Lens question

[Steeldrifter 0]

Got a question about lenses. I know the difference between a prime lens and a zoom style lens but the question I have is about picture quality. I have a 18-200mm lens right now and I'm wondering how something like say a 200mm prime lens compares. Since its a prime lens and it's only function is to take pics at 200mm then is there a better quality with the prime lens? If there is then is the difference that noticeable?

 

Just trying to figure the difference out because I think my next lens is going to be a prime lens around 200mm or more and with the price of good lenses I just want to make sure I understand what to look for before jumping into something.

 

Steve

[Peterjay 0]

Generally speaking, primes will usually give you somewhat better image quality than a zoom set at the same focal length. Lenses, both prime and zoom, vary tremendously in image quality to begin with, so it's tough to judge except on a case-by-case basis. Even different copies of the same lens will vary to a degree as long as their performance falls within the tolerance parameters set by the manufacturer. That said, the difference between primes and zooms has been narrowing for quite some time, and we're now at the point where the versatility of zooms more than makes up for any small loss of image quality. If it means getting a shot instead of fumbling around changing lenses, using one of today's high quality zooms is a no-brainer. The only prime I own is a 100mm macro that I use to shoot my wife's paintings. A couple of high-end zooms take care of everything else, and I print everything in 14X21 or 16X20. If there have been any complaints about image quality, I've yet to hear them. For the vast majority of applications, using high-quality glass is more important than the type of lens. Of course, if you want to do top-level wildlife stuff, you'll need some very long primes, which will take a big chunk of that $25,000 I told you you'd better start squirreling away.

[Peterjay 0]

Sorry - had a dual post - the site is acting weird today for some reason.

[Threshershark 0]

I'll add a comment as well as echo what PeterJay said previously.

 

Primes have uses, and one of them is aperture flexibility. One of my favorite lenses is the 50mm f/1.4, and I also own a 35mm f/2. These big apertures allow for excellent hand-held photos in very low light conditions, where most zooms are offering f/3.5 - 5.6. Even if you're shooting a $1500 70-200 f/2.8, you can't get anywhere near the light through to the sensor as with these little gems.

 

Second, teleconverters produce very, very good results with primes. Zooms can be more tricky, and tend to be somewhat hit and miss in this area. You can buy a 1.7x teleconverter, and simply rent a 300mm f/2.8 prime to get a stellar 510mm f/4.8 for super telephoto needs. www.lensrentals.com has a variety of professional primes for $30 to $60 per day.

 

I started out shooting a lot with do-it-all versatile lenses in the consumer space, like the 18-200. There is no denying the value of having a single lens with that much flexibility. Two years ago, my Nikon 18-200 was on my camera 90% of the time.

 

Admittedly, in recent years I've been doing less of the see-what-you-find type of photography. More often I am going out with the intent to capture a certain type of image, and I find myself nearly always selecting a specialty lens. The lenses that have been on my rig the most this past year:

 

50mm f/1.4

12-24mm f/4 wide angle

100mm f/2.8 macro

70-200mm f/2.8

[WYKnot 0]

I have come to appreciate the versatility of zooms, particularly when shooting landscapes or scenes where I may not have the option to reposition the tripod and improve the composition. I use a 17-55mm/2.8 and 70-200mm/2.8 in the field, and recently rented a 24-70mm/2.8 (that I liked way too much).

 

Zooms of comparable optical quality to the best primes are a serious investment. If you have a camera shop close by, Steve, ask about a renting a lens for a weekend.

[Steeldrifter 0]

Second, teleconverters produce very, very good results with primes. Zooms can be more tricky, and tend to be somewhat hit and miss in this area. You can buy a 1.7x teleconverter, and simply rent a 300mm f/2.8 prime to get a stellar 510mm f/4.8 for super telephoto needs

 

Okay this actually touches on another question I have. I've been looking at Telecoverters for my 18-200 Sigma zoom. Now...would a telecoveretr be worth buying, or should I just bite the bullet and save for a good Prime 300+ lens?? obviously less cost is always welcome...but how will quality compare?

