Primes or medium zoom ?

<p>For the OP, I guess it comes down to trying various things out and decide which is best for your style and subjects. People come to good photographs by very very different strategies.... just learn how to use your tools well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Eric: I see cost as being something of a moot point. The 1.8 primes listed are, what, a third of the price of the 24-70? If Maurice spent the same cash on a set of primes, it'd be a much closer comparison… altho the 24-70 is almost certainly faster to focus than Nikon's 1.4s.</p>

<p>So, some people prefer primes, and some rather sue zooms. There are pro's and con's to both; it's not like one camp is right, the other wrong. It's just different preferences.</p>

<blockquote>It's just different preferences.</blockquote>

 

<p>Agreed, but I'd say it differently: it's not so much that some people prefer primes to zooms, it's that primes and zooms (and, indeed, any pair of lenses) have different trade-offs. What differs is the priorities that people assign to these characteristics - that's partly preference, partly style of shooting, partly finance. There are reasons I don't have a faster 50mm than the f/1.8, and that I don't have a 24-70 pro zoom; there are reasons that I can understand for people having either, or both - neither of us are wrong, but our circumstances are different.<br />

<br />

It's certainly nothing to get defensive about, though. I have fast zooms and primes (not in the 35-85 range), and they all have their place. Even my old Sigma 28-300, which has <i>awful</i> optical quality, has done me good service.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 1.8 primes listed are, what, a third of the price of the 24-70?If Maurice spent the same cash on a set of primes, it'd be a much closer comparison…</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you mean a set of the 1.4 AF-S primes? therein lies the rub.</p>

<p> for one thing, if you spent the same cash ($1700), you'd only get one prime. how is that a closer comparison? as good as the 85/1.4 G might be, the whole premise of this exercise was "3 primes vs. a medium zoom." [you could make the argument that for portraits on FX, the 85 would be better than the 24-70, but not so much on DX]. if you get all three of the new ones, you've just spent 3x as much $$$ as the 24-70, plus you have a gap from 35-85 on DX no less, which is effectively 80-85% of the portrait range. you could swap out the 35 for the 50/1.4, but even then you're looking at almost $4k--enough to get the 24-70+ the 85/1.4D or even the 50mm Voigtlander Nokton f/1.1 w/ F-mount adapter... now there's a thought ;)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If Maurice spent the same cash on a set of primes, it'd be a much closer comparison</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think he meant the cost of all three f1.8's.</p>

<p>Currently, at B&H, the Nikon 50mm f1.8 costs $125 new, the 80mm f1.8 costs $400 new, and the 35mm f2 costs $310 new.</p>

<p>Total cost for all three prime lenses together: $835.</p>

<p>Cost of the Nikkor 24-700 f2.8 in the same shop: $1589.</p>

<p>So the cost of the zoom is approaching twice the total cost of all three primes that were asked about (at least, Nikon equivalents, not Sigmas, I can't be bothered digging out the Sigma prices too!).</p>

<p>If it were me, given the choice between a 24-70mm, and a 50mm f1.8 and if they cost the same price, I would choose the 50mm f1.8. Even better would be the 1.4 of course.</p>

<blockquote>you mean a set of the 1.4 AF-S primes? therein lies the rub.</blockquote>

<p>85/1.4D (or Sigma 85), 50/1.4G (or Sigma 50 or a used 50/1.2), and 35/1.8 (or Sigma 30 or a 35/1.4 AiS). Yeah, you don't get the latest and greatest 85, but even the 1.4D is still a big step up from the 85/1.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah, you don't get the latest and greatest 85, but even the 1.4D is still a big step up from the 85/1.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>technically, the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/221-nikkor-af-85mm-f18-d-review--test-report?start=1">85/1.8</a> is actually sharper than the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/220-nikkor-af-85mm-f14d-review--test-report?start=1">1.4 D</a>. so the step up is really in terms of bokeh--the 1.8's is ok but a bit nervous in the foreground, while the 1.4 D is the legendary "cream machine," plus it's a bit faster.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If it were me, given the choice between a 24-70mm, and a 50mm f1.8 and if they cost the same price, I would choose the 50mm f1.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>really? wow. i'm not sure many people would be with you on that one, simon.</p>

