Prime vs zoom - which ones give better IQ
- Thread starter hulk2012
- Start date
Thanks Vinnie. Appreciate it.
I prefer both actually.
mikeh32217
Senior Member
If you can't be with the one you love, then love the one your with. With most modern lenses a little careful application is going to give good results. Learn the quirks of the lenses you have and learn to shoot within their limitations. They will generally do you proud.
Steven Stills, love that song and true words about lenses.
Blade Canyon
Senior Member
I am biased towards primes ever since 1981 when I traded in a new Minolta zoom for a Minolta 105mm prime. The trade was because my photos were coming out a little blurry. The 105 seemed to fix that. Now I have a D600, and for nostalgia I bought an old used Nikon 105mm 2.5 lens for $75.00. You have to set the focus and aperture manually. Here's a pic from that combo:
He would only hold still for a minute, and the focus is just a little behind his eyes, but you can see how crisp the hair on top of his head looks.
This supports what others said above: get what you like and learn to shoot it.
He would only hold still for a minute, and the focus is just a little behind his eyes, but you can see how crisp the hair on top of his head looks.
This supports what others said above: get what you like and learn to shoot it.
Last edited:
mikeh32217
Senior Member
Came out very good, say you made a good &75 investment!
Beautiful pic and I like your approach. Somehow I unconsciously been leading towards primes ever since I got nex7. I bought like 7 Minolta Rokkors with already having one zeiss zoom. I tell you what though - primes somehow were more fun ever since. Allowed me to think more about composition, confused less cos of lack of choice (no zoom) and stepping closer or moving further wasn't a bad thing. True I missed many shoots not being able to zoom close enough to the subject but...! The whole idea going out with prime/s was to shoot knowing what they capable of (focal range) therefore my choice of the subject was narrowed down. As I said previously this translated to think less about "trying" to capture everything but instead capture what I think was right using fixed focal length I've got the the max potential same time thinking about composition "much deeper".Was thinking of keeping my d600 and getting few expedience zooms. But after reading all your helpful inputs I think switching to d800 with its 36mpx and tremendous ability to crop to get closer and actually buying primes instead will be the best choice. Especially with d600 plastic lens mount it's risky to use heavy zooms. Also so called inconvenience caused by carrying primes won't be an issue either with d800 (and it's metal lens mount)
Last edited:
Well by this time, comparing the D800 to 5D3, you should know I am a person who relies on data rather than on feelings or perception.
The lab is the only place where exact measurements can be done with the replication of identical shooting conditions. Whatever takes place in the field, have always random variables that can make shooting condition different and thus biased results.
I picked some of the most representatives prime lenses on the market now, I made a comparison with the 70-200VR2. Please find it below:
Source: Photozone.de
On a brief analisys one can see that while the 85 1.4 G isan outstanding lens, will give, overall, similar results as the 70-200 but not better.
It is not the case of the Zeiss 85 f 1.4 or Sigma 85 f.1.4. While the Sigma looks better than the Zeiss, they both are slightly out performed by the 70-200. Even the 60 macro is out performed by the 70-200. But please remember at F/2.8 they are stepped down whole the 70-200 is wide open.
Comparisons can be done in the range of 14-70mm, by people who can understand this techno bubble, and with 1 or 2 exceptions, the results are going to be the similar. On DX zooms are going to be even better considering they more of the center rather then the border.
Lets have a look at the 200, a lens which is in another league.
source: photozone.de
It is easy to spot the at F 2.8 the Nikon 200 F/2 outperforms the 70-200 in terms of sharpness and resolution, but after F/ 4.0 their performance are similar.
***
These are the measurements, the rest are feelings and perceptions.
Last edited:
Well by this time, comparing the D800 to 5D3, you should know I am a person who relies on data rather than on feelings or perception.
The lab is the only place where exact measurements can be done with the replication of identical shooting conditions. Whatever takes place in the field, have always random variables that can make shooting condition different and thus biased results.
I picked some of the most representatives prime lenses on the market now, I made a comparison with the 70-200VR2. Please find it below:
Source: Photozone.de
On a brief analisys one can see that while the 85 1.4 G isan outstanding lens, will give, overall, similar results as the 70-200 but not better.
It is not the case of the Zeiss 85 f 1.4 or Sigma 85 f.1.4. While the Sigma looks better than the Zeiss, they both are slightly out performed by the 70-200. Even the 60 macro is out performed by the 70-200. But please remember at F/2.8 they are stepped down whole the 70-200 is wide open.
