Does One Really Need a Prime Lens (Page 10): Seems to be a lot of controversial info on sharpness and contrast between the two. I still think the ability to crop in the camera superces...

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

ThreeCee wrote:

It just depends on what you’re trying to do. A pro doing product photography is going to use high MP cameras with sharp contrast lenses. You don’t need as much for an internet post. If you like cell phone pix it’s good enough. Couldn’t shoot sports and Wildlife with it though.

Seems to be a lot of controversial info on sharpness and contrast between the two. I still think the ability to crop in the camera superces the possible slightly better focus. BUT, how big would you have to enlarge before you could possibly notice a difference. I have Canon 77d rebel with kit 28? To 135? ( I Don't have the lens with me), many blown up to 16x20 on my wall, printed on metallic paper and they are sharp.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

ThreeCee wrote:

Sharpness is only one component of picture quality. Microcontrast or Zeiss pop are qualities usually found in vintage lenses. Color rendering is also important. They don’t have the modern sharpness but can give a more 3D effect to the pics. I have been prioritizing Microcontrast over sharpness and buying more vintage glass for Canon. Just a personal choice.

VERY BEST click I ever made was with a Zeiss. Micro contrast is PHENOMINAL !

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I do love my Tamron 90 mm true macro, 1:1 with a ring light for my intraoral dental practice photos
Do the Canon pancake lenses 24,40,50mm count as true primes? The 24 on my rebel 77D is a great walk-around street photography lens. With crop 1.6 its 38 mm which a great size lens

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

Seems to be a lot of controversial info on sharpness and contrast between the two. I still think the ability to crop in the camera superces the possible slightly better focus. BUT, how big would you have to enlarge before you could possibly notice a difference. I have Canon 77d rebel with kit 28? To 135? ( I Don't have the lens with me), many blown up to 16x20 on my wall, printed on metallic paper and they are sharp.

You can see the difference in contrast on a display as small as a cellphone, and quite easily in a tablet.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

TriX wrote:

You can see the difference in contrast on a display as small as a cellphone, and quite easily in a tablet.

Who is putting a PRIME lens on a cell phone or tablet?
We are talking dslr with or without a mirror. Your comment is NOT to the topic and is irrelevant

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

Who is putting a PRIME lens on a cell phone or tablet?
We are talking dslr with or without a mirror. Your comment is NOT to the topic and is irrelevant

Perhaps you are on the wrong thread. This thread concerns zooms vs primes and until you veered off talking about focus and cropping, we were discussing microcontrast. You suggested (I think) that sharpness/resolution isn’t that important and that you could make acceptable very large prints with moderate resolution. I was commenting that while YOU may not be able to see the difference in moderate and high resolution, that you can definitely see the difference in CONTRAST between many zooms and primes, no matter what size display you viewed the image on.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

TriX wrote:

Perhaps you are on the wrong thread. This thread c... (show quote)

Three cee changed the topic
and you followed him
To changed the thread to pontificate about microcontrast.
Before you go OFF on me you should reread the orginal post. He said nothing about micro contrast at all.IThree Cee started the topic shift.
Did you really read the OP?
I believe my post was more to what the OP was asking and you took it anothet direction and blaming me to be off topic. I stand by my post

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

Three cee changed the topic
and you followed him
To changed the thread to pontificate about microcontrast.
Before you go OFF on me you should reread the orginal post. He said nothing about micro contrast at all.IThree Cee started the topic shift.
Did you really read the OP?
I believe my post was more to what the OP was asking and you took it anothet direction and blaming me to be off topic. I stand by my post

I’ve read the entire thread from the beginning and posted several times in it. Have you read it? Your comment: “I still think the ability to crop in the camera superces the possible slightly better focus…” had nothing to do with the original thread or the fork on microcontrast, and you completely misunderstood my post and then decided to be rude about it, so I’m done responding to you.

When you’ve dug yourself into a hole, the best strategy is to put down the shovel.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

TriX wrote:

I’ve read the entire thread from the beginning and posted several times in it. Have you read it? Your comment: “I still think the ability to crop in the camera superces the possible slightly better focus…” had nothing to do with the original thread or the fork on microcontrast, and you completely misunderstood my post and then decided to be rude about it, so I’m done responding to you.

When you’ve dug yourself into a hole, the best strategy is to put down the shovel.

My post was exactly on topic.
Orginal post copied below
Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?

I think most would agree with me. You were rude not me. Op wanted some opinion on prime vs zoom and my post addressed that fact exactly. I think the purpose of a zoom is crop in the camera and what sharpness you might lose is worth the loss. There is also some question on how much sharpness you lose in the modern lens. My example was my own wall hangers 16x20 and they were sharp. OEM primes are extremely expensive and for the extra money the increase, if any, in sharpness isn't worth the cash unless you make your living from them. If you stop down the so called edge focus goes away
You would benefit from rereading orginal post and not being rude to me when I bring the thread back to the orginal post.

ThreeCee Loc: Washington, DC

Yes they are true primes

User ID

ThreeCee wrote:

Yes they are true primes

Exactly, +/- 60% !

User ID

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

.......
We are talking dslr with or without a mirror. .........

He was proof reading that post when a ground hog chasing a skunk ran out in front of him and he accidentally sent it before his face even kissed the road ...

(Download)

ThreeCee Loc: Washington, DC

Lenses are tools to get the results you want in a given situation. Sharpness is not the only measure. Primes usually offer better image quality because they only have one focal length to worry about. Zooms have to make compromises because they are asked to do more. I own almost all Canon L zooms because I don’t always have time to switch lenses. When I am in controlled environments I almost always use primes. I think good primes are almost always better at image quality but if you miss the shot you have no quality. Zooms have gotten better in the modern lenses.

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

"Primes" can offer superior color and contrast as well... an example is Canon's TSE line- 50mm, 90mm, and 135. When you compare "one on one" and consider sharpness corner to corner, variable lenses come out far short.

gwilliams6

imagextrordinair wrote:

"Primes" can offer superior color and contrast as well... an example is Canon's TSE line- 50mm, 90mm, and 135. When you compare "one on one" and consider sharpness corner to corner, variable lenses come out far short.

Maybe in the past, but NOT with the latest top zoom lenses. Do better research please and learn the new reality of the best top zooms which are equal to the best primes now in sharpness, color, micro contrast, etc. . It is a new reality, just a fact.

Cheers