[rich5665 0]

Second, teleconverters produce very, very good results with primes. Zooms can be more tricky, and tend to be somewhat hit and miss in this area. You can buy a 1.7x teleconverter, and simply rent a 300mm f/2.8 prime to get a stellar 510mm f/4.8 for super telephoto needs

 

Okay this actually touches on another question I have. I've been looking at Telecoverters for my 18-200 Sigma zoom. Now...would a telecoveretr be worth buying, or should I just bite the bullet and save for a good Prime 300+ lens?? obviously less cost is always welcome...but how will quality compare?

 

The quality difference will be noticeable to a Professional and Photo Enthusiasts. The few that I have talked to say nothing beats a prime lens, although I did speak to a gentleman who had a photo make the cover of Photography Magazine, he used the same Tamron 75mm - 300mm lens that I have. One thing to remember: A camera doesn't take the photograph the photographer does, the camera only captures the image.

 

A teleconverter will be a good choice, especially when a budget may be concerned. Depending on the teleconverter the cost may be similar to a 100mm - 300mm Telephoto Lens. Primary lens in the 300mm, 400mm and 500mm range are in the $1000+ range, above what I could afford, so I only dream about them. And with software like Photoshop and Gimp a lot of stuff can be corrected. As prime lenses start getting into the 300mm - 600mm range weight becomes a factor making hand held photography challenging. Hence tripods and monopods.

 

I have a Canon Rebel XTi just a few steps down from your D20. I use a Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5 - 5.6 Zoom lens and a Tamron 75-300mm f/4 - 5.6 Zoom lens, to me the 2X Teleconverter would be the way to go because of the added zoom factor, 56 - 160mm for the Sigma and 150 - 600mm for the Tamron. I do lose an f-stop though for both lenses

 

Just a cost comparison from B&H Photo:

Canon 2X Teleconverter - $279.00 (Imported) and $290.00(USA)

Sigma 2X Teleconverter - $219.00

Canon 100mm - 300mm zoom lens - $295.00

Sigma 300mm f/2.8 Telephoto Lens -$2899.00

Canon 300mm EF f/2.8 IS Telephoto Lens - $3999.00 (Imported) and $4100.00 (USA)

 

Hope this helps

[Flies & Photos 0]

Hi Steeldrifter,

 

I wouldn't make this too complicated. Zooms produce very high quality images. I suggest going to www.bhphotovideo.com and search their lens selection. Most have product reviews too. I shoot with Sigma and Nikon zooms and my images are very clean with excellent color and contrast. The only fixed lens I recommend would be a Macro lens. If you can afford it, try to get a lens with vibration reduction/ image stabilzation. Feel free to email me with any questions. Good luck.

[Steeldrifter 0]

Flies & Photos and Rich 5665....Very much appreciated info guys. Still tryin to understand all this so many thanks!

[Wulff 0]

Very complicated question with no easy answer. <<<< Thats the truth, the first truth you need to hold onto as it helps to put everything else into order.

 

2nd truth.

Photography is expensive, can get very expensive and if you really get into it, extremely expensive. There's no faster way to deplete your bank account than by buying a lens that you come to feel needs replacing/upgrading for any number of reasons. Despite all the warnings, why do alot of people end up doin this??? Because they unerestimate how important photography is going to become to them....aka false economy...or they buy the wrong lens for the job and end up switching not neccessarily to a better lens, but to a lens thats better suited to their needs.

 

It's not unlike fly rods, they all catch fish but...........

First you have entry level rods, mid level rods and high end rods.

Then you have different weights..Do I buy a 3wt? a 5wt? or a 7wt? Well if you don't have a specific application chances are you recomend a 5wt, good all purpose rod. Most though end up determining that what tey really need is a 3/4 wt for trout, or a 7/8wt for Steel,Pike etc.

