PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

In my film days, I always used fixed focal length lenses to create my images. Zoom lenses are a trade off in my mind of convenience versus image quality. So for my digital I bought the best zooms Nikon made.
I recently purchased two fixed focal length lenses and can see an amazing difference in image quality.(sharpness).

Do any of you UHH's feel the same way?

Quixdraw Loc: x

I have noticed it, particularly with my old Nikon AI lenses. That said, my 24-120 is awfully good.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I use both - 14-24 (sharper than primes in its range), 24-70 - great at F4 and smaller - equal to or better than my primes at that aperture), 80-200 - I don't own multipurpose primes in that range but I have a few macros - which might be sharper - but they are optimized for close work, so it would be an unfair comparison, 24, 45 and 85mm tilt shift lenses - all very good, none are sharper than the others, but they have other specific benefits. My 85 1.4 AF-D is quite sharp in the center, but pretty bad at the corners and edges, which is fine for portraiture and other specific uses - not a great all-around lens - the 85 PC-E is better for that, but not great for portraiture.

No, generally speaking I don't see any image quality advantage of a pro level zoom over a prime lens, though there are functional differences which make me reach for one over another. Nikon's pro zooms are really top shelf, and fast primes (F2 and faster) tend to have all sorts of aberrations and corner/edge softness until they are closed down to F2.8 or F4 anyway, though center sharpness tends to be pretty good wide open. Pro zooms aren't always worse, and primes aren't always better.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Depends on the lens and the application. I have zoom lenses that are as sharp or even sharper than some of my primes. My walkabout lens is a zoom that can't match the IQ of any of my primes that cover some of the same focal lengths but to get the same coverage I'd have to carry around a lot of lenses. By using a best in class zoom I can cover a wide range of focal lengths without giving up too much on IQ and frankly the IQ from that lens is good enough. It's been my observations that many of the folks who are mainly concerned with how tack sharp an image is, don't usually see the whole picture. Not every image has to be technically as perfect as possible to be a good picture.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

It's going to depend a lot on exactly which lenses you are comparing, but the typical mindset is that primes are sharper than zooms. That said, today's professional zooms are extraordinarily good. I would expect Nikkor's 14-24 to be as sharp, if not sharper, than any prime in that range (and that's been stated already). My 24-70 is sharper than my 24 mm prime (24mm f/2.8 D), but admittedly not by much. There's a lot to be said for the versatility of a zoom, and if it's a good one, it'll make you not worry about using primes.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

The best zooms will not measure up to the best primes. Like you said its a trade off, but some are so good it hardly matters.

Wilsondl3

I agree that most folks who are concerned with tack sharp do not see the whole picture. That is because they are too close to the picture looking for flaws that the whole picture is not in their field of view. The bigger the picture the father you have to stand back to see the whole thing and most of the things pixel peepers like to point out can not be seen. Those who want down loads want them so they can blow them up and look for defects that can't be seen without the down load. I like to look at the whole picture and enjoy the composition, color, etc. - Dave

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Not just in your mind. Generally speaking, zooms ARE a compromise. Of course some zooms are better than others. But you’re always better off, sharpness-wise, with a fixed rather than a zoom.

Even with today’s “super-zooms”, I’ve been told that, if one must have a zoom, that if the zoom ratio is greater than 3- or 4:1, that the sharpness at the extreme ends just won’t be there as it would if those were fixed lenses. Would the average person notice? Probably not.

So, when some of these “bridge” cameras, such as the new Nikon P900, have “83x” zoom lenses with an equivalent of an 18-2000mm lens, no way can that maintain sharpness throughout that range. That, and very difficult to handhold at the extreme “tele” end.

Still, how many of us can lug around a half-dozen ore more fixed lenses and want to bother changing them? Better to take one 28-300 or a 24-120.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Of course. Some zooms are better than others. And the “better” zooms come with a matching price tag. And are heavier to carry around.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

So instead, for example, I can make a decision- either carry my 24-70 f2.8 or I could take along a 24, 35, 50 and perhaps a 70 mm if one is even available? Don't think so. ;)

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Why not, It all depends upon the quality you are looking for.You are happy with your 24-70 2.8. I am not. I am sure their is variation from lens to lens within a given production run.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

It all depends upon how you define "Best In Class Zoom". Whose word will you take to define that?

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

:thumbup: :thumbup:

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I think with today's computer designed lenses, the difference in zoom lenses and prime lenses is not as great as it was in the past. In situations where you can't always "zoom with your feet" or it's not convenient to carry several primes, zooms are worth the small tradeoff in image quality. In the studio, I use primes, but I can't say the quality difference with a good zoom is very significant.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Perhaps you have a bad copy or it needs to be calibrated with your camera. You don't say what camera or whose 24-70 you are using for your comparison. Others, including myself are more than happy with our 24-70 zoom. ;)