A lens question

I have a fairly limited range of lenses. All bar one is a zoom because I value the flexibility and hate having to swap lenses.

I read a few posts in a thread just now and one image in particular stood out. It was sensational. It was taken with a 35mm prime at f/1.6 or thereabouts. I own a 16-35mm f/2.8 and so I can achieve more or less the same result, but only when working at f/2.8 or above. I could not replicate this photo, which used the narrow DOF very effectively.

Looking at other contributions to the thread however, I noticed other images taken with the 35mm prime using apertures above f/2.8, which made me wonder, is there much difference, when using (for instance) the 35mm prime at f/2.8 or more, between it and the 16-35 f/2.8?

If we were to compare images between a zoom at any focal length, with a prime of the same focal length and set to the same aperture, would there be a significant difference in IQ?

OK, I admit it. I'm being lazy here. I'm sure this topic has been dissected at length many times, but I can't find any direct comparisons made this way, i.e. a fast prime being used stopped down, at apertures available on a zoom. Is there an advantage, or is the value of fast primes solely in their big apertures?

Here's a really good article about this topic: https://www.lensrental​s.com …o-know-about-zoom-lenses/

Primes are usually sharper nearer their full open setting, zooms usually require a stop or two down to really get them into their zone, just a general guideline.

A fast prime shut down to f2.8 to match a zoom of the same focal length wide open at f2.8 will usually be noticeably sharper. It is already being shut down a stop or more, where the zoom isn't quite at its best. Again as a general guideline...

I prefer primes when I can get away with it. There was a time when you gave up a lot of IQ when shooting a zoom. I still think the primes are better, however they have come a long way with the IQ of zooms. It has a little to do with lens "quality" as well. A cheap, or third party prime may not be as good a Canon L or high end Nikon zoom.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18776451
I have a fairly limited range of lenses. All bar one is a zoom because I value the flexibility and hate having to swap lenses.

"All bar one is a zoom ..."

I don't understand what that means.
Is that a typo, or is it what you meant to say?
Could you please explain this expression?
Thanks.
.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18776451
If we were to compare images between a zoom at any focal length, with a prime of the same focal length and set to the same aperture, would there be a significant difference in IQ?
..... . a fast prime being used stopped down, at apertures available on a zoom. Is there an advantage, or is the value of fast primes solely in their big apertures?

.
I think that in order to answer this question most precisely, one must define what one means by "image quality".

Do you mean the way that the out-of-focus areas are rendered?

Do you mean the sharpness (resolving ability) of the areas that are in focus?

Do you mean color rendition?

I have a Canon 400mm f2.8 IS. I also have two f5.6 zoom lenses that cover the 40mm focal length - the Sigma 300-800mm f5.6 and the Canon 100-400mm version 2.

If shooting the same thing from the same position with all three lenses at 400mm and f5.6, I will get three different looking images. . But none f them is essentially "better" or "of higher quality" than the others. . They are different, but in ways that are more subjective than objective.

All three lenses will yield pretty much the same sharpness, so there isn't really an appreciable difference in that area.

The two Canons will produce very similar colors, while the Sigma colors are a bit warmer and also different in a way that I struggle to articulate. . I wouldn't say that the Canon colors are better than the Sigma's colors, nor the reverse .... they are just different, and I may prefer one over the other, or vice versa, for any given shooting scenario.

The rendering of the out-of-focus areas from all three lenses, when all are shot at 40mm and at f5.6 ...... well, it is very slightly different, but not nearly so much as some might think, or try to have you believe. . The OOF rendering is really quite similar. . The differences are very subtle, so much so that I struggle to articulate the difference from one lens to the next.

So after all that discussion, I guess I could sum up my answer with the dreaded . "it depends ...."

It depends on what two lenses are being compared to one another.

It also depends on what part of image quality you are most interested in comparing - color rendition, OOF rendition, or sharpness (resolving ability).

Lastly, it depends on your personal preferences when it comes to color rendition and OOF rendition. . There is not necessarily a "better" or a "worse". . Rather, it depends on what look you happen to prefer ... and this can change from one type of image to another. . This is why the most important thing is not really what lenses you own, but rather your familiarity with your lenses, knowing how each one renders in different light and at different distances and with different textures and colors. . The more you know your lenses, the better you can get your photos to match the vision that is in your mind's eye, and that should always be the goal.

.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18776451
I have a fairly limited range of lenses. All bar one is a zoom because I value the flexibility and hate having to swap lenses.
I read a few posts in a thread just now and one image in particular stood out. It was sensational. It was taken with a 35mm prime at f/1.6 or thereabouts. I own a 16-35mm f/2.8 and so I can achieve more or less the same result, but only when working at f/2.8 or above. I could not replicate this photo, which used the narrow DOF very effectively.
Looking at other contributions to the thread however, I noticed other images taken with the 35mm prime using apertures above f/2.8, which made me wonder, is there much difference, when using (for instance) the 35mm prime at f/2.8 or more, between it and the 16-35 f/2.8?
If we were to compare images between a zoom at any focal length, with a prime of the same focal length and set to the same aperture, would there be a significant difference in IQ?
OK, I admit it. I'm being lazy here. I'm sure this topic has been dissected at length many times, but I can't find any direct comparisons made this way, i.e. a fast prime being used stopped down, at apertures available on a zoom. Is there an advantage, or is the value of fast primes solely in their big apertures?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18776594
"All bar one is a zoom ..."

