Center | Border | Corner | |
135/2 at f5.6 | 3488 | 3308 | 3306 |
70-200/2.8L at 135/5.6 | 3490 | 3310 | 3263 |
Center | Border | Corner | |
Zeiss Distagon 24/2 at f/8 | 3434 | 3215 | 3101 |
Zeiss 24-70/2.8 ZA at 24/8 | 3424 | 3097 | 2500 |
Lens | Center | Border | Corner | Distortion |
Nikon 17-35/2.8 at 21/5.6 | 4035 | 3362 | 3234 | 1.03% Barrel |
Nikon 14-24/2.8 at 21/5.6 | 3878 | 3235 | 3215 | 0.5% Barrel |
Zeiss 21/2.8 at 5.6 | 3902 | 3207 | 2986 | 1.7% Barrel |
It is true that the best zooms are as good as older primes, but then again the best modern primes have again pulled ahead. In most real life situations there is no difference, zooms are often more convenient especially in fast paced situations. Most press photographers use only zooms (like me) like 24-70 and 70-200 on assignments, but also have a couple of primes (faster for shallow DOF, or for that extra sharpness or focus control) for special situations. In my case they are 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2. I could do 98% of my work with those 2 zooms only and nobody would complain.
So, my take is that if you shoot medium aperture, as I often do, the primes are of little advantage. It is often suggested to zoom using your feet, but moving around changes perspective. There is only one point in space giving you a certain perspective. So you can move around and shoot something else.
The photozone.de lens tests are great as a starting point but at which focusing distance do they test the lens? I find that some lenses do not perform equally well at all focus distances. Its something to consider.
That's why I always carry a 300 f4 with 2x tele. If I'm going to do wildlife I pack a 1200 f4.7 in the car. :o
Hi,
Just to remark, the 135/2L used to be considered one of the best lenses Canon makes and the ZA Distagon 24/2 has been released 2012 I think, so these were not older primes.
I am absolutely with you that if large apertures are needed the fixed focals are in their prime, but many of us shoot medium apertures mostly.
Best regards
Erik
Just because you shoot medium apertures doesn't mean everybody else has to. Different paint brushes for different paintings. I prefer primes for photography as I know the perspective before even putting the viewfinder to my eye, so I can visualize what I'm going to shoot and how to execute the vision. Primes for lowlight too. 99% of what I shoot I have the luxury of time to compose and frame my shot properly. The larger aperture also helps to isolate subjects should I want to. Much more versatile than a zoom for me.
With that said, on an African safari, I'd wait for the 200-400/4 w1.4x to come out and bring that.
Not much of a use comparing different tools to achieve different visions.
This image was taken with a 100 mm lens, so I could as well use my 100/2.8 macro, 135 wouldn't work and 85 mm would have needed cropping...
This image was taken with a 100 mm lens, so I could as well use my 100/2.8 macro, 135 wouldn't work and 85 mm would have needed cropping......
Hi Erik,
With a static subject like that, the 135mm lens might have worked even better. You could have positioned the camera vertically and taken 2 or 3 or 4 shots for stitching. The result would have been more detailed and higher resolution than the single shot with a 100mm lens, and you could have given yourself more options for cropping in post processing.
How do you know? This is a serious question and I am not trying to be flippant. An 85mm and 135mm lenses would have made a different images, but no necessarily a worse image. Certainly a tighter crop could have worked with a 135mm. Not knowing what is outside the frame, it is hard to tell what the image would be with an 85mm. There is no such thing as the right focal length, only right solutions.
As far as perspective, there is also no such thing as the right perspective and how much does perspective change if you move a few feet with a landscape? And while the relationship of image size of elements in the image are fixed by the camera position, the apparent perspective does change with focal length. Some photographers do care about apparent perspective as it does change the perception of an image.
The problem is that spot does not shot the oxbow bend clearly. The proper location is to climb the hill behind you, possibly climbing a tree to get out of the clutter. You do that in the dark before sun up you will get a great shot. You also have a small chance of becoming dinner. The point of that spot is to combine the curve of the river with the mountain background. Everyone goes to stand with the other gaggle of togs close to the side of the road where they put a cement pad for everyone.
In general, zooms are larger, heavier, have slower maximum apertures, distort more and can encourage sloppy photographic habits.
In general, zooms are larger, heavier, have slower maximum apertures, distort more and can encourage sloppy photographic habits.
Good primes are smaller, lighter, often a lot faster, also usually sharper and force you the photographer to think more about composition and framing.
Zooms for convenience, primes for quality.
I generalise of course and this is only my opinion. A sports photographer or photo journalist may have other priorities, but I now far, far prefer to use a few choice prime lenses and leave the zooms (most of the time) gathering dust.
That can be true, but in the urban enviroments I shoot in, I cannot always position myself with a prime lens to get the FOV I am looking for, e.g., standing in the middle of the street in traffic generally is a non-starter (though perhaps I'm just not dedicated enough to my art ;) ). So a zoom gets me what I'm looking for. That said, I do tend to work within a pretty tight zoom range around what would be my default prime focal length.
