Primes versus 17-55mm

[michael_pye]

Hi,

I've been reading on here the past few days about primes being much better

sharpness e.t.c. to the equivalent on zooms like the 17-55mm 2.8

 

For a while now I have been studying other photographs on the net of the 50mm

1.8. and I cannot see the difference!

 

In fact from what I cam make out at a certain distance..say photographing

architecture the 17-55mm excels.

 

Does anybody know of any tests that have been done on the net comparing the

50mm 1.8. to the 17-55mm?

[juanjo_viagran]

Michael,

 

I have the 17-55mm 2.8 AFS and some really nice primes..

 

the 17-55mm is an AWESOME zoom, no doubt about it, but won't go down pass 2.8, with a prime you can, so you get an even faster lens and bigger DOF.

 

IMO no matter how good a zoom is, CAN'T compare with a prime.

[juanjo_viagran]

*shallowed DOF

[bobar57]

Hi, Michael, , no I have not read on any comparison of a prime vs. the 17-55, but I have seen many pictures taken w/ the 17-55 and they all look quite good to me, at least I don't find any flaw.

[ronald_moravec1]

There is no way to evaluate sharpness on a computer screen.

 

Modern zooms are as sharp as primes.

 

The downside is they are always slower except for some macros and they have more distortion.

 

Look at photozone reviews.

[Two23]

I agree with Robert above. At one time zooms were poorly made and not that good. Now they can be superb. The 70-200mm f2.8 VR just might be Nikon's best lens, all in all. In the past I have avoided single length lenses, preferring the speed and convenience of zooms. However, now that I shoot at night quite a bit, I have bought four fixed length lenses. I was after the f1.8 speed.

 

 

Kent in SD

[chris_burville]

17-55 is more versatile, 50 is faster. get them both. i did. the 50mm 1.8 is a hundred bucks. 17-55 is an investment. for critical work at 50mm i'll still use the $100 prime. cheers,

 

chris

[walterh]

The 17-55 is so good that I do not care for lab test data. The main restrictions for resolution and sharpness are typically shooting restriction like possibility to use a tripod or available shutter speed - time to focus - quality of AF or MF depending on the camera body etc.

 

For real life shooting situations I doubt there are relevant differences in image quality compared to a prime with these exception:

 

1) primes in the range may have distortion that is easier to correct by software (though distortion is fairly low and mostly irrelevant unless straight lines are visible) and

 

2) better flare control of some primes

 

3) some primes are obviously faster f2.0 to f1.2.

 

 

Besides this

 

1) primes are cheaper but not if you cover the range of the zoom with a number of primes then a zoom is cheaper,

 

2) pro - zooms are bulky and heavy: compare a D50 + 20mm f2.8 with a D3+14-24mm zoom ^^

 

3) shooting action may require a zoom.

[kari v]

"For a while now I have been studying other photographs on the net of the 50mm 1.8. and I cannot see the difference!"

 

50/1.8 is $100, 17-55/2.8 is $1200, should this tell you something? ;)

 

Trying to find any meaninfull differences in small sized pictures on your screen is totally futile + all the variables.

 

If you need the speed or just happen to like shallow DoF, get a prime (or two), if not, then zooms are nice. For best *sharpness* you would be shooting any prime at least at f2.8...

[ilkka_nissila]

You cannot compare shots of different subjects across lenses or with small web images.

 

I have done comparisons between the 17-55 and primes, looking at the image detail at 100% magnification use a D200. The 50/1.8 gives much more fine detail than the 17-55 at 50mm at equal apertures. For other primes the difference is less obvious - the zoom gets better relative to primes as you go zoom wider. The 35mm f/2 Nikkor and Zeiss lenses both give more detail than the zoom, but for 17-20mm the zoom is really good apart from the edges which are again worse than with full-frame primes. Also the zoom flares quite badly and shouldn't be used for photographing when light sources are in the frame.

 

The 17-55 is still a great lens, has very little CA and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it for those who are not bothered by its size (with the hood). It produces images which are "buttery", smooth, beautiful, but with not much fine detail. This is great for people photography, but really if you want your pictures to be detailed then you probably should use the 12-24 and primes for longer focal lengths (on DX).

