A fast midrange zoom or three primes: a detailed comparison.

[richard_bach1]

<p >Because I am a huge nerd, I decided to crunch some numbers to see what the deal is with these fast, large, and expensive midrange zooms that are oh so popular nowadays. My current kit consists of a 28mm f1.8G, a 50mm f1.4G, and an 85mm 1.8G. This is similar range to what one gets on the 24-70mm f2.8, and I began to wonder why one would choose one set or the other. Now I know this is not perfect science, and this comparison is only applicable to Nikon full frame users, but here is what I found:<br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Optical performance</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >I gathered this from comparisons on DXO Mark (not perfect, I know, but a great comparison tool) on my D700.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The 28mm and the 50mm are comparable at every similar aperture and focal length in regards to sharpness, and are significantly better when one considers CA performance in the sharpness equation (I do). And they have 1-2 stops more aperture than the zoom. Distortion is not hugely different, and transmission is obviously much better on the primes. While this is not a perfect comparison, the 85mm 1.8G just slays the 24-70 at 70mm (and most other lenses, for that matter) in every regard.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >While I haven't used used the 24-70 extensively, I see no signs of that beautiful "sharp yet soft and glowy" rendering style that I love about my modern G primes. I really haven't used it enough to comment on the bokeh, but I've never been disappointed with any of the primes.<br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Isolating Power</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >I'm calculating the isolation power potential as the size of the exit pupil, the best way I can figure out how to quantify this:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The primes:</p>

<p > • 28mm @1.8: 15.5mm</p>

<p >• 50mm @1.4:35mm</p>

<p >• 85mm @1.8:47mm</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The zoom:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >• 28mm @f2.8: 10mm</p>

<p >• 50mm @f2.8: 18mm</p>

<p >• 70mm @f2.8: 25mm</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The primes kill the zoom here by 1.5x to almost 2x the isolating power. Easy choice if blurry backgrounds are your thing…<br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Price</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >These are the used prices I paid. Some of them are rather low (I'm a proud deal hunter), but these are the numbers:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >• 28mm f1.8: $500</p>

<p >• 50mm f1.4: $350 (mine was actually a gift, but this seems to be the going rate for a deal)</p>

<p >• 85mm f1.8: $400</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I would've spent a total of $1250 had I bought all of these myself, which is right around going rate for a used 24-70mm. Three high quality, modern fast primes or one relatively fast zoom. The price is the same. Draw.<br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Size, weight, handling, and convenience.</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Here are the weights of these lenses:</p>

<p >• 28mm: 11.6 oz</p>

<p >• 50mm 9.8 oz</p>

<p >• 85mm: 12.4 oz</p>

<p >• 24-70mm f2.8: 31.2 oz.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >That's right: the 24-70 weighs as much as all three COMBINED. And is much larger too. And all of the primes are 1-2 stops faster than the zoom. This is where I fail to see the convenience factor of the zoom over the primes. My kit is just as heavy whichever choice I make.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The primes are all ergonomically sound, and built just fine by my standards; but I must confess the 24-70 takes the cake here. Its built like a tank, and handles very well for a lens of its size and weight.<br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I for one know I am happy with the decision I've made, and am now wondering what the appeal is of these beastly zooms. I feel like I have more options, more flexibility, and often better performance by simply swapping lenses. Anecdotally, for my style of shooting, this hasn't really presented problem at all. The isolation is much better too, something that IS important to my style.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >What do you have? Which choice would you make? I'm very curious now.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >- Richard</p>

[richard_bach1]

<p >Bonus: 24-85mm VR</p>

<p > </p>

<p >On top of this, I have my 24-85mm VR for the times where I need the flexibility of a zoom. It's half the weight (~16 oz.), much smaller, and I got it for ~$300 (roughly 1/4 the price of a used 24-70) at a the time that everyone was unloading them as part of that D600 kit supernal. Its convenient, flexible, has bit more zoom range, and, according to DXO Mark, very similar in optical performance to the 24-70. (the reviews seem much harder on this lovely little lens than they are on the prestigious pro lens…) </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I gain much in convenience, a little bit of zoom, VR, pay about 1/4 of the price, and lose 1/2 stop at the short end (1 1/2 at the long end), and the professional build quality. Again, I'm quite happy with my choice.</p>