<p>so, you'd choose the less-sharp lens with much worse bokeh? okayyyyy... also, the OP mentioned the 35/1.8, not the 35/2 initially, so the cost of the three primes would be even less, since the 35/1.8 runs about $200 -- not that that matters.</p>

<p>still, as i said earlier, this is a no-brainer, somewhat pointless comparison to even make because the three primes aren't equivalent to the zoom in terms of sharpness at open apertures, would be worse for portraits on DX, and aren't as good in low-light as far as focusing.</p>

<p>also, it would be difficult for the OP to spend "the same cash" on three primes which would be equivalent to the 24-70, in the DX format. if you went with the sigma 30/50/85 1.4s, you'd spend about $1800, or $200 more than the 24-70, and would certainly get better bokeh than with the nikon 1.8s in the same FLs. but, as i stated before, you'd have a huge gap on DX between 50 and 85, which is the heart of the portrait range, so the wisdom of such a move would be highly questionable, if your intention is to shoot portraits.</p>

<p>once again, check out the nikkor 24-70's <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/236-nikkor-af-s-24-70mm-f28g-ed-review--test-report?start=1">performance</a> @2.8 and f/4 compared to the sigma 30 and 50 (photozone hasn't yet tested the 85 EX). the nikkor simply reigns far, far supreme. its wide-open performance is simply better than anything those lenses achieve, even stopped down to max. sharpness. and, btw, i have both the sigma 30 and the sigma 50. they're both good lenses, but these results concur with my own.</p>

<p>primes vs. zooms may be a personal preference for some, and that's fine. but the long-held argument that primes are sharper than zooms at equivalent FLs clearly does not apply to the 24-70. what's even scarier in terms of long-held beliefs, is that the 24-70 actually has <em>less</em> distortion at 24mm than the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/549-nikkorafs2414ff?start=1">24/1.4 AF-S</a>. photozone tested the two lenses on different formats, so a direct comparison isn't possible, but if you interpolate the MTF bar graphs, the 24-70 <em>surpasses </em>the 24/1.4 at 2.8, f/4 (just barely) <em>and</em> 5.6, while being far better in the corners and borders at those same apertures. therefore, the only thing you really gain with the prime is 1.4 and a smaller size.</p>

<p>now if you were to compare the nikkor 1.8s or 1.4s against the less expensive, optically inferior sigma 24-70, it might be a different story. but my conclusion has to be that the 24-70 is worth every penny, and will continue to be worth every penny for years to come.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Weight: <br />35/1,8 = 200g, 50/1,8 = 155g, 85/1,8 = 380g. Total=735g<br />24-70/2,8 = 900g<br>

Size:<br />I would say the three primes takes up the most space in the photobag.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>really? wow. i'm not sure many people would be with you on that one, simon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you might be surprised. For example, my wife, (currently showing at Aperture Gallery in NY, so must be doing something right), has the choice of the combination of any lens(es) at all, price (almost) no object, and chooses... the 35mm f2 and usually nothing else (occasionally a 20mm f2.8 as well). She tried the 24-70, hated it even more than I did.</p>

<p>One or two well known photography names who are friends/acquaintances and can also more or less have whatever equipment they want I always see with similar lenses - perhaps a Leica with a standard 50mm, or wide angle, or a Nikon with standard or wide angle and very rarely if ever anything else. Why?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>so, you'd choose the less-sharp lens with much worse bokeh? okayyyyy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From my point of view I couldn't care less about the relative sharpness, provided the lens meets certain minimum standards, and bokeh interests me only slightly more than that - ie. not an awful lot. There is a very good argument that modern lenses are too sharp for their own good anyway, softness can be a good thing. Not that the 50mm f1.8 is soft - it's very sharp. Not long ago excessive sharpness was regarded as a bad thing in a lens. Fashions come and go.</p>

<p>Provided the lens is adequately sharp and I like the look I get from a lens, that as far as I'm concerned, and I think you'll find as far as an awful lot of professionals is concerned, is the end of that particular bit of the discussion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would say the three primes takes up the most space in the photobag</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For sure - but the important words there are "in the photobag" not "on the end of the camera" ;)</p>

