Prime vs zoom The proof is in the images so lets see them

I'm on the fence as usual about getting a prime (50f/1.2 or 85f/1.2 II). Right now I use 16-35 24-70 and 70-200IS all f/2.8. I read reviews about how much better the prime lens is over the zooms lets see the difference. The difference may not be able to be sen here due to the restriction in size and quality so if you could post a link. I want to get one, probably have to rent to see if I like it, but let me know what you think!

If a similar thread is running like this just let me know and I'll close this one!!

Thanks

I seriously doubt you'll ever see any really noticeable image quality differences between those made with the "L" zooms you have (I have the same plus the 24-70) and any "prime" lenses. You'd have to do laboratory-grade tests to show any differences.

The better "prime" lenses can provide wider apertures and are generally smaller and lighter than the zooms. That's the whole difference of any significance, except for the bragging rights for those who have a closet full of either or both lens types.

I'm with Skip. I own the primes I own for the times I want to shoot at apertures faster than what I can achieve with my zooms.

I'd even say bokeh in favor of the primes, except the bokeh from my 70-200 is excellent and that from my 50/1.4 is not.

I suspect one of the things about using a prime is that it forces you to stop & think more, especially about framing and the position of your feet. This in itself could well help in getting "better" pictures.

I had a 50mm f/1.2L for a few months and to be honest, didn't think it was any different to my 24-70L apart from having a wafer-thin DOF which I don't really shoot at...

You'll get different effects with the prime. Noticeably the bokeh. Otherwise I dont' think you'll notice especially since most JPEGs posted have been processed or resized.

shomat wrote in post #9292303
On the contrary, I think prime lenses have a personality about them that you really don't see in zoom lenses until you start spending serious money. I don't remember ever being as happy with a consumer/prosumer-priced zoom lens as I was with the $79 50/1.8 (at least that's what it cost when I had it) or something like the quite afforadable and optically excellent 100/2 USM.

It seems to me that as zoom lenses go you pay for the features first, then the IQ. You'll spend a few hundred dollars on a consumer lens and in exchange you get something like long reach or IS coupled with zoom versatility and perfectly acceptable IQ.

Of course then you start approaching the big leagues where you've got lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200 which are really magnificent tools which I've referred to more than once as "prime IQ in a zoom". In this case you've nearly got it all - features, versatility and extraordinary image quality.

You've made some good points. Replies to the OP should really divide the lenses compared into two groups - "consumer grade" (for both "prime" and zoom) and "L" lenses.

When I got my first and only DSLR (my 20D), I decided to get the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L, 24-70 f/2.8L, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Except for adding a Canon 1.4x extender, this group of glass is still all I own. I have no real desire for anything more at this time.

I can't see much differente in IQ between my 17-40 and my 85 for example, not that it doesn't exist, but at least is not that important for me to notice it.

What I do like about primes is shooting with large apertures and the bokeh quality which is quite better than zooms, as you can read in MTF charts.

Also primes help my creativity.

On another angle, a zoom is a heck of a tool, I was shooting yesterday under a terrible wind with my 17-40 and could make around 30-40 different shots with different angles of a landscape which I could not with a prime.

If you don't need or want to shoot faster than f2.8 and can afford good zooms, then there is little "need" to use primes. That said, my f1.4 prime is lot lighter and smaller than an f2.8 zoom covering the normal range.

oh. oh.... the prime guys will not be happy with comments made here

With my xti and previous 50D I was able to tell the difference quite easily between a zoom and prime at wider aperatures. Only when I stopped down the aperature the "difference" was less and both zooms and primes narrows the gap. So I guess f/5.6 and smaller the details really start to come out with a crop with a zoom lens.

The 5dmkII has made an incredible difference in IQ with my zooms. Even comparing the 5D classic to the 5dmkII I see an increase in IQ at wide aperatures. f/2.8 with the 5dmkII is truly incredible now compared to my 5D classic. f/2.8 zoom on my crop bodies have never even come close in IQ wideopen (or close to) compared to a full frame.

I just tend to like the IQ of the 5D with either zoom or prime. With my crops I tend to keep primes only.

5d w/ 85L

AlanU wrote in post #9302516
oh. oh.... the prime guys will not be happy with comments made here

I think any reasonable photographer know that they are all different tools in the toolbox and one is not better than the other, just different. Zooms you are giving up weight and maximum aperture, primes you are giving up framing or perspective flexibility.

You also bring up a good point. If you love primes for their subject isolation power alone - a larger sensor with an fast-ish zoom might actually be just as good for you.

Here is some zoom bokeh.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

SkipD wrote in post #9292001
I seriously doubt you'll ever see any really noticeable image quality differences between those made with the "L" zooms you have (I have the same plus the 24-70) and any "prime" lenses. You'd have to do laboratory-grade tests to show any differences.

The better "prime" lenses can provide wider apertures and are generally smaller and lighter than the zooms. That's the whole difference of any significance, except for the bragging rights for those who have a closet full of either or both lens types.

any lens can do bright outdoor/flash shots....

try bokeh and low light withOUT flashing with a zoom........ you'll see a difference

linh811 wrote in post #9303444
any lens can do bright outdoor/flash shots....

try bokeh and low light withOUT flashing with a zoom........ you'll see a difference

Well, any of us can simply calculate the effects of a faster maximum aperture on a given situation.

The OP was asking about IQ differences, which IMO are typically overstated.

MTF charts say nothing about bokeh.

BrianMc3 wrote in post #9291975
I'm on the fence as usual about getting a prime (50f/1.2 or 85f/1.2 II). Right now I use 16-35 24-70 and 70-200IS all f/2.8. I read reviews about how much better the prime lens is over the zooms lets see the difference. The difference may not be able to be sen here due to the restriction in size and quality so if you could post a link. I want to get one, probably have to rent to see if I like it, but let me know what you think!

The difference in sheer IQ may not be seen anywhere unless you are a quite careful photographer in a situation in which you can take that care.

"Better" is relative. For someone who is after the shallowest possible depth of field at maximum aperture, a very fast prime is better. For someone after the smallest, lightest, fastest lens at a given focal length, a prime will usually be the best choice.

In most cases, a good prime will be sharper than a zoom at the same aperture as the zoom's maximum aperture. But you have to compare lenses of similar construction quality and level of design. I have, for instance, an f/2.8 50mm Tessar (made in the early 50s for an old Exacta) that is nowhere near as sharp and contrasty as my Canon 80-200 f/2.8 L at any focal length.