But my preference has almost nothing to do with optical quality. When I use zooms for an extended period I find myself getting compositionally lazy. I see it in my photos. I'm just a better photographer when I work with one focal length for a long enough time to, so to speak, get tuned into it. However, not being an either/or kinda guy, sometimes a zoom lens is clearly the best option at a particular occassion or vantage point.
-Dave-
Dave, I find you comment fascinating, since it's the opposite for me. As I said in an earlier post, because my ability to position myself ideally is usually constrained, I shoot with a zoom (although within a pretty small range centered around my preferred focal length). When I switched to the D800E I shot only with a 35mm prime for a while - the only lens I had at the time - and I found that using it I was getting "compositionally lazy" as you put it. Since the ways I could frame the shot I saw were limited in terms of positioning, it was "get it more or less and fix in post" so I ended up not working as hard on the composition in the field because my choices were constrained. Whereas with the zoom (which I am back to using having acquired one) since I can nail the composition in camera I am forced to think about what it really is in the scene that caught my eye and what I have to do compositionally to convey that. So for me, paradoxically, the zoom makes me a better photographer. Just goes to show . . . :)
(That said, my advice to beginners who want to develop their eye is to use a single prime to avoid the trap of being scattershop with a zoom.)
I'm biased towards high quality zooms and always thought that cropping the next widest prime lens to capture your subject would negate the resolution advantage the prime lens might have.
If you can't move closer, which is often the case, the resolution of your sensor is utilized better with a lens zoomed in, this usually is not discussed in these debates.
Marc
I'm biased towards high quality zooms and always thought that cropping the next widest prime lens to capture your subject would negate the resolution advantage the prime lens might have.
If you can't move closer, which is often the case, the resolution of your sensor is utilized better with a lens zoomed in, this usually is not discussed in these debates.
Marc
As an old pro Ray, I think you know that if you need a 120mm perspective you will use a 135 prime instead of the 24-120 zoom. Or stitch 4 200mm prime shots. You will use your 85G where you used to use your zoom at normal. etc. Primes are generally small and light so taking a range of 4-5 is not a big deal. Please post your shots, you will make the lens look good.
I see. I think it was you that posted some Angkor Wat images a few years back. I figured you were the slow meticulous MLU with cable release type.
You've captured the light well, Bernard. But weren't you a bit regretful when cropping away some of those expensive Mamiya ZD pixels? ;)
The fact that stitching programs have improved so greatly in recent years really does offer a way to reduce the resolution disadvantage of zoom lenses in many situations.
Stitching removes the disadvantage of 135 format in general compared to medium format.
Very nice images BTW.
Yep, I am totally sold on stitching, believe me. ;)
I also did stitch with the ZD, but for some reason not that much in Angkor.
Cheers,
Bernard
Stitching removes the disadvantage of 135 format in general compared to medium format.
Very nice images BTW.
Then, MF files can be stitched, too...
I have to debrief some of you guys before October, as we (wife & me) are planning a Nepal-Laos-Cambodia trip at that time. Couple of days in Angkor Wat, naturally. Looks like early wakeups...
That's true, but if you can easily make a stitched image with 135 format that's large enough to fill an entire wall from floor to ceiling, do you really need to stitch MF files to make an even bigger print? ;)
If you stitch then there is very little value using MF compared to, say, a D800.
In fact there are mostly advantages in favor of the DSLR.
Cheers,
Bernard
At this degree of enlargement, every grain of sand on the surface of the sandstone appears to be clearly discernible.
Why stitch 36 mpix when you can stitch 80 mpix! :)
Marc
The D4x + stitching will probably enable us to see at molecular level. Crystallographic analysis on screen should become a breeze...
Diffraction might pose a bit of a problem. We'll need to upgrade to Nikon's pico crystal coated lens lineup.
some serious sharpening going on there! :o didn't realise the sliders went that far to the right.
i bet the differences are even more pronounced out of the camera.
Down at the cheapest end of the range; it still seems like the cheapest prime lens for Sony α APS-C, are obviously better at the border and corners than the cheapest zoom lens.
Some of the advantages of either primes or zooms are very personal, and specific to what we're doing badly when we photograph.
One of the things I would do was zoom in and out searching for some perfect framing, instead of just taking the photo! With a prime I take the photo (and then move the frame a bit and take another, and then move my feet a bit...) Someone else might walk around with a prime lens searching for some perfect framing, instead of taking the photo.
Similarly cheap prime lens are so lightweight that I hold the camera in my hand for hours, and that seems to mean I put the camera to my eye and take the photo. Again, that's a fix to a problem someone else might not experience.
Hi,
Moving changes perspective. What I normally do is to walk around until I get the view I want. That means I want to include that tree top, that stone, leave out that bush and have that reflection in that place. When I found the spot, I decide on the lens. This is normally the first time I look in the viewfinder.
I have worked with primes a long time and that was no problem. But now days I feel the zooms have the quality I need, when stopped down, and also deliver the flexibility I like.
Best regards
Erik