Zoom v. prime?

unpopular · Jun 30, 2012

aside from some sloppy bokeh, these samples don't look tremendously terrible, right?

Minolta AF 17-35 F2.8-4 D - Dyxum forums - Page 1

I suppose if I end up not liking it, I could just set it aside until I needed a zoom?

Still zooms make me nervous. For the last 15 years I've been on this kind of derby anti-zoom kick, and it's hard for me to break out of the "zooms suck" mentality.

Overread · Jun 30, 2012

If you're comparing photos edited at websize - the difference between prime and zoom is almost impossible to see. The only thing that will be clear is depth of field differences with wide aperture shots. Sharpness, aberrations etc.. - most will be invisible or easily adjusted and fixed for a web-sized photo.

table1349 · Jun 30, 2012

The problems whenever this question comes up is that unless you are comparing apples to apples then the whole thing is pretty much a waste of time. Most of my lenses, both primes and zooms are L glass. I can tell you right now that my 300 mm f2.8 and 400mm f2.8 are both sharper than the 100-400mm L at 300mm and 400mm. My 200mm f2.8 and 200mm f2.0 are sharper at 200mm than my 70-200mm f2.8 L at 200mm. Same with my 135mm L. It is sharper than the 70-200 at 135mm. 24mm f1.4L is sharper than my 24-70 mm 2.8L at 24mm.

If sharpness is my top priority I almost always choose a prime. If the convenience of a zoom is as or more important than the difference in sharpness I choose a zoom.

If you are not comparing apples to apples in lens quality then you have no good way to make a general determination.

unpopular · Jun 30, 2012

yeah. and with only one 100% crop, it's not too helpful.

I just keep bouncy back and forth on this. On one side I am thinking it's only one additional lens that might, if I'm happy with it, save me four others at a similar price, but at the same time I don't like wasting what is a fair amount of money for me and my family right now on a lens I wouldn't be happy with. I suppose I could recoup and resell, but what a pain.

sovietdoc · Jun 30, 2012

Most primes even today in 2012 are soft wide open. The only way to get a super sharp shot is either buy "best-in-class" primes that cost huge amount of cash, or stop the lens down, in which case you'll shoot at about the same aperture as the zoom.

Sharpness and contrast wise, high quality zooms can perform as well as the primes. The only reason to get a prime is because you need low light performance, or DoF. With cameras sensors becoming better and better with high ISO, the first point of having a prime is becoing rather obsolete. Which only leaves us with first point. Primes have more "bokeh."

Some might argue that primes help them frame shots better, or that they're lighter. For me, those things are insignificant. What is significant, is a convenience of a zoom that no prime can match. Primes are also generally cheaper than zooms, which is another reason they're pretty popular. Everyone pretty much used the "nifty-fifty" because it had nice performance and low price.

unpopular · Jun 30, 2012

Yes. But I am pretty sure the same can be applied to zooms, that they too don't perform well wide open, unless you spend a lot of money on them. Starting out at f/4 means you'd have to stop down to 5.6 or more likely 8 to get optimal performance. Even my old Tessar sharpens up nicely at 4.

As for convenience and process, I think I'm at a point now that it's not so important. I think it's important for anyone who wants to be serious about photography to shoot exclusively with a single prime, but after 15 years I'd hope to have enough discipline and understanding to use a a "zoom lens" as a variable focal length lens as that, rather than a to zoom in on things that I am too lazy to compose with a more suitable focal length.

Still, I'm getting older, and as they say - you can't teach an old dog new tricks - for me fifteen years of zoom skepticism runs deep. Though I'll prob go ahead with the zoom anyway and see how I feel about it. I can always put it on the shelf and let it gather dust.

Robin Usagani · Jun 30, 2012

Well, I agree that with better and better sensor, primes are not as important anymore. But.. you still cant get the same thin DOF. We have seen way too many church or wedding venue with ugly background.

unpopular · Jun 30, 2012

Schwetty- does this apply to WA primes as well? WA lenses aren't known for their bokeh, after all...

sovietdoc · Jul 1, 2012

DoF is kinda overrated now with CS6. You can get pretty much the same blur in photoshop, or you can always do bokehrama shots. What you can't do is fix an image that wasn't tack sharp because the lens was no good. I mean, you can to an extent, but not the same way you can apply bokeh blur to an image that had a very profound background in photoshop cs6 and make it look like you're shooting at f/1.4

unpopular · Jul 1, 2012

sovietdoc said:
DoF is kinda overrated now with CS6. You can get pretty much the same blur in photoshop, or you can always do bokehrama shots. What you can't do is fix an image that wasn't tack sharp because the lens was no good. I mean, you can to an extent, but not the same way you can apply bokeh blur to an image that had a very profound background in photoshop cs6 and make it look like you're shooting at f/1.4

yeah ... no.

Robin Usagani · Jul 1, 2012

sovietdoc said:
DoF is kinda overrated now with CS6. You can get pretty much the same blur in photoshop, or you can always do bokehrama shots. What you can't do is fix an image that wasn't tack sharp because the lens was no good. I mean, you can to an extent, but not the same way you can apply bokeh blur to an image that had a very profound background in photoshop cs6 and make it look like you're shooting at f/1.4

not familiar with that but im not sure how quick you are going to edit wedding if you have to do that. I assume you have to do a lot of masking.

Robin Usagani · Jul 1, 2012

unpopular said:
Schwetty- does this apply to WA primes as well? WA lenses aren't known for their bokeh, after all...

Not as much.. but really it is up for you to decide. I mean I shoot with 35L a lot almost wide open and sometimes at 1.4 with 6400 ISO. Do you think your 24-70 can perform as well with ISO25600? You'll be the judge.

unpopular · Jul 1, 2012

Yeah. I am not sure I'd ever choose anything in the 17-35mm range for it's Bokeh.

prodigy2k7 · Jul 1, 2012

unpopular said:
Yeah. I am not sure I'd ever choose anything in the 17-35mm range for it's Bokeh.

Why not?

o hey tyler · Jul 1, 2012

sovietdoc said:
DoF is kinda overrated now with CS6. You can get pretty much the same blur in photoshop, or you can always do bokehrama shots. What you can't do is fix an image that wasn't tack sharp because the lens was no good. I mean, you can to an extent, but not the same way you can apply bokeh blur to an image that had a very profound background in photoshop cs6 and make it look like you're shooting at f/1.4

lol