<p>Just to give some balance - I'm enthusiastically putting the prime argument, because that's the way I see it, and as a counter to the 'zoom is a no-brainer' and the X lens is sharper at aperture Y view of the world. Of course I acknowledge that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the zooms - if they work for you, then that's fantastic. We all need to do things differently, our own way. There are I am sure many great photographers using those beasts, or lenses like them. I might even choose them myself for the occasional applications (sports photography in daylight? news photography when I'm stuck in a press pen?).</p>

<p>Then again, have a look at the youtube of Bruce Gilden at work on the streets of New York. Can you imagine him doing that with a big pro zoom? Too big, too slow, too intrusive, too heavy.</p>

 

<p>This all depends on what 'type' of photography you plan on shooting. The quality of prime lenses (DX or FX) is clear for everyone to see and has been documented and universally accepted as being of higher quality to zoom lenses. That said, the quality of nikon's latest FX lenses is nothing short of brilliant. Even on the DX body of the d300, FX lenses work so very well. For my money I would choose the zoom (as long as it is FX compatible because they offer better quality optics) since the convenience it offers and the image quality it represents is a very good balance. I see no reason in buying the three prime lenses you mention for a DX body since the x 1.6 factor cancels out the benefit of the three focal length you mention i.e. the 35mm prime is effectively a 50mm anyway and the 85mm is around the 100mm mark</p>

<p><strong>The quality of prime lenses (DX or FX) is clear for everyone to see and has been documented and universally accepted as being of higher quality to zoom lenses.</strong><br>

This may be been true in the past, but it is simply not a correct perception anymore. I have run comparisons with my 85 1.4 lens @ 2.8 and 5.6 against the 70-200 at 85mm at f 2.8 and f 5.6 and asked blinded reviewers to which lens took the picture and no one could tell the difference.</p>

 

Simon you made me laugh out loud with that last one. Bruce Gilden and too intrusive are a match made in heaven.

He's done some great work being overly intrusive but I don't mean to minimize your points (you've made some great

ones) we would all struggle one handing a big zoom all day especially while holding a flash in the other. For me, I

prefer the ergonomics of primes but sometimes zooms are just the right call.

B

<p>Steve, if you're comparing the DX prime lense against the FX zoom lens then that's my point exactly. Read what I have written about the quality of FX zoom lenses again. The point I'm making is that FX zoom lenses are of equal quality to prime lenses . This is not the case with DX zoom lenses and that's the distinction I make. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bruce Gilden and too intrusive are a match made in heaven.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course you're absolutely right, it does sound a bit ridiculous. For hime I was thinking more about the lens intruding between him and the subject. It sems to me it would be a different kind of confrontation between him and the subject, maybe the pictures would evn look a bit different, if his face was hidden behind that big shiny bulbous front element. In the same way you get quite a different look to pictures like this using a TLR (ie. non confrontational).</p>

<p>As it is, the expression on his face must look to his subjects like some kind of preying mantra pouncing (do preying mantras pounce, and what kind of expression do they have on their face when they do?).</p>

 

<p>Art, then we are in agreement. I misunderstood your note. <br>

I would also add that my left shoulder hurts most of the time because I lug the 24-70mm f2.8 lens or the 70-200 f2.8 around where ever I go and worse, it attracts a lot of attention which I hate!!<br>

So size matters!! I have been playing around with a Nex-5 camera in the search of small, light but great pictures. With improvements in optics and ability to control off camera strobes, it becomes an interesting camera.</p>

<blockquote>I see no reason in buying the three prime lenses you mention for a DX body since the x 1.6 factor cancels out the benefit of the three focal length you mention i.e. the 35mm prime is effectively a 50mm anyway and the 85mm is around the 100mm mark</blockquote>

 

<p>Sorry, Art - you've lost me. It's true that on DX the three primes mentioned cover the normal-to-moderate-telephoto range, rather than the wide-to-long-normal range that they would on FX, but the same is true of the zoom; since Maurice started by talking about portraits, I assumed this was what he wanted. The 35mm is effectively 50mm, but then the 50mm is effectively 75mm; they still span a range.</p>

 

