Zoom v. prime?

[unpopular]

Would you say that, in any given class, primes still outperform zooms, or has zoom technology improved that it doesn't much matter? Do primes still offer a quality-to-price advantage, even if not as convenient?

If zooms are now "just as good" quality-wise, when did this improvement take place? If i bought a zoom lens from 1995, would it still perform similarly to similar quality prime from the same era?

Obviously, I don't expect comparisons to a cheap kit lens with a high-end portrait lens, and I know that an exact comparison cat really be made, but lemons-to-limes, what are your impressions with modern zooms?

 

[fjrabon]

Generally primes still allow you to get much faster glass dollar per dollar. Also primes generally have a much larger range of apertures that are 'in their sweetspot'. A fast zoom is f/2.8 constant aperture, while generally you can get primes in the f/1.4 range. Generally even an average prime is going to be sharp from f/2.0 to about f/16, while as a comparable quality zoom might only be as sharp from f/8 - f/12.

 

[dxqcanada]

IQ of zoom lenses have improved over time ... and can outperform some fixed focal length lenses.

There is no specific correlation based on date/time. Each lens has to be compared to another.
There are many old lenses that can outperform modern lenses ... there are many modern zooms that still suck.

My Minolta 28-135mm lens built in 1985 has outperformed most of my newer zoom lenses ... but this lens was an odd ball.

 

[unpopular]

Generally primes still allow you to get much faster glass dollar per dollar. Also primes generally have a much larger range of apertures that are 'in their sweetspot'. A fast zoom is f/2.8 constant aperture, while generally you can get primes in the f/1.4 range. Generally even an average prime is going to be sharp from f/2.0 to about f/16, while as a comparable quality zoom might only be as sharp from f/8 - f/12.

Interesting. I knew of course that zooms tend to be slower and often have variable aperture, but I didn't know that they tend to be more limited in peak performance.

Would you suggest then I continue my prime collection? I've never owned a zoom lens, and I can see the convenience, but for me quality and cost is more important.

 

[dxqcanada]

I have switched to using a mix of Prime + high IQ Zooms.
Both have advantages.

 

[Overread]

Honestly, like a lot of gear debates, it really comes down to selecting specific examples to compared to. Different lenses aim at different market segments and depending on what you can afford a zoom could be just usable through to outstanding.

I'd put your needs on the table first and foremost though - your needs and a rough budget. From there you can see what the market has to offer in primes and zooms and see what is going to be most suitable. Trying to compare them all is a mugs game as you'll have your exclusive high priced items in there (f1 50mm lenses and f2.8 200-500mm zoom lenses).

Say what you feel you need and we can have a look at the options.

 

[snowbear]

If the convenience and flexibility of zooms doesn't matter to you, or cancels out due to limitations compared to primes, then stay with the primes. As for cost, some of that depends on how much focal range you want to cover.

 

[unpopular]

I'd put your needs on the table first and foremost though - your needs and a rough budget. From there you can see what the market has to offer in primes and zooms and see what is going to be most suitable. Trying to compare them all is a mugs game as you'll have your exclusive high priced items in there (f1 50mm lenses and f2.8 200-500mm zoom lenses).

Well, isn't that ironic?

Ok. My problem is that, like I said, I've never, ever owned a zoom. I've always been pretty prejudice of them. So I don't mind using primes, but maybe I'm just being stubborn or snobby and missing out just because of that fact.

My budget is always low, I don't have thousands to spend. While in the long run a prime collection might cost more, I don't really have the luxury of spending $1k+ at any given time. So my budget is around $350 at any given time. I could save, sure. But we have a lot already to save for, so lenses get put on the back burner.

I find myself using very wide apertures not as frequently, but i do like to see what's going on and I prefer manual focus. But wide aperture isn't so much a big deal, if I need a wide aperture, I can just use one of the primes I have.

I want to keep all my lenses full-frame compatible so that I can use them in the future. They may not need to be awesome full frame performers, but being able to use them with a full frame camera is important.

I'd like to get some wider lenses, and this is really where the problem is. I already own a Minolta 28/2,8 and a 50/1.7. I am wondering if the best route would be to go Minolta 16mm/2.8, 20/2.8, 24/2.8 and (eventually) 35/2 G, or simply go with the 17-35 2.8-4 D or something from Sigma et al, with the intent to upgrade later to the 17-35 3.5 G or one of the Zeiss options, should I find it necessary. So with quality, sharpness, CA, and contrast in mind, am I still better off with the primes? Does the minolta or sigma and friends offer something comparable at this price to the primes?

 

[Overread]

Hmm well I don't know that segment of the market that well - I would suggest one path is to try them for yourself; a local shop or camera club might well be able to let you have a try and get some photos and at least have a see for yourself at the differences between various options.

Good zooms can perform well enough that, in real world use and outside of side by side 200% crops, the differences are marginal to invisible. However at the budget end of the scale you can oft find that the primes beat out the zooms (zooms are more complex to produce and producing a high grade zoom will cost - there are some budget and very good options though).

 

[dxqcanada]

I have both the Minolta 24mm f/2.8 and the Minolta 24-85mm zoom ... the prime is better.

I looked into the Minolta 17-35mm ... and it appears to be a rebadged Tamron.

I have heard of good things about the Sony DT16-105mm and DT16-50mm.

 

[unpopular]

Hmm. if true that does play a major roll here. Tamrons from that era were not very good as a general rule.

---

Unfortunately the Sony 28-50 an APS-C lens.

 

[Joshonator]

I would look at sample shots from those lenses and see if they how they compare to eachother. Not all primes are better than zooms (can be especially true for older primes). And compare the costs of going either route. I find that the most affordable primes are usually the 28mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm with anything else usually being more expensive so I have nothing but zooms for the wide angle and telephoto focal lengths.

 

[unpopular]

I really wish that Minolta made a non-G 85

 

[dxqcanada]

I suggest getting onto the Dyxum lens forum ... they have given me some great info for my lens purchases.

 

[cgipson1]

Personally I feel top end zooms IQ is as good as most , if not all primes... (at least in the Nikon world). The main advantage to primes for me, are the faster apertures that readily available. (Pixel Peepers may differ.. but even then I would argue the point)