Rumors > Lenses

Are primes really more sharp?

(1/6) > >>

RedEye:
I'm checking out the MTF charts, and there does not appear to be a significant sharpness edge from using only prime lenses.  Is reality misrepresented on the MTF charts?  Are they not that much better than zooms?

tron:
It always depends on the specific lenses being compared. Many years ago I had the 28-70 f/2.8L zoom. I was not totally satisfied when I was printing 10in X 12in images (although I didn't know what it was bothering me). Then I started using a lot more the 24mm f/2.8 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 and suddenly everything was OK.

On the other hand when I got the 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS it was the 90s) I was impressed by its performance.

It was the first time that I had a zoom that produced fixed lens quality photos.

RedEye:
Thanks for the info.  I'm just really bent out of shape about the new 24-70 delay so I'm trying to sort out something comparable for that range, and little is coming up.

Random Orbits:

--- Quote from: RedEye on April 23, 2012, 09:34:16 PM ---Thanks for the info.  I'm just really bent out of shape about the new 24-70 delay so I'm trying to sort out something comparable for that range, and little is coming up.

--- End quote ---

It depends which set of lines you're looking at for the MTFs.  MTFs typically provide max aperture and f/8 data.  You can't compare a f/1.4 wide open to a f/2.8 wide open.  The larger the max aperture, the harder it is to maintain sharpness over the entire lens, but in many cases it doesn't matter much because the DOF is so thin and is not needed for portraiture.

Axilrod:
Yes primes are absolutely sharper, but I think the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the exception to the rule.  But like a 24-70 vs the 24L/35L/50L, no contest the primes are going to look better (hopefully this may change with the 24-70II).  And of course primes have the better bokeh, better light gathering ability, etc. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page