More on fixed vs zoom lenses quality

Hello people,

First off let me say that yes I am the "Fat Boy" form the old post. I had to re register to use this new style forum.

When I asked my Qs about are zooms equal to fixed lenses as far as quality, I was refering to pro lenses. Since I am in the Nikon system, I was wanting to compare "ED" fixed lense or high end fixed lenses to "ED" zoom lenses.

I remember when zoom lenses were coming into mainstream photography where every one could afford them. Some of those Vivitar & Sologar lenses where just plain bad. Soft, pin cushin/barrel distortion ect... Thats not counting the series 1 lenses or some of the (more) expensive name brand lenses that we school kids could not afford. So I'm at last in memory, still thinking that the fixed lenses are better and w/ out having a side by side comparison between the fixed & zooms of today, I just wonder if the zooms are on par.

Thanks for any and all imput,

Fat Boy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fat Boy

Hello people,

First off let me say that yes I am the "Fat Boy" form the old post. I had to re register to use this new style forum.

When I asked my Qs about are zooms equal to fixed lenses as far as quality, I was refering to pro lenses. Since I am in the Nikon system, I was wanting to compare "ED" fixed lense or high end fixed lenses to "ED" zoom lenses.

I remember when zoom lenses were coming into mainstream photography where every one could afford them. Some of those Vivitar & Sologar lenses where just plain bad. Soft, pin cushin/barrel distortion ect... Thats not counting the series 1 lenses or some of the (more) expensive name brand lenses that we school kids could not afford. So I'm at last in memory, still thinking that the fixed lenses are better and w/ out having a side by side comparison between the fixed & zooms of today, I just wonder if the zooms are on par.

Thanks for any and all imput,

Fat Boy

---

I have a bunch of Nikon lenses, both primes (28 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8) and zooms (28-70 f2.8 AF-S, 80-200 f2.8 AF-S, 24-85 f3.5 AF-S, 28-70 f3.5-4.5, 70-210 f3.5-5.6). I've also used the 28-80 and 28-100 kit lenses. My approach:

- the zoom lens will always have more distortion than a prime, so I avoid using them for landscapes at the seaside, for example
- as long as I can stop down to f8 or f11 then I can't really tell any difference in definition and contrast between a zoom and a prime
- I always take along at least one prime lens if the light is going to be low. As soon as you go wider than f4 then the prime lenses are unbeatable. I've got good results with the 28-70 and the 80-200 at f2.8 but they're better at f4.

Charles

From my point of view, if there is a difference between the image quality of Nikkor pro-zoom compared to primes, I can't see it. To me the difference is the size, weight and expense of pro-zooms as compared to primes.

There's also this other weird thing for me. I actually shoot better with primes. They focus me at a particular focal length, and make me experiment with that. But that has nothing to do with image quality.

--Jeff

Interesting what Jeff says, I notice that too. I guess I tend to slow down and really think about what I'm doing with a prime, and take a step forward or back rather than just zooming. That said, I usually do use zooms (one reason I mentioned was because of dust and DSLR's). I usually use an f1.4 prime in low light but plan to use them more in some situations.

The slight difference in quality between good lenses is so slight that I don't worry about it. I don't think you could see the difference in sharpness unless you had a heavy tripod, cable release and so on. In real life shooting, it is just way too far down on the list for me to worry about. However, in addition to the barrel distortion that Charles brought up, I do see a difference in some lenses in how they render out of focus highlights (OK, I'm on the bokeh kick lately). The 50 f1.4 and 80-200 f2.8 (two-touch, non-AFS) are rather harsh - but the 85 f1.4 is beautiful (wide open) and the 28-105 is pretty good (and not a pro-level lens). This is one of the reasons I like the 85 so much, this quality is most important (IMO) at low light levels - which is when I go for a fast prime.