Comparisons can be done in the range of 14-70mm, by people who can understand this techno bubble, and with 1 or 2 exceptions, the results are going to be the similar. On DX zooms are going to be even better considering they more of the center rather then the border.
Lets have a look at the 200, a lens which is in another league.
source: photozone.de
It is easy to spot the at F 2.8 the Nikon 200 F/2 outperforms the 70-200 in terms of sharpness and resolution, but after F/ 4.0 their performance are similar.
***
These are the measurements, the rest are feelings and perceptions.
Beautifully done!
@Skytalker - I understand that you like to base your idea or view from data. These data are good info but they don't tell how how well it controls CA, distortion, and how the OOF background is rendered.
I do not base my choice of lens selection from just sharpness which is why I don't care much about DXO or other corporations that does something similar. Everybody has their own preferrence and your ideas are just not my cup of tea. I am not stating that primes are better than zooms or vice versa, we just have to be aware that these lenses will have their own limitations and flaws. We as the consumers just need to realize that limitation and it is up to us whether we will buy that lens or not.
As previously stated, I use both zooms and primes in order to have the best of both world.
Re: 70-200mm f2.8 VS 200mm f2. The 200mm f2 is actually a 200mm. 70-200mm f2.8 @200 < 200 and more like = 135mm. Big difference and don't even think that their performance is similar at f4 since I have used both already.
I do not base my choice of lens selection from just sharpness which is why I don't care much about DXO or other corporations that does something similar. Everybody has their own preferrence and your ideas are just not my cup of tea. I am not stating that primes are better than zooms or vice versa, we just have to be aware that these lenses will have their own limitations and flaws. We as the consumers just need to realize that limitation and it is up to us whether we will buy that lens or not.
As previously stated, I use both zooms and primes in order to have the best of both world.
Re: 70-200mm f2.8 VS 200mm f2. The 200mm f2 is actually a 200mm. 70-200mm f2.8 @200 < 200 and more like = 135mm. Big difference and don't even think that their performance is similar at f4 since I have used both already.
Last edited:
Well by this time, comparing the D800 to 5D3, you should know I am a person who relies on data rather than on feelings or perception.
The lab is the only place where exact measurements can be done with the replication of identical shooting conditions. Whatever takes place in the field, have always random variables that can make shooting condition different and thus biased results.
I picked some of the most representatives prime lenses on the market now, I made a comparison with the 70-200VR2. Please find it below:
Source: Photozone.de
On a brief analisys one can see that while the 85 1.4 G isan outstanding lens, will give, overall, similar results as the 70-200 but not better.
It is not the case of the Zeiss 85 f 1.4 or Sigma 85 f.1.4. While the Sigma looks better than the Zeiss, they both are slightly out performed by the 70-200. Even the 60 macro is out performed by the 70-200. But please remember at F/2.8 they are stepped down whole the 70-200 is wide open.
Comparisons can be done in the range of 14-70mm, by people who can understand this techno bubble, and with 1 or 2 exceptions, the results are going to be the similar. On DX zooms are going to be even better considering they more of the center rather then the border.
Lets have a look at the 200, a lens which is in another league.
source: photozone.de
It is easy to spot the at F 2.8 the Nikon 200 F/2 outperforms the 70-200 in terms of sharpness and resolution, but after F/ 4.0 their performance are similar.
***
These are the measurements, the rest are feelings and perceptions.
You might want to look at your data again, The Nikon 85 1.4 clearly blows the nikon 70-200 out of the water! Especially on border and extreme. Not everyone composes in the center, where it is only a hair better at f4.
At 85mm The prime is better at 14 out of 15 measurements.
At 200mm, The prime is better at 12 out of 15 measurements.
Again when you look at the numbers for the 200's, the prime blows the zoom away. Zooms almost always crash on the borders and extremes, primes are generally superior (according to the numbers) when you compare pro Nikon to pro Nikon.
The 35 1.4 and 50 1.4 primes both out perform the 24-70. You need to compare pro glass to pro glass. As a matter of fact the only zoom when compared to it's prime equal that is better than a prime is the 14-24. The other two are not on par with primes.
BTW, I like great zooms too, but when I want a large aperture, travel light, max resolution across the frame or great bokeh, the prime wins where it counts for me.
Last edited:
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Confirmed.
