Like I previously said almost all fast glass is soft wide open and frankly there is almost never a need to go wider than f/2
Also, as I stated before primes are better optically than zooms in the same price point. saying an old prime doesnt out preform a brand new zoom that is 5 times the price is a pretty obvious conclusion.
Obviously there are going to be exceptions but show me a 2000$ zoom and a 2000$ prime and odds are the prime will be better optically.
My 55$ 50/2 is far sharper than the 24-70 2,8 (2000$) at 50/2,8. Far shaper. Less smearing until the 24-70 reaches its best aperture settings. Of course, the 50/2 is always a 50, and has no automatic controls apart from working with aperture priority in FE and FM model cameras.
Bigshot, are you asking me? I no longer print larger than A2. Most of my prints are A3 from 10mp cameras and with a 36 megapixel camera, I've never gone larger than A2 - yet.
EDIT: I presume you are going to prove that A2 is too small to show the differences between the 24-70 or 18-55 and a sharp/cheap prime you are probably right. But it doesn't stop the prime from being sharper at equivalent apertures. I frequently get requests for 15 megapixel images from my clients. At a sensor crop to APS-C resolution, the same goes true: the prime is sharper. At full resolution, the same hold true at 36 megapixels. The 24-70 is an excellent lens, but it is still less sharp. I've never had a client reject anything because it was slightly less sharp than another lens, but the fact remains that it is less sharp. Again, I don't personally care. If a client does, then that matters to me. I doubt they will as most resolutions they print at are A4 or smaller. They'd never be able to detect the differences.
But, the differences still do exist. If a person is after the absolute best, they should invest in prime lenses. Fortunately, lenses like the 50/2 and 28/2,8 exist, which are absurdly cheap even next to the 18-55 lens (on the used market). Long story short, I have no problem you proving that at viewing distances and at certain print sizes, it won't matter. That isn't what I'm saying. I honestly don't care. I shoot with the 85/1,8K with no worries at all and it is a soft lens. It's just that 24-70 is not as sharp as the lenses I mention, lenses which together cost less than 300$.
What a funny discussion you guys are having. Everyone is 100% sure only his opinion is right. I would not agree with any of you. Both primes and zooms have their advantages and disadvantages and if anyone prefers one or the other it is just a matter of preference, nothing else. Some people prefer to use their feet for zoom (may be a bit hard in churches) and others prefer to do it with zoom lenses.
I will agree with the above. Primes cannot replace zooms as they have not only one field of view, but only one compression angle. Zooms change the latter to a great degree, which is a huge advantage. I prefer to use small, light primes (not today's monsters that cost a fortune), but I understand completely why zooms are not only preferred, but also necessary in many types of photography. That said, it is very hard to debate with sharpness benchmarks achieved by prime lenses. Again, sharpness isn't everything, and again, I have two lenses that aren't that sharp, but that shoot very well.
85mm isn't going to be close enough for weddings in a lot of situations is it.....
Do you guys think cropping a high MP shot produces the same result? (i understand the compression difference)
I've heard 35mm and 85mm are pretty ideal for weddings. For now I'm going to be using 50mm + 85mm....perhaps I need to rethink getting an ultrawide......
maybe I need a 35, 85, and a 70-200 for long shots. I was very close to pulling the trigger on the new Sigma 35 1.4. I feel like 50mm is wide enough, though..
85mm isn't going to be close enough for weddings in a lot of situations is it.....
Do you guys think cropping a high MP shot produces the same result? (i understand the compression difference)
I've heard 35mm and 85mm are pretty ideal for weddings. For now I'm going to be using 50mm + 85mm....perhaps I need to rethink getting an ultrawide......
maybe I need a 35, 85, and a 70-200 for long shots. I was very close to pulling the trigger on the new Sigma 35 1.4. I feel like 50mm is wide enough, though..
50MM is not really wide at all. I use my 50MM only for protraits and small group shots. My 35MM is better but when I want wide angle I use my 10-24MM lens for my d7000. You need a 12-24 or the Tokina wide angle is a nice lens
85mm IS long enough - remember that photographers for many years shot with nothing but 35 and 85 at weddings. Prior to digital age, all wedding photographers I knew were using 28 or 35 and 85 or 100. Recently, extreme close ups are common, but before, photos were closer to what you see on television at royal weddings. You don't NEED a long lens unless you just want to shoot like every other wedding photographer out there.
EDIT: I presume you are going to prove that A2 is too small to show the differences between the 24-70 or 18-55 and a sharp/cheap prime you are probably right. But it doesn't stop the prime from being sharper at equivalent apertures.
OK. You're talking about pixel peeping and I'm talking about shooting pictures. I shot a portrait of a musician friend on a 3 MP Olympus pocket camera that ended up being used on 18x24 posters, and it was razor sharp. Theoretical sharpness doesn't add up to a hill of beans unless you're cropping way in on bigfoot in the bushes.
People worry way too much about theoretical specifications than they do the ones they actually need. Having a zoom range is a huge benefit to a photographer. Being able to read candy wrappers from 100 yards is great for armchair theorists.
Me? I shoot pictures. And I want my equipment to be as versitile as possible.
50mm prime lens was always sharper than the 50MM setting I used on the 18-55 when I had that lens and not by a little my 50MM 1.8G smoked it in resolution and vivid color and sharpness. I shoot pictures too and does sgigzeo and all the photography sites I read also think that primes also are sharper but I do need the zoom for my sports shpts and the wide angle for my landscape and the primes for all my everyday shots and the best picture sI end up taking are with my prime lens. If I get close to the track tomorrow for my daughter 3K race maybe I will shoot with the 35MM i could used it last week I was on the track almost.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
