Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: EBBS on November 30, 2007, 08:43:41 pm

Title: Primes VS. Zooms
Post by: EBBS on November 30, 2007, 08:43:41 pm

My question is would a non "L" prime lens, such as a 24mm f/2.8 give you a "better" image than a "L" zoom, such as 16-35mm f2.8L/17-40mm f4L at the respective focal length?  I shoot Canon so that's what I used as examples.  Other manufacture owners feel free to chime in.

Title: Primes VS. Zooms
Post by: Sheldon N on November 30, 2007, 11:08:50 pm

Not in my experience. I owned a 17-40L that was better than two different 24mm non-L primes I owned. My 24-105L is even better than the 17-40L was.

Zooms have gotten really good.

Title: Primes VS. Zooms
Post by: Christopher on December 01, 2007, 06:45:53 am

Quote

Not in my experience. I owned a 17-40L that was better than two different 24mm non-L primes I owned. My 24-105L is even better than the 17-40L was.

Zooms have gotten really good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=157403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you want the best possible quality than you can't buy Canon glass. I had a 24L 1.4 and sold it again, because the difference to my 24-105 (which is extremly good) wasn't enough.

Title: Primes VS. Zooms
Post by: mahleu on December 01, 2007, 09:16:01 am

the 50/1.8 and 1.4.