ken.toda

I think ZOOM LENSES were made for motion picture cameras in 1950 to 60's. To make such lenses, it was very difficult task without super computer then. But some type of shooting, it was good tool and necessity, as sport photographers or folks who did not have time to change lenses. Then, image quality was not there. But today, new optical glass, coating and computer design machine tools, it improved by 1000%. But we used to say, if you were good photographer, USE MANUAL ZOOMING with your arms and legs, don't be too lazy to look for great photo angle and perspective! Also, in general, prime lens has much superior image quality.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I agree that you should look for different angles and perspectives, but there is a real difference between zooming and what you call manual zooming. Manual zooming (zooming by moving your position) changes the perspective. Zooming with a zoom lens is similar to cropping. Two distinctly different processes and results. Without looking at the scene, you can't tell which way is better but both approaches have the potential to yield positive improvements.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

It was the original Vivitar Series 1, 70-210 lens that was designed by Ellis Betensky from NASA, with the aid of computers, that prompted Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc, to design and build quality zooms. Before that time, zooms pretty much sucked. That original 70-210 was the first zoom to deliver quality images.

ThreeCee Loc: Washington, DC

I love primes. If you have control I’d rather have a prime. When I shoot events where I have less control I use zooms. The quality and aperture are usually advantages of the primes.

Dug E Pi

Who or what is your shot for? Sharpness gets focused (pun intended) on a lot, but the main thing is as long as the lack of sharpness doesn't detract from your images message it doesn't matter. I use primes as a portrait photographer because detail around the eyes shows character. I use zoom on kids playing because they don't hold still.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

As a portrait photographer surely you don't need sharp? - especially for 30 yr+ subjects.
Wouldn't kids playing be better shot using focus tracking rather than worrying about sharp?
Interesting that you think crow's feet add character - tell that to the ladies!

R.G. Loc: Scotland

And if you don't have a zoom lens you don't have both options.

In that situation I would prioritise composition over maximum sharpness. Come to think of it there's no shortage of situations involving conflicting requirements where maximum sharpness should not be the main priority.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

Well there are a lot of opinions out there, I think we can all agree that a prime will always be sharper and have less distortion, but at what point does it matter to you, could you look at a photo and say whether it was shot with a zoom or a prime? I’ve always found that the convenience of a zoom far outweighs the small or perhaps imperceptible flaws compared to a prime.

Randyfrieder Loc: Long Island, New York

I don’t agree that a prime lens will always be sharper, and less distorted.
I have some prime lenses that are horrible and I have a few zoom lenses that are amazing.
That is a very general statement.

btbg

Agree with you. A high quality zoom is better than a cheap prime, but a high quality prime is most likely at least slogjtly sharper tjen even the best zoom at tje far ends of its zoom range.

radiojohn

While I am happy with my M4/3 zooms, I do enjoy the faster aperture of my fixed 25mm f/1.7.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

For comparisons we need to accept "all things being equal"
And yes - best to stay away from the long end of a long zoom.

btbg

On the contrary we should not go with the standard of all things being equal.

For example I have already pointed out on this thread tjat for years I used a Sia 150-600 zoom for my outdoor sports photography. This year I finally got enough money to purchase the Nikpn 400 f1.6 z lens.

A poster on thos thread complained that those are not cparable lenses as they are not equivalents.

They are not equivalents but most people do not have the choice of the higher priced lens and both lenses are designed for sports and wildlife.

Many people on uhh buy cameras with kit lenses. A good prime will clearly be sharper than those cheap zooms. But of money only allows you to purchase a couple of good primes or alets say the Nikon 24-120 f4 then even though they are not equivalents thwn for most people that zoom will probably serve them better than even the best ome or two primes due to the flexibiloty.

So we need to be comparing what people can actually afford to buy and use, not what os equivalent, because the equivalent of the 400 f2
8 does not exist in a zoom and the equivalent of the 24-120 zoom would need a 24, 35, 59, 85, 105, and at least one more prime in order to have the same flexibility. Clearly most people could better afford and more easily carry that one zoom than all the primes necessary to have the same flexibility. So no we should be comparing what people can actually use not what is hypothetiically equivalent.

By the way sorry for any typos. I am on my cell phone instead of a computer and i am not good at texting.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

My Sony RX10ii fixed lens camera has a Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar F2.8 8x (8.8-73.3) zoom. Very sharp!

Dean37 Loc: Fresno, CA

btbg

Of course you are correct. Most people are happy with the lenses they have and don't realistically look at the ones that are exclusive and too expensive for their pocket book OR are not happy with their lenses, but can't do anything about it (not enough money,) because of the exclusive lenses being just too expensive.

Comparing a 24-70 lens of one company with the 24-70 lens of another company is comparing equivalents. As would be comparing workmanship on finished lenses or how well one company's lenses attach against how problematic another company's lens attachment is.

Chevy vs Ford
Boeing vs Airbus
ad infinitum