[john tonai]

<blockquote>

<p>I fail to see the convenience factor of the zoom over the primes</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The most obvious convenience of a zoom over a prime is that if the wrong prime is on your camera, you need to change it. That is NOT convenient</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>The most obvious convenience of a zoom over a prime is that if the wrong prime is on your camera, you need to change it. That is NOT convenient</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup. Period. end of story. lens changes in a hurry are a real pain.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>...that said... I agree about the big and heavy problem.</p>

<p>It's why I'm happy with my 18-70 on my D90. small and light and handy, takes great photos stopped down one or two stops...</p>

<p>I have a 35 and 50 prime, I rarely use them.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Convenience of a zoom:<br /> - continuous range of focal lengths allows for precise framing<br /> - no need to change lenses - which in some situations is the difference between getting the shot or not. Or it would require the use of two camera bodies lest you end up with the "wrong" prime on your camera too often.<br /> <br /> Now, having said that - here is my reasoning for not coveting the 24-70 at all; I learned this lesson from owning the 17-55 DX for about 4 years:<br /> - the long end is too short for me; i.e. it would need to be a 24-85/2.8.<br /> <br /> - the short end isn't short enough and I still need to carry a superwide. Which could either be the 14-24 (but not for me since I am afraid of scratching that bulbous front element (same for the Tokina 16-28)), or some zoom that ends at 35mm (like 16-35 or 17-35). Hence, I might as well use that type of zoom and switch to a 70-200 or 85 if I need longer; the missing range in between is of very little importance to me.<br /> <br /> - for what I shoot, I don't really need a high-end midrange zoom. In fact, I don't even need a 50mm lens - a 35 and 85 are plenty. And if I have the time to photograph at my leisure, then my manual focus 28 and 105 make for a quite versatile kit as well.<br /> <br /> - f/2.8 isn't all that fast and also doesn't give the shallow DOF of a fast prime<br /> <br /> There is, however, still another point - and that is that your three prime setup doesn't give you 24mm, and that doesn't work for everyone either. And if you include the 24/1.4 in your list, then you need a lot more budget for the primes. Except for the 50/1.4, you chose the "budget" version for your prime combo - to cover the wide angle as well and to maximize your isolation power, you would need to consider the 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4.<br /> <br /> That's a long way of saying that for some the zoom is a necessity and some can have the leisure of using several primes instead. With FX, I am leaning towards a more prime oriented setup myself - with the convenience zoom being the 16-85 on a DX camera.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Also, a zoom lens provides the capability of better control of composition, as Dieter points out. I suspect that was a major factor in the manufacture of the early zoom lenses for motion picture cameras.</p>

<p>This is not a question limited to one marque. A nice EF 24-105mm IS L lens on a 35mm-sensor Canon is at least as useful as a 15-85mm on a "DX" body.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>capability of better control of composition</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Having shot exclusively slide film back in the days, a zoom was a necessity. Nowadays, not so much - that's what cropping is for ;-)</p>

<p>Can't stop thinking about that Sigma 18-35/1.8 - "prime" territory with that maximum aperture and it contains nearly all the missing DX prime focal lengths (16-35 would have covered another important one). I doubt we will ever see something equivalent for FX.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Your line of reasoning seems mostly theoretical. I take photos in the real world. In the real world, if I went back to non-zoom lenses I would be missing crucial shots again. In the real world, I shoot in some extremely dusty or blizzard conditions where changing lenses is impossible. For the past three months I've been shooting a lot of harvest scenes and agricultural equipment operations. Would having f1.4 instead of f2.8 help me? Rarely. Would ANYONE who buys my photos notice the difference? Absolutely not. Would I be making more money if I went the non-zoom route? Absolutely not. Would I be risking totally screwing up my camera if I took a lens off to change it? Absolutely yes! I have found in actual field conditions, i.e. taking photos in the real world, that whatever the too slight to even notice advantage of the single focal lens over a zoom is, it is always trumped by the quickness of using the zoom to get the shot. If I only shot in a studio or only shot landscapes it would be a different story, but I am an outdoor photographer. And IF I were going the single focal lens route, it would DEFINITELY be the Sigma f1.4 series.</p>

