I know for a fact that prime lenses result in better picture quality then zoom, but can anyone tell me how much better. Lets say 70
Printable View
I know for a fact that prime lenses result in better picture quality then zoom, but can anyone tell me how much better. Lets say 70
Primes - Quality, Quality....Quality. Sharpness, contrast, focus speed, larger apertures for speed and DoF.
Zooms - For use when lens changing is not a viable option;Sacrifice a little bit of quality forconvenience of having a range covered.
I'd take a prime over a zoom any day. I currently have the 35L in mypossession tillMondayandholy crap I love this thing.
I must say, though, that a high quality zoom is probably better than a lower quality prime. For instance, I think my 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, 17-55mm f/2.8, and 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 all produce as good (if not better) images than my 35mm f/2.
Why not look at Bryan's test charts?
The problem with your question is that it's not specific enough. There is more than one kind of 70-200mm zoom, and more than one kind of 200mm L prime. The best way to get a sense of how they compare is to look at the charts.
Often, the difference between zooms and primes has less to do with image quality (as in sharpness and contrast) than it has to do with other characteristics. Weight, maximum aperture, bokeh, minimum focusing distance, image stabilization, resistance to flare, focus shift, distortion, vignetting, etc. are also good criteria to consider.
Hi Scott...
The above comment is so true, there aremanyvariables involved when choosing between a prime or a zoom and PRICE isone hugefactor....for example...the gorgeous 300mm f/2.8L prime, is priced around $CAD5000.00 vs $CAD2200.00 for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM zoom vs $CAD2400.00 for the 85mm f/1.2 prime (what a piece of art - all that glass)!
You may want to also wander over to www.pixel-peeper.com and have a look at the images taken with the lenses. You can also filter down to a specific lens and camera.
Be aware that zooms do not have consistent image quality throughout their range. There may be a 24-105, for example, that may approach the quality of a prime at 105, but is nowhere close to the quality of a prime at 24, or it may have high quality at the middle of its range, but decline at both extremes. Often wide angle zooms suffer on the wider extreme, but all this varies by how the lens design is optimized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett-Grimsley
I love my prime lenses too, but if I'm just walking around, and don't know what's going to be happening, my zoomsare the more usual suspects.
Sometimes I walk around with a prime, just because... but zooms enable an extra level of flexiblity to get a shot that won't wait for you to zoom with your feet.
My primes are all sharper than equivalent zooms, though some of the zooms are dang sharp, and practically speaking from the quality of the image as a whole, printed reasonably large, quite fine. My 35mm prime is significantly sharper than my 16-35mm zoom at 35mm f2.8. At 100% crop you can see it easily. Printed 10x15, might be difficult.
Now, my fast primes just STOMP all over my fastest zooms in terms of light gathering ability.