I don't understand what that means.
Is that a typo, or is it what you meant to say?
Could you please explain this expression?
Thanks.

It means that all of his lenses are zoom lenses except for the one that isn't a zoom lens.

The only prime I found to be worth to have on FF DSLRs is 50mm. I had 50 1.2 for years, but it's plastic worn out and Canon Canada was not able to repair it to as new conditions. I really liked this lens images at f1.2, but lens build is crap.
So, after getting another 5D MKII I paid for Nifty-Fifty MKI. To me main reason to use prime is in less size. Even 50 1.2L was not big.

As for standing out effect. Meh. I like what 16-35 2.5 MKII do at f2.8 and 24-105 L F4 is amazing optics lens.
No reason to get primes with L zooms, IMO. Except 50 or 40 2.8 pancake to have small set.
Yet, I had 24 EF-S on 500D, but after getting 17-35 F4 L back it is much more versatile kit even with much larger size.
Nothing else renders like L lenses. And if I need object "standing out" it works with longer distance and closer zoom.
Working with 16-35 close is also makes object standing out and it looks more natural, IMO than shallow DOF with longer and faster primes.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18776522
I prefer primes when I can get away with it.

I also admire primes. In fact, I have zero zooms. Though, I think I'd like the 24-35 ART.

.

kf095 wrote in post #18776643
Nothing else renders like L lenses.

.
Interesting perspective. . Have you ever worked with the latest version of the 400mm f4 DO? . I find its rendering to be so similar to the big white L lenses that I cannot see any difference.


.

I'm not into 400mm range, but on the opposite end. This is why have 17-40, 16-35 and 20-50 EF lenses.
Forgive me if I'm not 100% on lenses description.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18776991
.

.
Interesting perspective. . Have you ever worked with the latest version of the 400mm f4 DO? . I find its rendering to be so similar to the big white L lenses that I cannot see any difference.

.

This question is sort of wandering on the topic, but maybe not, seeing the thread title is merely "lenses" ...

... but speaking of "DO" lenses, have you ever had any experience with the 70-300mm DO, or got solid feedback from another photographer using one? From what I've read it's not stellar. But I've been curious if the lens is worth buying as a collector's item because the used prices are far below the new price.

So there's no correlation of that question with the 400mm DO ...

mdvaden wrote in post #18777674
... but speaking of "DO" lenses, have you ever had any experience with the 70-300mm DO, or got solid feedback from another photographer using one? From what I've read it's not stellar.

No. . And no.

It has always had a reputation for poor image quality .... and it is barely any smaller or lighter than a non-DO 70-300mm. . Kind of a useless lens because it isn't as good as its alternatives in any area.

.

mdvaden wrote in post #18777674
I've been curious if the lens is worth buying as a collector's item because the used prices are far below the new price.

Normally, the things that are of value to collectors are things that were of good quality and/or high reputation to begin with. . An item that is not rare (hard to find on the used market) and wasn't ever known as being a quality product is not likely to be of any interest to serious collectors.
.
.

mdvaden wrote in post #18777674
So there's no correlation of that question with the 400mm DO ...

No, no correlation whatsoever.

One is a very old zoom design that has always had a very bad reputation for poor image quality, and the other is a recently designed prime that is reputed universally as having stellar image quality.

Why would you think there may be a corrolation? . Because they're both "DO" ? . Was that your thinking?

.

One thing not mentioned in prior replies about image quality is the characteristic of freedom from geometric distortions. Typically things like barrel and pincushion distortion are stronger in zooms at the short FL end of the zoom range. In comparison, fixed focal length lenses benefit from more optimization of design for geometric distortions... It is simpler to optimize for a single focal length.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18776594
"All bar one is a zoom ..."

I don't understand what that means.
Is that a typo, or is it what you meant to say?
Could you please explain this expression?
Thanks.

https://www.oxfordlear​nersdictionaries.com/d​efinition/english/bar_​3

pcs wrote in post #18865567
https://www.oxfordlear​nersdictionaries.com/d​efinition/english/bar_​3

Oh, yeah, I get it. . I "got it" several months ago.

The reason I didn't understand it at first is that no commas were used. . The proper use and placement of commas would have made this readily understandable:

"All, bar one, is a zoom."

Would it really have been that difficult to properly punctuate this sentence? . I just did it, and it was really easy and fast. . People need to understand that when they take shortcuts with grammar or punctuation, those shortcuts actually keep some people from being able to understand what they are saying. . It is maddening that some people refuse to take an extra fraction of a second to write things properly.

.