Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 196754" data-attributes="member: 9240">I have a trio of f1.8 primes, as you can see in my signature, that get very little use.&nbsp; Is the IQ &quot;better&quot; on the primes?&nbsp; Probably, but not to the extent that I would lug them around instead of using my 24-85mm, which covers the full scope of the 3 lenses - and that's the &quot;lesser&quot; of the 3 zooms I've mentioned.&nbsp; If I want real sharp DoF and perfect bokeh for something specific then I might put a prime on, but that's actually a rarity.&nbsp; As for weight, I've got no issue with this trio.&nbsp; I can only imagine lugging the heavier counterparts along.&nbsp; And if IQ on the 4's is lacking compared to the 2.8's, I'm not losing sleep over what I'm getting. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 196754, member: 9240"] I have a trio of f1.8 primes, as you can see in my signature, that get very little use. Is the IQ "better" on the primes? Probably, but not to the extent that I would lug them around instead of using my 24-85mm, which covers the full scope of the 3 lenses - and that's the "lesser" of the 3 zooms I've mentioned. If I want real sharp DoF and perfect bokeh for something specific then I might put a prime on, but that's actually a rarity. As for weight, I've got no issue with this trio. I can only imagine lugging the heavier counterparts along. And if IQ on the 4's is lacking compared to the 2.8's, I'm not losing sleep over what I'm getting. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification