Help please on new lenses

[Freddy]

I have a question for anyone who would care to help. I've been thinking about making the switch to FF in the next year and have a question. At what point does one notice the difference between really good zooms and prime lenses? For example, I'd love a 5dsr and would really like a 11-24, 24-70 2.8, and a 70-200 2.8. However, I take a lot of landscape, have no need for quick fps rates, will use a tripod most of the time, and wondered if primes would be seriously that much better. I mean, everywhere I read, the above zooms are stellar, and seem to take a lot of beating. I've even thought of getting a couple of Zeiss otus as I don't mind MF...but...at what point would I really tell the difference? Would I have to produce 2ft. prints to see it, or will there be a marked improvement at A3? Most of my stuff will be at A3 or A2 with the occasional image blown up very large. I used to love shooting with Zeiss in the old days (film) because I could point them straight into the sun and still get flare free stunning images. Any help offered would be greatly appreciated. Thank-you.

 

[geekpower]

you will not notice a huge difference in IQ between primes and the best zooms. the big difference is in aperture. if you don't care about shallow depth of field or shutter speed in low light, then you will probably be happy with zooms.

 

[wojtek]

hi there Freddy, I have some good zooms and also all the tilt and shift primes with my beloved 5dsr and the difference is very small so I can recommend you getting the primes and some good zooms only. (there was a post with the list of lenses recommended by canon to be used with canon 5ds & r cameras: http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-releases-recommended-lenses-for-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r/ and that's the only set of lenses you should be considering for this camera) The 5dsr isn't a forgiving camera, it will show you all the problems the lenses have and it will show the problems that not existed on the same lenses when used with smaller megapixel camera. As I do a lot of architecture and products, my priority is a great sharpness in corners. I would suggest considering the 16-35 F4 IS instead of bulky 11-24 as the corner sharpness is much better and in my opinion the distortion below 15 mm is a bit mad anyway. Also, in case if you need to do some handheld work, the image stabiliser will save you a lot of nerves as this camera will show you a motion blur in a situation when 20 mpix would produce a perfectly sharp picture. I am talking even about 1/800s surprises here and I can honestly say that I don't even think of using any non IS telephoto lens with this camera handheld anymore as the light is usually under the safe 1/2000-ish. If you go for 5dsr you will need to change your entire way of thinking and this would be the medium format thinking. For example the same tripod may not be good enough anymore, 2 seconds delay after mirror lock you will find a lifesaver and even the full power blast of the speedlite on top of camera will produce a shake despite the heavy tripod. hope it helps

 

[Rupp1]

I really started noticing the difference between zooms and primes (best L series lenses available at that time) with the 1Ds Mk III. For a while, especially if I wanted to print larger than 6x9, I tried to shoot primes. I always wondered whether adding pixels was becoming a problem (too many as bad as too few) or if the lenses could really get good enough. After all, digital SLRs were approaching medium format quality and there is only so much room on a 35mm sensor.

I'll leave it to others to opine on the state of current bodies and lenses except to say that Canon published a list of lenses that were suitable for the 5Ds/R cameras, which implies that some aren't good enough for some cameras.

 

[candc]

i second geekpowers post. zooms are generally bigger and heavier than primes and you can get wider aperture primes but the iq of the lenses you mention is fantastic. if you need hair splitting sharpness and ultra shallow depth of field at the same time then get the otus.

 

[Khristo]

You might want to consider vignetting. Primes generally are better than zooms in this respect. Of course for landscape use, you will often be at smaller apertures where the difference is much less.

You can see the difference between the 24-70 f/2.8 II and the 24 f/1.4 II, both at 24mm f/2.8:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

and, as they say in the classics, the latter beats the former in every respect all the way from f/1.4 to f/2.8 !!

 

[sdsr]

It depends on what and how you shoot. If you routinely shoot at f5.6 and narrower, as landscape photographers (too?) often do, there may be no significant or even perceptible difference; buying an Otus and always closing it down that much would be rather a waste, I think. Primes have other advantages, though - they're smaller and lighter and some of us think that the limited focal length makes you more imaginative and careful when framing. And if, as some often find, you tend to use zooms at their focal length extremes, you might find it cheaper and lighter to carry a few primes than a few zooms. Canon's shorter primes don't have IS, but if, as you say, you typically use a tripod, that won't matter. But we're all different - if you're lucky enough to live somewhere with easy access to rental companies such as lensrentals, I would suggest you rent a few and see what suits you best. Who knows, you might find f/1.2 or 1.4, say, more useful than you expected....

