Scott Kelby -The Truth About Lenses - Fixed- Length Prime Lenses Vs. Zooms

[fotoworx]

Scott Kelby -The Truth About Lenses

Fixed- Length Prime Lenses Vs. Zooms

You have to realize one thing about lenses—people get really “techie” about lenses, and
they are a source of constant debate in online forums, where people get really condescending
about which lenses they will or won’t use. One current debate is prime lenses
vs. zoom lenses. There are people who swear that fi xed-length lenses (lenses that don’t
zoom—they are one particular length, and that’s it—and are more commonly called
a “prime lens”) are visibly sharper than zoom lenses. I truly believe that at one point in
time, this was absolutely the case. Zoom lenses were lesser quality, and primes were
sharper (and generally they did, and still do, let you focus up closer). But I personally
don’t think that’s the case with today’s higher-quality zoom lenses (not just any zoom,
but a high-quality zoom, like one that’s f/2.8 all the way through). I think there are but
a handful of photographers who, with the naked eye, can tell whether you took a particular
shot with a zoom lens or a prime lens. I think it’s more of a perceived diff erence,
not an actual diff erence, but again, this is what creates these drawn out debates. This
is going to send people who want to believe there’s a big diff erence into a rage, but I’ve
talked directly with manufacturers who make both the prime and zoom lenses themselves,
and they’ve told me, point blank, that with today’s higher-quality zoom lenses,
there is no visible sharpness diff erence between zooms and primes. That being said, I do
own two prime lenses. They are both very sharp. So are my good zooms. Either way, this
isn’t something to get hung up on. It’s just a lens. Not a religion.




The above excerpt is from Scott Kelbys latest volume (Vol 3) of his The Digital Photography Book.

Has he got it right about zooms and primes?

[tkbslc]

I am quite sure that without exception primes of the same class are sharper than zooms of the same class and focal range. Generally a prime of the same class and price range will be considerably lighter and faster, too.

[POTN Head]

Originally Posted by ConDigital

Not a religion.

[pixel_junkie]

I predict this thread's page count will reach triple digits.

[FlyingPhotog]

Going through a ton of popcorn this week...

[CBokeh]

It's Scott Kelby. How could he possibly be wrong?

[tkbslc]

Kelby shoot Nikon anyway, what does he know about lenses? Nikon primes probably ARE softer than Canon zooms.

[RWatkins]

When I see comparisons of primers vs. zoom, it seems that the primes win out every time.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...=0&FLI=0&API=0

However, with that said, at web resolutions I have a hard time telling the difference most times.

[darrellcraig]

Go to the audiophile forums and read about cables & interconnects for this thread on steroids. That being said, primes rule!

[Andrushka]

I like Kelby's real world attitude and approach... its good solid advice.

I feel pretty much the same way - the vast majority of people could not tell the difference (photographers or otherwise) - add a little sharpening in post and whose the wiser??

[Neilyb]

So all I need now is that 24-70 f1.4 L and I am happy!

[Tee Why]

I think wide open, primes tend to be a touch sharper. Stopped down, the difference is probably negligible.

I do agree that primes offer some other advantages Scott mentioned like being able to focus closer. I also think primes handle distortion better, are lighter, and cheaper to boot.

There is something subjectively better to me about primes. They seem to isolate the subject better IMO. I also like speed and like primes faster than f2.8 which is about the fastest you can get for zooms (I recall an 4/3rd Oly. zoom with a f2 perhaps).

Having said all this, I don't think the difference is that big of a deal. Lenses are tools to make images and it's the image that counts, not the tool.

[KenjiS]

I think primes are better than zooms absolutely when it comes to qualtiy...

HOWEVER I will say that most zooms are also very good, and its certainly not a huge quality compromise like in the old days..

Primes generally are lighter and faster as well as sharper...There are no zooms quicker than f/2.8 for instance [for 35mm] and generally for a certain focal range/aperture, a prime is cheaper generally [ie, a 200mm f/2.8L is less than half the cost of a 70-200 f/2.8L]

[ed rader]

Originally Posted by Andrushka

I like Kelby's real world attitude and approach... its good solid advice.

I feel pretty much the same way - the vast majority of people could not tell the difference (photographers or otherwise) - add a little sharpening in post and whose the wiser??

in one of his books kelby said he had like 3-4 lenses and that's it. unless you are doing specialty shooting i think that's about right.

ed rader

[fotoworx]

Originally Posted by Andrushka

I like Kelby's real world attitude and approach... its good solid advice.

I like Scott Kelby's books as well and I do have a lot of faith in what he says.