<p>Below shot, a Lexion combine is harvesting soy beans at night near Tyler, MN. I was wearing a dust mask. The camera/lens were so covered in dust I could not see the top LCD. This was a paid gig.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[richard_bach1]

<p >Kent,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I suppose as not being a professional photographer here, I'm speaking from a position of luxury. I shoot in the rain, snow, mist, etc. but I don't often shoot combines in Minnesota. And I can choose what to and what not to shoot.]</p>

<p > </p>

<p > As a fellow San Diegan I'm sure you can attest to the fact that environmental hazards are rather low here, but I understand your point. Maybe that's why the big zooms are products geared towards professionals…</p>

[richard_bach1]

<p >Dieter, </p>

<blockquote>

<p > - for what I shoot, I don't really need a high-end midrange zoom. In fact, I don't even need a 50mm lens - a 35 and 85 are plenty. And if I have the time to photograph at my leisure, then my manual focus 28 and 105 make for a quite versatile kit as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >One of the interesting side effects of shooting primes is that I find I don't miss the in between focal lengths at all. In fact, I feel confidently that I could do what I do with only the 28mm and the 85mm; though I'm a big fan of the 50mm f1.4 for portraits (I love sticking lenses in my subjects face I suppose). My zoom has been used less and less as time goes on…</p>

<blockquote>

<p > - the short end isn't short enough and I still need to carry a superwide. Which could either be the 14-24 (but not for me since I am afraid of scratching that bulbous front element (same for the Tokina 16-28)), or some zoom that ends at 35mm (like 16-35 or 17-35). Hence, I might as well use that type of zoom and switch to a 70-200 or 85 if I need longer; the missing range in between is of very little importance to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >I hear your point and agree that zooms become more useful at more extreme focal lengths. I have a17mm prime that I find pretty difficult to use and is in my "sell" pile right now. i used to be a wide angle junkie, but now even 24mm is borderline too "exaggerated" looking for me. (Truth be told though, If i had the money, I would certainly own that lovely 24mm f1.4, but I don't stress about what I don't have…). On the inverse, for some reason nothing over ~85mm has ever really appealed to me...</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Perhaps I find that primes force me to see a certain way that I would not have seen having had the option of zooming to a different focal length, and that is more important to me than having the option to shot at 31mm instead of 28mm…</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>You're only considering what a casual shooter would use with no time crunch involved. I shoot concerts and events, I always have two bodies, one with a short zoom, the other with a mid-long zoom. That's the only way I would work.</p>

[richard_bach1]

<blockquote>

<p >You're only considering what a casual shooter would use with no time crunch involved. I shoot concerts and events, I always have two bodies, one with a short zoom, the other with a mid-long zoom. That's the only way I would work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >The last time I shot at concerts I shot with an Canon S100 and an X100 before that. All up to style and intent I suppose :)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The last time I shot at concerts I shot with an Canon S100 and an X100 before that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

so, how'd that shutter lag work out for you? also, i think kent is in south dakota, not san diego. WRT your comparison, the only real advantage is faster aperture. if there were significant weight savings, you might have a point. the convenience of the zoom is absolutely essential for event shooting. i currently shoot FX with 24-70, 85/1.4 and 50/1.4. thinking of getting a 35/1.4 or a 28/1.4, but the zoom is far and away the most versatile. i shoot concerts where i'm often in the photo pit or on the stage, and have done so with both primes and zooms. you miss shots if you're changing lenses all the time.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>24-70 f/2.8G pros:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Sharp edge to edge on the D800E. If you have a D800, there is no other Nikon option in this zoom range.</li>

<li>Noticeably sharper than other Nikon midrange zooms (24-85, 24-120)</li>

<li>Convenient, if not extensive, zoom range </li>

<li>Fast, unless you need f/1.4 for special effects (I don't)</li>

<li>Wide enough unless you can tolerate the extreme distortion of super-wide lenses (I never shoot wider than 24mm, as 24mm already adds considerable distortion to buildings and other rectangular subjects)</li>

<li>Works well in tandem with your 70-200</li>

</ul>

<p>24-70 f/2.8G cons:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Short on the long end. If you need a lot of focal length flexibility in one lens, Sigma's new 24-105 might be a good alternative. (The 24-85 and 24-120 are sub par performers, IMO.)</li>

<li>No VR</li>

<li>Relatively large and heavy (but smaller and lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8)</li>

<li>No macro mode</li>

</ul>

<p>I have used primes extensively, but the dust issue concerns me, especially when traveling. I'd rather use zooms when possible to avoid lens changes.</p>

 

[pete_s.]

