Prime vs zoom - which ones give better IQ

hulk2012

Senior Member
I'm considering few lenses for my d600 and would like to know your opinion of which lenses provide better picture quality and IQ - a prime or zoom ones..
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Quality and IQ= Primes
Practicality= Zooms

In a nutshell, yes. But that does not mean that zooms lack either build quality or IQ. If I'm inside in a studio environment then I can see working mostly with primes, but that's not me, I'm shooting in an uncontrolled environment 99% of the time, so a zoom makes my life that much easier. Plus, outside I don't have to worry so much about swapping lenses in a dusty environment as often. As I stated in your D600 v D800 thread, I've got nothing to complain about regarding IQ from the zooms I shoot with.
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
I'm considering few lenses for my d600 and would like to know your opinion of which lenses provide better picture quality and IQ - a prime or zoom ones..

For just about everything, the Nikon 24-70-200mm f2.8 combo are essential to me.

I use a prime lens if I want to go light. My zoom lenses have very good IQ and can match today's prime lenses but they are heavier. Combined weight of few primes will be heavier than one of my f2.8 zoom.

For specific shoot, I sometimes use my primes which is why I have both to make things less complicated.
 
Last edited:

Browncoat

Senior Member
If you're asking this question, you're not going to notice the difference anyway. My opinion on lenses is this:

The biggest quality difference in lenses is all about the f-stop. A 5.6 lens is never going to be able to produce the same quality as a 2.8 lens (in most situations). Photography is all about lighting, and a 5.6 lens just can't make good use of available lighting. Unless you're a commercial professional where every single detail counts, all those tech reviews about IQ, chromatic aberration, blurring in the corners...all of it...it's just useless and confusing to the average Joe.

As a general rule, primes produce a higher quality, sharper image than their zoom counterparts. The trade-off is that primes aren't really adaptable for obvious reasons.
 

SkvLTD

Senior Member
But you know, if you want a +1 excuse to lean towards primes over zooms- getting that exact moment could be all the sweeter when you know you can only snap it at a certain distance/moment and then its gone all the same. It could add that extra semantic to the whole process vs knowing that you can always just zoom in and get it.
 

Skytalker

Senior Member
It is true that primes were better than zooms a while ago. But not anymore especially with Nikon.
The Nikon 14-24/24-70/70-200mm are on par with every prime in the range of 14-200mm. Even more the Nikon 14-24 is sharper than any prime in its range.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I think before this question can be answered one has to define what they mean by "image quality". I think it's safe to say prime lenses are known to give SHARPER images over zooms, generally speaking, but that implies sharper is always better and leaves out important considerations such as contrast and saturation. That logic also implies by extension that zoom lenses render inferior results, which is certainly not the case. In point of fact I think the whole argument is silly and what we should really be focused on is not so much our equipment but how we use it. And spare me that tired argument about buying the best equipment to ensure it's pilot error vs limitation of equipment; that's the cry of the equipment fetishist. Quit asking, "What lens do I need to get the shot I want?" and start asking, "How do I get the shot I want with the lens I have?"

.....
 

mikeh32217

Senior Member
I think before this question can be answered one has to define what they mean by "image quality". I think it's safe to say prime lenses are known to give SHARPER images over zooms, generally speaking, but that implies sharper is always better and leaves out important considerations such as contrast and saturation. That logic also implies by extension that zoom lenses render inferior results, which is certainly not the case. In point of fact I think the whole argument is silly and what we should really be focused on is not so much our equipment but how we use it. And spare me that tired argument about buying the best equipment to ensure it's pilot error vs limitation of equipment; that's the cry of the equipment fetishist. Quit asking, "What lens do I need to get the shot I want?" and start asking, "How do I get the shot I want with the lens I have?"

.....

I whole heartily agree, while a good bow with cheap arrows is not optimal if you can't hit the target then even the best equipment will be of not benefit.
 

Skytalker

Senior Member
Line widths per picture height (LW/PH) can be taken as a measure for sharpness. If you want to know more about the MTF50 figures you may check out the corresponding Imatest Explanations.

So summing up:
1) on DX the 14-24|24-70|70-200 are SHARPER than any prime in the range of 14-200mm.
2) on FX the 14-24|24-70|70-200 are ON PAR or SHARPER than any prime in the range of 14-200mm.

To say that primes are sharper than nowadays professional zooms is INACCURATE.
But they are sharper than consumer zooms.
 
Last edited:

Browncoat

Senior Member
This is the kind of techno-babble I was referring to.

That article has no real value to 90% of the people reading it, and might as well be about string theory. Stuff like that just creates ill-informed consumers who start doing side-by-side comparisons by looking at stat charts that they have no idea how to interpret.

All people really want to know is: does the damn thing take a decent picture or not?
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
This is the kind of techno-babble I was referring to.

That article has no real value to 90% of the people reading it, and might as well be about string theory. Stuff like that just creates ill-informed consumers who start doing side-by-side comparisons by looking at stat charts that they have no idea how to interpret.

All people really want to know is: does the damn thing take a decent picture or not?

I'm with you on this Anthony. The other side of this "mumbo jumbo", if you allow me to use the expression, is that some people do not want to take the responsibility of buying a lens. They have to rely on other's opinions to make a decision. Most of today's lenses are good and can allow a photographer to take good pictures. If someone is a commercial photographer, he will buy what's best, disregard the price and use it until something better comes along. This is justified for business reasons and is considered the cost of doing business.

