trapper1 Loc: Southside Virginia

Regarding 300 mm lens, all things else being equal, is the image from a 300 prime superior or inferior to images taken with a 300 mm zoom set at 300mm? Or is it the flexibility of the zoom that is the main attraction of the zoom?

Burtzy Loc: Bronx N.Y. & Simi Valley, CA

A 300mm prime will likely be sharper. The flexibility of the zoom is its main draw. But a really good zoom will closely match a prime.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I wouldn't think my experience is universal, but of the 1 Nikon and 4 Canon 300mm primes at f/2.8 and f/4 I've used, all of them are sharper than any of multiple zoom lenses that include the 300mm focal length.

User ID

Depends on the operator. Superior if
it's me. But if someone else, usually
pretty much "meh".

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Flexibility is the main attraction of a zoom lens.
(I own primes and zooms).

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Primes will almost always out do a zoom at any focal length. But the differences between good primes and good zooms have been made much, much less by computer design, new glass materials, and better coatings. For ultimate image quality, choose a prime. But most people and photographers will have a hard time distinguishing the image differences between good primes and good zooms, shot at the same focal length, from a proper view distance for the size of the print.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

I have a Canon 300 f4 Prime and it is one of my favorite lenses. Very sharp and at f4 it can really blow out the background.

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

I suppose many of us have been through the process of:

1) Testing zoom vs. prime and discovering that primes give better IQ
2) Deciding to do all our photography with prime lenses
3) Running into a situation in which a zoom was needed because the lens on the camera could not frame a subject correctly, either too close or too far away.

If we have the gear, we can carry two bodies, each with a different lens. Otherwise, we either carry multiple lenses and learn to change rapidly, or try to guess in advance of each photo opportunity which type would be best. With experience and proper advice, we hopefully get better at deciding what to carry.

Personally, I LOVE my Nikon 300mm PF either with or without a 1.4X teleconverter. But, on a birdwalk through varying environments, I use a Tamron 100-400 for the flexibility. However, I find that I usually shoot at the maximum extension anyway.

Good luck!

CO

I just went on LensTip.com. They do extensive testing of lenses. I pulled up the image resolution charts of their testing of the Canon EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM, Canon EF 300 mm f/2.8 L IS II USM, and Canon EF 100-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 USM lens. The prime lens has an edge. The Canon EF 100-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 USM is poor at 300mm.

Canon EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM resolution at lens center

(Download)

Canon EF 300 mm f/2.8 L IS II USM resolution


Canon EF 100-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 USM

steve33 Loc: Yarmouth MA

If I'm reading this right, the 100-400 looks pretty good

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

The issue (IMO) with zooms is not tthe he focal length, but the variable aperture. At 300mm zooms will stop down to f/5.6 or worse, so that a f/2.8 prime 300mm at f/5.6 will be much sharper at f/5.6 than a zoom at that aperture. It’s just optical physics.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

It is. Over the last year I have made the switch from a 5DIV and a bunch of EF L lenses to an EOS R and, so far, 4 RF lenses. The one EF that I will not sell is my EF 100-400 L II. Well, not until an improved RF version is available anyway, but, to be an improvement it will really have to be spectacular.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Just a couple of comments...

First...and applied specifically to the 300mm example offered...it looks at first like there may be more difference between the performance of a zoom with 300mm at the end of its range versus a zoom with 300mm in the heart of its range than there is between that second zoom and the 300mm prime lens.

Second...it seems that a serious question needs to be asked around the threshold of how much difference even matters at the resolutions being measured. How much difference is required to be discernible in a finished print?

There are many other lens properties than resolution that "matter" when judging overall lens performance. While I enjoy a sharp image as much as anyone, the ability of a lens to transmit and render color is more important to me. My images right now depend on nicely saturated color. I've learned that some of my lenses, including some of the "sharpest" ones, aren't as good at delivering this as others. But those lenses have other characteristics that make them useful and well worth keeping.

Unlike many here, I believe strongly that our equipment does make a difference. I have demonstrated to myself on multiple occasions that even some very nice consumer grade cameras are simply not physically capable of doing some of the things that I pretty routinely seek to do. The Nikkor 18-70mm zoom that I started with fell short in almost every category.

But I also believe that lab testing can fail to properly reveal lens shortcomings, and that it can unfairly penalize lenses that in actual use deliver excellent or even outstanding results. I encourage us to put less emphasis on these tests and more on the products of actual use.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

I have two older 300 primes (Nikon 300 F4 and a Sigma 300 F4) and they are quite a bit better at 300 than any of my zooms that max at 300, several of my long zooms (the ones that go to 400-500mm) are quite good at 300, but not quite as good as the primes.... I will give the zooms an A for the flexibility, and with care they will produce fine shots, especially if not "pixel peeping". Primes or Zooms - A good tripod/monopod and/or good image stabilization AND great technique makes them even better...

I do not own any that cost me thousands though (they were fairly $$ when they were new), I think the most I have in any is around $250, a couple years back, since I'm a big buyer of used. If I had spent on new, I'd probably bitch and moan a truckload more.....

Another $.02

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

All things being equal the answer to your question is YES. Zooms offer the flexibility that saves your feet. Primes offer higher image quality at your feet's expense. I mentioned that they are "your" feet? When you apply a human to the equation all bets are off! The biggest difference between any two lenses will be the application of said lenses. Who used it and how it was applied are as important as how it is built and designed.