<p>I have no love for the midrange zoom as I don't find it wide enough or long enough. When I shot weddings and events I'd do it with a 35mm, 85-105mm and a 20mm - on two camera bodies. I'd bring zooms for backup and also used them when forced to stay in the same location.</p>

<p>I think a pro need at least two camera bodies and if you are shooting primes you should be able to swap lenses pretty fast - less than 10 seconds with the new lens still in the bag.</p>

<p>Anyway, to get back to the the points of the OP, it's an interesting comparison. But it's impossible to say that primes would work for everyone or that zooms would work for everyone.</p>

<p>Personally I strive to use primes but that's because I'm a better and more creative photographer when I use them and also because I like my camera to be as light as possible and I like the creative possibility of using large apertures as well getting higher shutter speeds in low light.</p>

<p>Unfortunately it took Nikon a long time to start updating their primes and as always what you only choose somthing that's in the line up. For instance a 35mm f/2 VR or a 135mm f/2 AF-S are two options that Canon users can enjoy but Nikon cannot.</p>

<p> </p>

[richard_bach1]

<p><img src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/712bacbc0820261e1a7448ebe5bd380a/tumblr_ms7uteRCQi1sw0sh6o1_r1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="782" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>so, how'd that shutter lag work out for you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A-OK actually! But I think you and I do something different :) But thats entirely besides the point…</p>

<p><br /> I suppose it seems that mostly real pros are the ones that need that convenience, I get that. Speaking from my personal position I have found that I love shooting with primes and rarely miss the convenience of zooms. If i were pro, making money and shooting under deadlines, that might be different...</p>

[richard_bach1]

<p >Coincidentally enough, Ming then (who's work I greatly admire) just posted his current equipment here:</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/11/04/what-am-i-using-now/">http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/11/04/what-am-i-using-now/</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Even for the more run and gun type situations he still uses primes, sometimes even manual focus ones with adapter. Ming is a machine though, and does everything with an insane level of skill that is not normal by any means. Still interesting to see though…</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>Ten seconds is way too long to change a lens in a concert/event situation. I never change a lens at all with two bodies, short zoom and mid-long zoom, and it only takes me about a second to switch from one camera to the other. Also, the two zooms have infinite focal lengths from 25.5 to 225 equivalent.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>That's right: the 24-70 weighs as much as all three COMBINED. And is much larger too. And all of the primes are 1-2 stops faster than the zoom. This is where I fail to see the convenience factor of the zoom over the primes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This sums up nicely why I did not buy a 24-70 f/2.8. As good as this lens is, to me it's just too large and heavy for the kind of situations where I prefer using a zoom.<br>

On a whole, I have a foot in either camp, and I think there is a certain level of uselessness of making the comparison, as the pros and cons of primes and zooms are distinct and clear (to me). I want primes for the speed, for their size and weight, and for more sentimental reasons related to how they render and the optical quirks they have (mine are mostly older Ai/AiS primes). I want a zoom for convenience, a certain level of all-roundness without compromising too much. I have the 24-120 f/4, which frankly I already find a bit too heavy but overall it's a very solid compromise for my needs. Plus a 80-200 f/2.8 which I carry only when I'm sure I'll need it.</p>