Then eventually they realise for my style of casting I need a slow/med/fast action rod.

 

 

I'm going to start with a couple of the easier points to try and address.

 

Generaly speaking.

Primes are sharper

Primes focus faster

 

 

1st: "Zooms" are more complex than primes. In a nut shell theres more inner workings. <<< This generally speaking is the genesis of the debate.

Why are primes sharper? See above

Why are primes faster focusing. See above

 

TCs.

Work better with primes due to the above. In fact, so much so I personally would never use a TC with a zoom. The hits to IQ and focus speed are just too great.

Every seen those drinking and driving commercials where they start with 1 glass of beer in front of a driver? Then add a 2nd an 3rd?

Anytime you add more glass to the equation your IQ and Focus Speed are going to take a hit, the lower your quality lens and the more complex your lens, the larger the hit.

 

 

Now the good news. Alot of that is only as important as you make it to be. I'm going to throw up some photos.

1) Taken with the 100-400 L

1) Taken with the 400 f5.6 L

1) Taken with the 500 f4 L

1) Taken with the 24-70 f2.8 L

1) Taken with the 400 f5.6 L and TC

1) Taken with the 500mm f4 L and TC

 

I can see differences and I am picky about IQ can you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've had the pleasure of shooting wit some of the best zooms ever made inlcuding the 100-400 L and the Sigmonster 300-800mm and I can tell you two things.

 

neither is as sharp as its corresponding prime, neither focuses as fast.

 

In no uncertain terms does that mean the primes are "better".

 

It means. much like fly rods theres a lens for every job. Sometimes you want a rod thats more "all purpose", sometimes you want a rod that can toss #22 dries to finicky fish in gin clear water.

 

This shot is simply not possible wih a zoom

 

However this is

100-400 L

 

 

WHICH is right for you, only you can answer.

DON"T rush into lens purchases. Take your time, you what you have for now and develop your "taste" and discover whats important, what isn't to you.

then start thnking about what lenses to acquire.

Prime vs Zoom

F2.8 vs f5.6

one focal range vs another.

 

 

[rich5665 0]

Very complicated question with no easy answer. <<<< Thats the truth, the first truth you need to hold onto as it helps to put everything else into order.

 

2nd truth.

Photography is expensive, can get very expensive and if you really get into it, extremely expensive. There's no faster way to deplete your bank account than by buying a lens that you come to feel needs replacing/upgrading for any number of reasons. Despite all the warnings, why do alot of people end up doin this??? Because they unerestimate how important photography is going to become to them....aka false economy...or they buy the wrong lens for the job and end up switching not neccessarily to a better lens, but to a lens thats better suited to their needs.

 

It's not unlike fly rods, they all catch fish but...........

First you have entry level rods, mid level rods and high end rods.

Then you have different weights..Do I buy a 3wt? a 5wt? or a 7wt? Well if you don't have a specific application chances are you recomend a 5wt, good all purpose rod. Most though end up determining that what tey really need is a 3/4 wt for trout, or a 7/8wt for Steel,Pike etc.

Then eventually they realise for my style of casting I need a slow/med/fast action rod.

 

 

I'm going to start with a couple of the easier points to try and address.

 

Generaly speaking.

Primes are sharper

Primes focus faster

 

 

1st: "Zooms" are more complex than primes. In a nut shell theres more inner workings. <<< This generally speaking is the genesis of the debate.

Why are primes sharper? See above

Why are primes faster focusing. See above

 

TCs.

Work better with primes due to the above. In fact, so much so I personally would never use a TC with a zoom. The hits to IQ and focus speed are just too great.

Every seen those drinking and driving commercials where they start with 1 glass of beer in front of a driver? Then add a 2nd an 3rd?

Anytime you add more glass to the equation your IQ and Focus Speed are going to take a hit, the lower your quality lens and the more complex your lens, the larger the hit.