I averaged the scores (center, border and extreme) of both the 70-200mm and the 85mm. Just to keep things even I only averaged data from apertures *both* lenses are capable of using, so that meant scores were taken from apertures f/2.8 through f/11 for both lenses in all three categories. That gives us three data points, against five identical apertures, for both lenses.
Average score for the 70-200mm: 3407
Average score for the 85mm prime: 3732
A not-so paltry difference of 325 points in favor of the 85mm prime.
.....
Gentlemen, DD
I am sorry I have stirred up a bit your country club here. It is very obvious to me, some of you cannot handle a real challenge...
And then it is very sad that with data in front you, you make the wrong interpretation.
When measuring the HIGHEST performance of a device we look at maximum performance it can give in absolute value, not at its average one, especially when the average ones are below the highest.
So the 70-200 does better with a hair in terms of achieving more lines than the others and that makes it better. I said similar since the 85 is pretty close, but not the rest What about the rest ?
It is important that it is in the center since this center as proportion takes more of an image then the border as is self understood.
And because considering our AF system, you get the best result with focusing in center and recomposing technique.
I stop here and I promise I do not write in this topic anymore so that Braincoat can have his fun.
DDI am sorry I have stirred up a bit your country club here. It is very obvious to me, some of you cannot handle a real challenge...
And then it is very sad that with data in front you, you make the wrong interpretation.
When measuring the HIGHEST performance of a device we look at maximum performance it can give in absolute value, not at its average one, especially when the average ones are below the highest.
So the 70-200 does better with a hair in terms of achieving more lines than the others and that makes it better. I said similar since the 85 is pretty close, but not the rest What about the rest ?
It is important that it is in the center since this center as proportion takes more of an image then the border as is self understood.
And because considering our AF system, you get the best result with focusing in center and recomposing technique.
I stop here and I promise I do not write in this topic anymore so that Braincoat can have his fun.
Last edited:
Gentlemen,
I am sorry I have stirred up a bit your country club here. It is very obvious to me, some of you cannot handle a real challenge...
And then it is very sad that with data in front you, you make the wrong interpretation.
When measuring the HIGHEST performance of a device we look at maximum performance it can give in absolute value, not at its average one, especially when the average ones are below the highest.
So the 70-200 does better with a hair in terms of achieving more lines than the others and that makes it better. I said similar since the 85 is pretty close, but not the rest What about the rest ?
It is important that it is in the center since this center as proportion takes more of an image then the border as is self understood.
And because considering our AF system, you get the best result with focusing in center and recomposing technique.
I stop here and I promise I do not write in this topic anymore so that Braincoat can have his fun.
No no you my brotha. It's my thread and feel free to comment pls
Gentlemen,
I am sorry I have stirred up a bit your country club here. It is very obvious to me, some of you cannot handle a real challenge...
And then it is very sad that with data in front you, you make the wrong interpretation.
When measuring the HIGHEST performance of a device we look at maximum performance it can give in absolute value, not at its average one, especially when the average ones are below the highest.
So the 70-200 does better with a hair in terms of achieving more lines than the others and that makes it better. I said similar since the 85 is pretty close, but not the rest What about the rest ?
It is important that it is in the center since this center as proportion takes more of an image then the border as is self understood.
And because considering our AF system, you get the best result with focusing in center and recomposing technique.
I stop here and I promise I do not write in this topic anymore so that Braincoat can have his fun.
You made a blanket statement which was incorrect and now you are back peddling. As you argue, the higher points?
14 out of 15 higher on the prime, 12 out of 15 higher on the prime.
A single point on one stop makes a lens completely better? Who buys those lenses and shoots at the same stop all the time.
Again check your data, the 200mm prime has the single highest point over the 200 zoom, at f2.8.
Even with your ever shifting logic, you continue to be wrong. Why not just admit your statement was incorrect?
Last edited:
Nice thread, lots of jabs and punches but no one's knocked out yet
One thing we forget is that even if one lens can be better than the other, what's the use if I can't afford it… or if I prefer zoom...
The only thing that counts is the results one can get with what he has. A picture with no interest or center of attention will lack interest whatever lens was used to create it.
One thing we forget is that even if one lens can be better than the other, what's the use if I can't afford it… or if I prefer zoom...
The only thing that counts is the results one can get with what he has. A picture with no interest or center of attention will lack interest whatever lens was used to create it.