<blockquote>I have run comparisons with my 85 1.4 lens @ 2.8 and 5.6 against the 70-200 at 85mm at f 2.8 and f 5.6 and asked blinded reviewers to which lens took the picture and no one could tell the difference.</blockquote>

 

<p>Steven - could reviewers who could actually see the images tell the difference? (Just kidding, I know what you meant.)<br />

<br />

I'm off to a tiddlywinks club annual dinner tomorrow night. I'll be taking the 50mm f/1.8, because it's relatively unobtrusive and the room is candlelit. Aperture still matters more than sharpness sometimes, even on a D700.</p>

<p>I came across <a href="http://davidho.co.uk/photography-gear/">this blog post</a> today. Very sensible, and interesting thoughts. In the context of this thread, I think it's worth looking at - and look at the photographer's work.</p>

<p>Also note the final sentence: "In 2011, I will be shooting with a Nikon D700 and a standard 50mm lens (again). And occasionally, the following may make an appearance: a 17-35mm lens, a 70-200mm lens." So I'm not the only nutcase who would choose a 50mm over a 24-70mm ;)</p>

 

<p>For image quality, it's the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. Not even a contest. That lens has the modern lens coatings, modern lens design, modern aspherical & LD glass elements. If you are trying to go cheap, the 3 lens package would work. I was once in your position. After reading so many posts on internet message boards, I bought Nikons 20mm f2.8D, 50mm f1.8D, 85mm f1.8D, and throw in the Sigma 28mm f1.8 AFD as well. Honestly, I was very disappointed. They just did NOT work for me. The main problems were they had way too much CA (purple fringing) and ruined many of my shots (software does not cure completely.) The 85mm f1.8 was the worst. The next problem was flare--the older lenses were not designed as well to reduce flare on digital bodies. Again, the 85mm f1.8D was the worst (in fact the very worst lens for flare I've ever owned and ever tried!) All in all, image quality was NO where near what I'd been led to believe. In retrospect, maybe my expectations were way too high for lenses designed 20-30 years ago?<br />Second problem I had was I was always changing lenses, sometimes missing fast breaking shots. This drove me insane very quickly as I don't work in a studio. In short, the so-called "prime" route was a disaster for me. I gave up image quality, focus speed, and work flow speed. After missing a few more "must have" shots for a magazine article I was doing, I threw in the towel and bought the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 for my D300. The 24-70mm f2.8 should even be better with the nano coatings etc. Much better in every way except weight of course, but then again if you add up the weight of all those single lenses, maybe the camera bag weight stays the same? It all comes down to what your style is, what you shoot, and what your priorities are. I have not tried the new state of art Nikon 35mm f1.4G, Sigma 85mm f1.4 etc. Those do seem to have image quality at least as good as the Nikon 24-70mm and it's reported that focus speed is good also, but they cost a ton of money and for me I'd be back to the problem of missing fast breaking shots. For me, the thing about DSLR bodies are they are lightning fast and quick to use. A state of art fast pro zoom is the perfect match for this system. And remember, just as cameras have changed over the last 20 years, so have lenses! I'll add that I'm very much a night photographer and low light capability is essential for me. The older lenses I tried just didn't do the job for me. The modern f2.8 zoom does. Pair it with whatever replaces the D300 and I'll have even more low light capability! Lens speed is becomming less relevant as camera technology advances.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>If you're getting purple fringing, it sounds like a defective sensor/lens, or just an early generation sensor.</p>

 

<p>double post</p>

<p>"The 35mm is effectively 50mm, but then the 50mm is effectively 75mm; they still span a range."</p>

<p>Andrew, true they do but IMHO the benefit between 50mm and 75mm is negligible and wouldn't warrant the cost. </p>

<p>Steve, no problem mate. Perhaps a clearer grammatical expression on my behalf would have avoided the confusion. I do however feel your pain associated with carrying around a 70-200mm 2.8 ( I think it's arguably Nikon's finest and most user friendly lens currently on the market in terms of field functionality) and get the same unwanted attention from the public. I might add I'm in the process of buying the 400mm f/2.8 prime lens soon, god knows what attention and shoulder pain that will cause me!</p>

<p>Some examples of why I don't like the 1.8 primes:</p>

<p>

<p>Beautiful pictures marred by distracting backgrounds. No thanks.</p>