are standard zooms generally sharper than telephoto zooms?

So i just got my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and I'm finding that my pictures are generally softer than the images I get with my Sigma 24-60 f/2.8. Now I've only used it one night and in my apartment, so not really a great testing ground. Perhaps I just need to get used to the f/2.8 aperture with the long focal length, I take it that there is alot more DOF then with a standard zoom ??

Also, looking closely at my wonderful wedding pics, it appears that the same holds true. My photographer used a 30D with 70-200 F.2.8 IS L and 40D with 17-55 2.8 and the telephoto shots are nice but not razer sharp like the 17-55 pics.

Is this why people like to use big primes for birds shooting? Are telephoto zooms not as sharp, even the best ones?

There are those that swear on primes. I personally have not noticed enough difference to move straight to primes. I like the ability to zoom. I have personally moved from sigma to Canon L but that is a personal preference. I found some sigma stuff to be great but thought I got more out of the Canon......but at greater costs. Always a downside.

I wouldn't say that as a rule they're sharper. I definitely think that wide lenses are easier to use, and that its tougher to get sharp pictures with a big lens like the 70-200 f/2.8. Its heavy, and any movement can cause blur. Shutter speeds need to be way up.

DStanic wrote in post #5514433
So i just got my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and I'm finding that my pictures are generally softer than the images I get with my Sigma 24-60 f/2.8. Now I've only used it one night and in my apartment, so not really a great testing ground. Perhaps I just need to get used to the f/2.8 aperture with the long focal length, I take it that there is alot more DOF then with a standard zoom ??

Also, looking closely at my wonderful wedding pics, it appears that the same holds true. My photographer used a 30D with 70-200 F.2.8 IS L and 40D with 17-55 2.8 and the telephoto shots are nice but not razer sharp like the 17-55 pics.

Is this why people like to use big primes for birds shooting? Are telephoto zooms not as sharp, even the best ones?

Probably two things
300 2.8
400 2.8

No zoom can touch these two lenses as far as speed an IQ.

DStanic wrote in post #5514433
So i just got my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and I'm finding that my pictures are generally softer than the images I get with my Sigma 24-60 f/2.8. Now I've only used it one night and in my apartment, so not really a great testing ground. Perhaps I just need to get used to the f/2.8 aperture with the long focal length, I take it that there is alot more DOF then with a standard zoom ??

Post some images: A lot of things can cause this:

For starters:
- missed focus a bit
- camera shake

DoF is *shallower* on a longer lens (from the same shooting distance).

Generally a telephoto zoom is *sharper* then a standard zoom.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5514958
Probably two things
300 2.8
400 2.8

No zoom can touch these two lenses as far as speed an IQ.

I drool thinking about the 300 2.8!

Romy (liquidstone) did some test where his Sigma 300-800 was as sharp his 500mm f4 IS. Lot of things happen with longer glass. Lot of times people don't know how to use them properly.

At 200mm the MTF at f/4 is slightly lower than at other FL. But generally speaking, the MTF ratings of both Sigma lenses is pretty comparable. So if there is less sharpness with the longer lens, it could be user error (failing to follow the 1/(FL * 1.6) rule of thumb of shutter speed), or it could be a poor copy of the lens.

Primes, at least for me, aren't a question of IQ, that's more often than not an added bonus. It's all about speed.

Well I did a focus test, did about 50 shots both horizontally and vertically so it appears to be in perfect focus. It's weird.. at 70mm it looks very soft at 2.8 but not so bad at 200mm. At 70mm, I need to shop it down a fair bit to get it anywhere near as sharp as my 24-60. Is this normal behavior?

Sorry I don't have any test shots to show you, they look terrible due to the low light and using my onboard flash. I'm only able to get my shutter speed up to 1/200 even though that should be good for 70mm I'm wondering if I'm still getting camera shake. I haven't actually gone outside and taken "real world" pictures yet.

Also I had a crappy Tiffen UV protector on it.

I just took a handful of shots of a memory card on the floor and it appears that the writing it much sharper on it now. Then I threw the filter on again and it looked like crap.

could that REALLY cause such severe softness at 70mm? Wow.

Personally I don't know why people use filters for protection reasons only. Why not spend < $10 per yr on insurance and the whole lens is covered for anything which might happen.

DStanic wrote in post #5521565
Also I had a crappy Tiffen UV protector on it.

I just took a handful of shots of a memory card on the floor and it appears that the writing it much sharper on it now. Then I threw the filter on again and it looked like crap.

could that REALLY cause such severe softness at 70mm? Wow.

Take the Tiffen out to the street and throw it onto the pavement. Quickly stomp very vigorously on the filter until there is no possibility of the virus spreading to other product users!

DStanic wrote in post #5521565
Then I threw the filter on again and it looked like crap.

could that REALLY cause such severe softness at 70mm? Wow.

Sounds like you've answered your own question

bobbyz wrote in post #5522124
Personally I don't know why people use filters for protection reasons only. Why not spend < $10 per yr on insurance and the whole lens is covered for anything which might happen.

I agree, I think it's ridiculous.