<p>Now, would I be an event photographer, or PJ, no doubt, I would take that 24-70 f/2.8, and not think about that twice. It would still be a heavy beast, but it would be the tool that would suit my needs best. And in the end, that's the bottomline: horses for courses (and yes, that might even mean one uses primes in the "real world" too, and make money with them).</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I think you and I do something different :) But thats entirely besides the point…</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not sure what you're saying. i shoot events. if i thought i could do that with a P&S, i would. but having shot both zooms and primes, i much prefer the flexibility of the zoom in those situations. the only time i reach for the prime is when the light levels are super low, i'm trying to go light, or i want extra-shallow D0F. i also use fisheyes sometimes, as i dont need to go wide all that often, and a fish doesnt take up too much weight in my bag..</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I think there is a certain level of uselessness of making the comparison, as the pros and cons of primes and zooms are distinct and clear</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed. Use the lens(es) that fit your style and the situation at hand. I would never be happy with having primes only in the 14-24mm range. I also need a midrange zoom - but it doesn't have to be an f/2.8 one. I am not certain I really need the 70-200/2.8 - but the only advantage of trading it for the 70-200/4 would be to save weight.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>24-70 f/2.8. As good as this lens is, to me it's just too large and heavy for the kind of situations where I prefer using a zoom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sums it up quite nicely for me. </p>

[pete_s.]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ten seconds is way too long to change a lens in a concert/event situation. I never change a lens at all with two bodies, short zoom and mid-long zoom, and it only takes me about a second to switch from one camera to the other. Also, the two zooms have infinite focal lengths from 25.5 to 225 equivalent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It depends on the type of event. I haven't shot concerts so I wouldn't know but typical corporate events are easy to shoot with primes if you are somewhat skilled with primes and are allowed to move.</p>

<p>I also meant 10 seconds from shot to shot. If you check your exif from a typical shoot you'll see that you have plenty of 10 second slots for an occasional lens change. But keep in mind that I talking about shooting professionally with two bodies and a set of primes. There are plenty of pro wedding shooters that do it like that, often using f1.2 primes. But I'm pretty sure most of them have zooms as well and would pick a zoom for situations where a zoom would work better for them.</p>

<p> </p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>24-70 f/2.8. As good as this lens is, to me it's just too large and heavy for the kind of situations where I prefer using a zoom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, there's always Tamron's SP 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom at around half the weight, 2/3rds of the bulk and one quarter of the cost. This lens lives on my D800 and has yet to disappoint in terms of image quality, focus speed and focus accuracy. OK it's 4mm shorter at the wide end, but I can live with that (and with a tiny 24mm f/2.8 or 20mm f/3.5 in my pocket). I can also fit the camera into a holster style case with the lens and hood attached - what's not to like?</p>

[Two23]

<p>As always, it depends on what you are doing and your style. For me, my Leica system is what I pick when I just want to goof around. I love the classic look I get from 1940s gear! Sure, I miss quite a few shots due to having the wrong lens on etc., but I'm just having fun. For the times that getting results are more important, my best system for that is a Nikon DSLR with two f2.8 zooms and a flash. It's fast, flexible, has very few pieces to fool with. If I miss shots, it's not the gear's fault! My camera gear philosophy has evolved over the years to where I now just don't think that pure "numbers" really matter that much in the real world. The reality is you most often are shooting around f8, and pretty much all modern lenses are excellent at f8. We tend to over analyze things but in reality it boils down to how we use the stuff in the field. Buying lens "A" because a technical website shows it's a teeny bit sharper than lens "B" is meaningless if you aren't using a tripod anyway.</p>

<p>For my Leica system I have lense 28/50/90mm. Really, this spread isn't that great. I'm usually wanting something a little wider such as a 24mm, but that didn't exist in the 1940s so I went with the 28mm. In my POV the perfect spread would be 25/50/100mm, but I don't think that exists (equiv. does exist for 4x5.) I don't see much point in buying a large camera such as a D800 and then choosing lenses because they are small. Why not just buy a smaller camera like a D5300 in the first place if bulk is an issue for you? If Nikon does come out with a small FM2n type camera, the lenses I would put on it would be the Nikon 24mm f1.4, Sigma 50mm f1.4, Sigma 85mm f1.4. I would not go for the f1.8 lenses since the Sigmas f1.4 offers a bit more! There really isn't an equivalent for my D7100, but probably the best option would be the new Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, Sigma 50mm f1.4, Sigma 85mm f1.4. Hmmm. Maybe Nikon should be worried--that's an all Sigma line up! I do think Sigma has edged ahead of Nikon with certain lenses. Of course, if I were really going to just go with a three lens system, it would be the new Leica and Leica lenses, no question!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>