 

 

Now the good news. Alot of that is only as important as you make it to be. I'm going to throw up some photos.

1) Taken with the 100-400 L

1) Taken with the 400 f5.6 L

1) Taken with the 500 f4 L

1) Taken with the 24-70 f2.8 L

1) Taken with the 400 f5.6 L and TC

1) Taken with the 500mm f4 L and TC

 

I can see differences and I am picky about IQ can you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've had the pleasure of shooting wit some of the best zooms ever made inlcuding the 100-400 L and the Sigmonster 300-800mm and I can tell you two things.

 

neither is as sharp as its corresponding prime, neither focuses as fast.

 

In no uncertain terms does that mean the primes are "better".

 

It means. much like fly rods theres a lens for every job. Sometimes you want a rod thats more "all purpose", sometimes you want a rod that can toss #22 dries to finicky fish in gin clear water.

 

This shot is simply not possible wih a zoom

 

However this is

100-400 L

 

 

WHICH is right for you, only you can answer.

DON"T rush into lens purchases. Take your time, you what you have for now and develop your "taste" and discover whats important, what isn't to you.

then start thnking about what lenses to acquire.

Prime vs Zoom

F2.8 vs f5.6

one focal range vs another.

Wulff - Great photos. That's why I dream of owning a 500mm f/2.8 IS lens, but I'd have to sell my car to own one. I had to talk my wife into letting me rent one to test. I'm hoping to rent it for my next trip to Chincoteague VA

[Vito1 0]

I'm not a big bird guy, but this is the best bird photo I have personally ever seen. Stunning shot, John!

[Peterjay 0]

Yeah, what John said about taking your time. It's probably a good idea to keep things as simple as you can while you're getting to know your camera and figuring out what your goals are. If all you're going to be doing is shooting pictures for posting on the web and making a few 8X10's to hang on the wall, it probably doesn't matter much what lens you use, as long as it's not a real lemon to begin with. It's only when you try to move up to another level, such as making big prints or shooting for magazines that you're going to have to start getting finicky.

 

I also have to second what John said about expense. We like to joke about what we spend on rods, tying materials, etc., but compared to serious photography, fly fishing and tying can be done for next to nothing. I recently read an interview with Paul Nicklen, who's one of the best nature photographers on the planet, and he said that he was still looking forward to the day when his income exceeds his expenses. And this comes from a guy who's at the top of his field and has been working for National Geographic for at least six years that I know of. I got back into photography 2 1/2 years ago after a layoff of several years, and if I ever sat down and added up what I've spent since then on a DSLR, lenses, accessories, a new computer, a new scanner, a new printer, paper, ink, custom frames, custom mats, jury fees, etc. etc., I'd probably sign my own commitment papers. (my wife knows since she organizes our taxes, but my sanity depends on remaining ignorant) I'd bet that a lot of the other guys here have similar stories. The point is, it's a good idea to take it slow and not to overreach, especially at first. It's easy to get sucked in and wind up with a closet full of expensive stuff that looked good but turned out to be more than you really needed. If I were in your shoes, I'd probably start with a reasonably priced zoom and go from there. You can always sell it or trade it if you decide to move up to the next level.

[Crotalus 0]

If all you're going to be doing is shooting pictures for posting on the web and making a few 8X10's to hang on the wall, it probably doesn't matter much what lens you use, as long as it's not a real lemon to begin with.

 

I am going to print this and tape it to the inside of my camera bag

 

My photography will be used to document memories to share with family/friends so when i get to thinking that i need to buy some new fancy piece of equipment i will read that and be reminded of what i really need.

[Wulff 0]

probably sign my own commitment papers. (my wife knows since she organizes our taxes, but my sanity depends on remaining ignorant) I'd bet that a lot of the other guys here have similar stories.

 

My wife knows because

a) we do the taxes together

I show her the bills, incase I get hit by a car and she knows what to sell for without getting taken