 

[StudentOfLight]

While excellent zooms might have good resolution they often compromise with regards to distortion at their extremes. For wide angle shots, depending on your subject, it could be an important factor to consider. Here are two comparisons:
1. 24-70L II vs 24L II: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=0&FLIComp=0&Lens=787&Camera=453&LensComp=480
2. 24-70LII vs TS-E 24L II: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=0&FLIComp=0&Lens=787&Camera=453&LensComp=486

For many subjects some minor distortion makes no difference. For others, where you'd be forced to correct for straight lines, you'll end up sacrificing fine detail in some portion of the image.

To the original question:
I think your technique and post processing will play a bigger role than the lenses for most types of landscape shots which I assume you'll use [f/5.6<???< f/16].

If you do astro then fast primes offer some value over zooms:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=480&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

If you need Tilt-shift movements then TS-E lenses also offer functional value over high quality zooms:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Lens quality varies with the lens.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 II beats Canons best primes at some focal lengths. Its a good first lens in the high end region, you will not have to worry about upgrading it soon.

However, when you stop your lens down, as most do for landscapes, a coke bottle might do just fine

While we all like fine lenses, and I have and use some of the pricey ones, the advantage tends to come at the wider apertures. But, for landscapes, you want depth of field, which sometimes means shooting at f/8, f/11, f/16 or even f/22. Its a waste of money to buy a expensive wide aperture lens when the image is limited by diffraction at the small apertures.


So, for landscape, the low cost consumer grade prime lenses will be wonderful at f/8, f/11/ f/16, as will expensive zooms and fast primes.

 

[wsmith96]

Lens quality varies with the lens.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 II beats Canons best primes at some focal lengths. Its a good first lens in the high end region, you will not have to worry about upgrading it soon.

However, when you stop your lens down, as most do for landscapes, a coke bottle might do just fine

While we all like fine lenses, and I have and use some of the pricey ones, the advantage tends to come at the wider apertures. But, for landscapes, you want depth of field, which sometimes means shooting at f/8, f/11, f/16 or even f/22. Its a waste of money to buy a expensive wide aperture lens when the image is limited by diffraction at the small apertures.


So, for landscape, the low cost consumer grade prime lenses will be wonderful at f/8, f/11/ f/16, as will expensive zooms and fast primes.

+1

 

[Freddy]

Thank-you all so much for the helpful replies. The reason for going for a 5dsr is I used Hassy 501cm's for 10 years and got used to the IQ, and also the restrictions of shooting with mf. I tend to take a while making images, so speed is a non-issue. Also, size isn't really a factor as I have a VW camper van and just load it up and off we go! We're planning some interesting trips in the next 2 years. Living in England, we're going to take a ferry to Denmark, after a few days there take another to the Faroe Islands. If anyone who reads this can get there, you really should! Just check them out on google images and you'll see what I mean in 2 seconds flat! Then it's possible to get another ferry from there to Iceland. I know...eveybody does Iceland but I want the chance to shoot it at least once and taking your own camper will gives a lot of freedom. Then of course the return journey and about a month after I leave I'll get home again. BTW, I'm lucky enough to live in Cornwall so I already have awesome scenery but a severe lack of facilities so the idea of somewhere to rent gear is a non-starter! Thank-you all again. Much mulling over the comments ensues!

 

[Zeidora]

Zooms are always a compromise. You mention flare, so I assume you use a hood. With zooms, the hood necessarily is accommodating the widest setting, and lets a lot of peripheral light in at the longer focal range. With prime, it the hood matches the actual focal length all the time. This is a very straight forward example. But this principle applies to all aspects of the lens' design.
It is true that some more modern zooms outcompete old primes. But if you compare similar class and similar age lenses, primes outcompete zooms. The next question is how much time you want to spend in post. Prime images tend to be overall cleaner, requiring less fiddling (aberration correction, distortion correction) than zoom images.
You also refer to Zeiss. I'm a huge Zeiss fanatic. Zeiss only makes primes for Canon. That should give some reason for pause.

 

[john1970]

Lens quality varies with the lens.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 II beats Canons best primes at some focal lengths. Its a good first lens in the high end region, you will not have to worry about upgrading it soon.

However, when you stop your lens down, as most do for landscapes, a coke bottle might do just fine

While we all like fine lenses, and I have and use some of the pricey ones, the advantage tends to come at the wider apertures. But, for landscapes, you want depth of field, which sometimes means shooting at f/8, f/11, f/16 or even f/22. Its a waste of money to buy a expensive wide aperture lens when the image is limited by diffraction at the small apertures.


So, for landscape, the low cost consumer grade prime lenses will be wonderful at f/8, f/11/ f/16, as will expensive zooms and fast primes.

+1

Very useful advice.