[rombon]

17-55 is very sharp so it compares well against primes. 17-55 has more distortion and is much more sensitive to flare.

 

Regards, Marko

[michael_pye]

Many thanks for your replies. I actually study full size JPG's taken mainly on the D200. So you can get a very good idea of the quality of the lens.

 

A review and full size downloads are here e.g.

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_50_18/index.htm

[juan_parm_nides]

Lens resolution, when it reaches very high levels, it?s outside from human eye perception limit, so you think the prime and zoom are the same.

 

Primes, by definition and construction, are better lens in every sense, except, of course, zooming.

 

Regards.

[walterh]

Juan I have no idea what you want to say with this.

"Lens resolution, when it reaches very high levels, it?s outside from human eye perception limit, so you think the prime and zoom are the same."

 

I use my lenses not as eye-glasses but to take photographs :-)In these I can see differences if these exist very well if I enlarge sufficiently. These differences can also be qualified using the right method.

 

"Primes, by definition and construction, are better lens in every sense, except, of course, zooming."

 

I guess we all know that in principle primes can be better than zooms - the question is how certain commercially available primes are better in some respect (like resolution, color rendition - you name it)than commercially available zoom lenses. And this may defy the principle. If I have a zoom lens in hand (or want to buy one) that is better than a prime I hold in my other hand I could not care less which one should be better in principle :-)

 

At least that is the way I understand the discussion. The principle discussion was finished 100 years ago.

[ilkka_nissila]

The practice follows the principles. Only because Nikon hasn't really updated their wide angle primes since 1970s has it ever become interesting for a discussion. Without this negligence from Nikon, the difference that is seen between at 50mm would be similar all over the zoom range.

[jc5066]

I own the 17-55. Great lens. I just got the D3, so the 17-55 is pretty useless for my new camera. I went back to some of my primes, oh my. They are so much sharper, better contrast, color, etc...(this was compared on the D200). Being the 17-55 is a top notch lens, its pretty hard to top.

 

With all that said, there are some huge advantages to having a zoom. Is the extra image quality or the flexibility of a zoom more important to you. Either way, you won't be disappointed.

 

If I get around to it, I'll try to do a test shot today and post them.

[mark_jordan3]

Michael,<br>Anymore the differences between most primes and pro zoom glass are small...and with the exception of characteristics along the lines of barrel distortion very difficult to discern by viewing images on the net. When I mount a prime lens I'm usually trying to cut down weight and bulk for hand-held shooting...including perhaps low light conditions; under those circumstances, for me, a prime will get me sharper images.

[andrew_cale]

I basically gave up shooting with my 50/1.4 and 35/f2, as my results with the 17-55 were just as good. Any difference is extremely small, and is easily offset with the flexibility of the zoom. Its truly an outstanding lens.

 

Obviously if you want something faster than 2.8, for low light or extremely shallow DOW, you have no zoom option.

[juanjo_viagran]

for what I see is more about personal preference..

I have the 17-55mm and really like it, but bought a 35mm f2D AF which I use all the time along with a 85mm 1.4D and the lovely 10.5mm fisheye..

IMO the 17-55mm is more a work lens than pleasure, with its size and weight... regardless, AWESOME zoom.

[sjmurray]

I have a good copy of the 18-70, which I have compared various times to my classic Nikkor primes: 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 35 f2, 50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 55 f3.5 micro, 105 f2.5 gauss and sonnar. While being very,very close in center sharpness to these lenses, the 18-70 has better edge sharpness than the 24 and 28 at wide open. I use the 18-70 for general landscapes and spontaneous stuff when there is enough light. For portraits and shooting indoor with no flash, I use the primes, of course. I like shallow DOF for portraits unless its "environmental" in which case I could easily use the 18-70.

 

Its really a matter of how much light you have, or how soft do you want the background in a portrait. I've used my lenses long enough to regard all of them as "sharp" and I don't worry about that. If you have a 17-55 I'm sure it will be handy for all purposes except in very low light, in which case the recommendations for getting a 50mm 1.8 are right on. You occasionally may want to do a portrait at f2 or 1.8 as well.