Now with someone starting as a hobbyist, the only lens that is better is the one you have with you when the picture opportunity comes. Practice and more practice will tell a person which lens he/she needs. If that person is relying on others to tell him what he needs, then he doesn't need it.

Which are more comfortable to walk with, black or grey socks…?

​End of rant.
 

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
I'm with you on this Anthony. The other side of this "mumbo jumbo", if you allow me to use the expression, is that some people do not want to take the responsibility of buying a lens. They have to rely on other's opinions to make a decision.

What is going on with the moderators on this site? Someone new comes along and asks some beginner questions, then moderators flame the new users and drive them away. You could have explained your same points to the new user in a nice way - and help educate him about photography - as some other users did.
 

Skytalker

Senior Member
@Browncoat
Yes right... that techno bubble will create not ill informed but WELL informed people opposed to the other 90% that are MISS-informed. There are plenty of them in the photo-forums, you can sometimes hear them reciting the obsolete clichés:

- primes are better *sharper than zooms,
- film is better than digital
- the bodies come and go, the lens is more important
- a camera does not take a photograph but the person behind it does
- etc...

I could go on ...:)


Just forget about clichés and try to educate people.
 
Last edited:

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
What is going on with the moderators on this site? Someone new comes along and asks some beginner questions, then moderators flame the new users and drive them away. You could have explained your same points to the new user in a nice way - and help educate him about photography - as some other users did.

Well I'm truly sorry if you read harshness between the lines I wrote. I didn't mean to flame anyone but maybe I used too powerful words to try to convey what I meant. If my post has offended you or someone else, I apologize.

We see so many people coming in this forum that ask one or two questions and then are never heard of again that sometimes I don't really know what to tell them. My post was more an open discussion and I should not have used the word rant.

​I'll leave this as is for now and hope I haven't ruffled too many feathers.
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
Wow. Is there a sign hanging out front that I missed? Something has to keep leading these people in here. At first I thought it was the trikini, but now I'm starting to wonder.

No worries, Marcel. You're still a good egg in my book.

:heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow::heart::rainbow:​:heart::rainbow:
 

Vincent

Senior Member
@Browncoat
Yes right... that techno bubble will create not ill informed but WELL informed people opposed to the other 90% that are MISS-informed. There are plenty of them in the photo-forums, you can sometimes hear them reciting the obsolete clichés:

- primes are better *sharper than zooms,
- film is better than digital
- the bodies come and go, the lens is more important
- a camera does not take a photograph but the person behind it does
- etc...

I could go on ...:)


Just forget about clichés and try to educate people.

Now what I do not get is that you seem to do exactly what you claim to go against.

- primes are better *sharper than zooms => since a prime is one focal length and the zooms are a range there are some parts of the zooms that are a compromise.
Indeed this does not mean there are no good zooms or there are no bad primes, but there is a reason why in general the same effort in design will deliver better primes.
- film is better than digital
Film is technically better, just a scientific fact. That does not mean that most of us can not do the work they do with Digital, most of us do not need superior film.
- a camera does not take a photograph but the person behind it does
Not convincing me of something else by stating this is obsolete.

Now for the question:
- Primes will generally be able to give better aperture, when you need this, you need this.
- For the rest you will have to look at reviews, but most (modern) lenses seem to have very good IQ and the detailed difference will be something for specialists only.
- Primes are generally lighter an cheaper, Zooms you have to change less => that will be your preference/choice.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
I'm considering few lenses for my d600 and would like to know your opinion of which lenses provide better picture quality and IQ - a prime or zoom ones..

It really depends on the individual lens and focal length. Fast primes allow more light in and I find I get sharper images than with the zooms. If you want to look at charts, look up the new sigma 35mm 1.4, it beats every zoom and prime in it's range, including the best Nikon (also look beyond just center sharpness, edges are important and this is where the zooms usually fall behind). Zooms suffer more from the physics involved in covering a focal range, the prime benefits from fewer optical challenges. Not every prime is going to be better than every zoom and vice-versa.
 
Last edited:

gqtuazon

Gear Head
It is true that primes were better than zooms a while ago. But not anymore especially with Nikon.
The Nikon 14-24/24-70/70-200mm are on par with every prime in the range of 14-200mm. Even more the Nikon 14-24 is sharper than any prime in its range.

I would have to disagree on this one since I have at least two primes that are sharper when it comes to that specific focal length than my 70-200mm f2.8 VRII.

It is safe to say that if you are comparing the Nikon 14-24-70-200mm f2.8 (trinity) zoom lenses, that they are sharper than the "D" prime lenses and probably just as sharp when it comes to the f1.8G FX prime lenses.

I know the Nikon 200mm f2 VRI/VRII is sharper than the 70-200mm f2.8VRII which is why I don't think the statement is completely true.

I agree that the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 dominates the primes in that focal length with the current offerings but I am not certain when it comes to sharpness since the Zeiss lenses have been proven to provide sharper images corner to corner in that category. It all depends on how the individual views "IQ" and what it means to him or her.

The zooms does offers more flexibility but like what was mentioned, if you are comparing the floater aperture zooms (f3.5-f5.6), the primes will definitely have better IQ.
 
Last edited:
Top