenses in wedding and constantly debating what may be best next, when the zoom would do this all nearly as well or better (the long end)
Click to expand...

Im just an amateur, I don't shoot professionally, but just for fun at the moment.
Ive got the following and use them in this order.
nikon 85mm 1.4G
Nikon 50mm 1.8G
Nikon 24-70 2.8
Nikon 70-200 VR2

I can see for weddings that the zooms would be invaluable, like wise my 24-70 get a lot of use when traveling.Probably 80% of the time i use it then, but I love my 85mm the most.(to be fair this cost as much as either of my pro zooms)
I suppose its all down to your shooting style as well, ive owned the 70-200 for nearly two years and ive only used it a handful of times at most.

Optically is a great lens and as sharp as can be at all focal lengths, but I don't like the weight and size of it, so tend to leave it at home all the time.

My next lenses will be a 35 and 135 if a new one is made, i cant see myself buying any more zooms. Ive even contemplated selling the 70-200 but all though it gets little use may regret it, so haven't this far.
 
Would anyone really be able to see any difference in sharpness between a prime and a good zoom without pixel peeping, I'm sure I wouldn't.
 
ajax_andy said:
Just took this from Ken Rockwell's website... surely this can't be right?

"No zoom beats the cheapest 50mm fixed lens for sharpness, and your zoom probably has a lot more distortion."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fixed-lenses-take-better-pictures.htm
Click to expand...

grrrr... canon 50/1.4 in fact does have lots more distortion than 24-70mm @50mm. Sharpness... well at f/2.8 the prime corners will be a lot better

ernesto said:
Well it rarely is.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Jackwow said:
Would anyone really be able to see any difference in sharpness between a prime and a good zoom without pixel peeping, I'm sure I wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Put your subjects round the edges and shoot fairly wide. You probably might see it well enough. Ok that's a bit accademic

pmac said:
I suppose its all down to your shooting style as well, ive owned the 70-200 for nearly two years and ive only used it a handful of times at most.
Click to expand...

I thought the same. In practice I end up taking 85mm (for 1.8), 100mm (for f/2.8, macro and IS) and 70-200mm f/4 IS (for the range). In the end I get more weight and lots more inconvenience.
My thought is one zoom for serious work, and leave macro just for personal / fun projects.
 
I have a 2.8 16 50, its much bigger than my cheapo 50mm 1.8, and much heavier. I'd look at some sample shots of the bokeh to decide or help along. Zooms are normaly worse.

the higher f number of zooms doesn't help in low light :-(
 
ajax_andy said:
Erm that doesn't make a lot of sense... I could counter that with saying what's the 50mm prime like at 70mm and go on to say I prefer zooms :bonk:
Click to expand...

That's why your inclusion of the 70-200 is nonsensical. Compare it to a 24-70 or other lenses in that focal length where the cheap 50mm f/1.8 would be at least their equal if not better.
 
How about quality of out of focus blur?

I found 85mm f1.8 produces much more pleasing bokeh than my 24-105mm f4. The zoom lens just looks distracting while the prime lens is beautifully creamy.
 
Laudrup said:
That's why your inclusion of the 70-200 is nonsensical. Compare it to a 24-70 or other lenses in that focal length where the cheap 50mm f/1.8 would be at least their equal if not better.
Click to expand...

The question wasn't posed to me with the precursor of 'in the same focal range', so no my inclusion of the 70-200 wasn't nonsensical.

If the question had been 'What zoom beats the 50mm f/1.8 in the same focal range?' than you'd be right... but it wasn't, and you aren't ;)
 
ajax_andy said:
The question wasn't posed to me with the precursor of 'in the same focal range', so no my inclusion of the 70-200 wasn't nonsensical.

If the question had been 'What zoom beats the 50mm f/1.8 in the same focal range?' than you'd be right... but it wasn't, and you aren't ;)
Click to expand...

If the 70-200 isn't even as good as primes it can be compared to in focal length (135 etc), then how can it be better than the 50 which is the most well researched and understood focal length in history?
 
Laudrup said:
If the 70-200 isn't even as good as primes it can be compared to in focal length (135 etc), then how can it be better than the 50 which is the most well researched and understood focal length in history?
Click to expand...

Is a 50mm f/1.8 which is the cheapest of all prime lenses I think and not exactly L glass build quality better i.e sharper and clearer than the 70-200mm f/2.8 II L lens?

I would be extremely surprised it it were
 
Quite a coincidence reading this as I've been thinking of ditching my 3 primes for a 24-70mm f2.8. In fact, I think I will :thumbs:
 
ajax_andy said:
Is a 50mm f/1.8 which is the cheapest of all prime lenses I think and not exactly L glass build quality better i.e sharper and clearer than the 70-200mm f/2.8 II L lens?

I would be extremely surprised it it were
Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell is usually right, though he often comes from unusual and highly selective angles.

A 50mm f/1.8, at say f/5.6 to f/8, will beat any zoom (just!) in corner to corner sharpness.

It might struggle against Canon's new 200-400L zoom, that has the best MTF graphs I've yet seen for a zoom, but it also costs £12k...
 
HoppyUK said:
Ken Rockwell is usually right, though he often comes from unusual and highly selective angles.

A 50mm f/1.8, at say f/5.6 to f/8, will beat any zoom (just!) in corner to corner sharpness.

It might struggle against Canon's new 200-400L zoom, that has the best MTF graphs I've yet seen for a zoom, but it also costs £12k...
Click to expand...

Yeah I think there's probably very little in these things really... I guess we're always chasing those marginal gains that only us togs can see and the client is oblivious too :lol:
 
For me primes off the following advantages...

Wider apertures, no zoom I know of goes to f1.4 :D
Macro, no zoom I know of does macro but you can get a close focus zoom.
Size and weight, you can get some nice compact primes... and you can get some big fat and heavy ones too.

Personally I don't think I'd buy a prime in the hope that it was going to be the sharpest lens I'd ever owned, a wise man said long ago that lens sharpness was no longer an issue and I'm sure it's even more true now.
 
wuyanxu said:
How about quality of out of focus blur?

I found 85mm f1.8 produces much more pleasing bokeh than my 24-105mm f4. The zoom lens just looks distracting while the prime lens is beautifully creamy.
Click to expand...

f/4 zoom that is - did you compare 85mm at f/4 and zoom at 85mm as well?

The only half sensible comparison is with the 70-200mm f/2.8s at f/2.8. There will be slight difference to the benefit of prime wide open, but the added benefit of IS and less likely focus error will counter that. The best part is the zoom - go to say 135mm f/2.8 and it looks nicer than 85mm f/1.8. 200mm f/2.8 looks totally fantastic.
 
daugirdas said:
f/4 zoom that is - did you compare 85mm at f/4 and zoom at 85mm as well?

The only half sensible comparison is with the 70-200mm f/2.8s at f/2.8. There will be slight difference to the benefit of prime wide open, but the added benefit of IS and less likely focus error will counter that. The best part is the zoom - go to say 135mm f/2.8 and it looks nicer than 85mm f/1.8. 200mm f/2.8 looks totally fantastic.
Click to expand...
even at f5.6, the 85mm prime produces creamy out of focus parts than 24-105mm zoom. My guess is that the less number of elements in primes helps for more pleasing out of focus area.

Not sure about the legendary 70-200 f2.8, perhaps you can lend me one :p
 
I would love someone to shoot an 85 at f4 and the 70-200 at 85mm f4 and compare......
 
MIKEROPHONICS said:
I would love someone to shoot an 85 at f4 and the 70-200 at 85mm f4 and compare......
Click to expand...

I've got f/4 zoom (we shall presume it is not much different), so may give it a go. I am already planning a test for highlight recovery of 5DIII vs 1DsII
 
MIKEROPHONICS said:
I would love someone to shoot an 85 at f4 and the 70-200 at 85mm f4 and compare......
Click to expand...

I did exactly that before, but at f2.8. The 70-200 was a tad darker in the mid tones, but contrast and colour better IMO...go figure:shrug: my zoom is Sigma, prime is Canon USM.

I'd post 'em but I deleted them...
 
wuyanxu said:
How about quality of out of focus blur?

I found 85mm f1.8 produces much more pleasing bokeh than my 24-105mm f4. The zoom lens just looks distracting while the prime lens is beautifully creamy.
Click to expand...

Depends not only on the quality of the optics but also the design of the aperture diaphram. The 50mm f/1.8 for example has only five aperture blades and thus produces rather nasty pentagonal bokeh effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top