larryepage Loc: North Texas area

While I understand your position, it overlooks a couple of key facts:
1. All zoom lenses are not equal.
2. All fixed focal length lenses are not equal.

I have a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that I'd class as just about the best lens I own. Its optical performance is superb, autofocus is almost instantaneous, VR is very effective, and construction, durability, and reliability are excellent. My 24-70mm f/2.8 is just about as good, except that it does not have VR and it focuses a tiny bit slower. I have a couple of 24-120mm f/4 zooms that are very good lenses also. But they do not pass as much color to the sensor as the better lenses. It's easily corrected in the camera setup, but the lenses still are not quite as good themselves. My 18-35mm Nikkor wide angle zoom is just a poor lens. It's a little older (not a lot), but the corners are just not sharp (and I'm not a sharpness freak). Some of these are, in fact, as good as any affordable fixed-length lens. Others are not.

We could look across my small accumulation of fixed focal length lenses and get the same sort of comparison, but you get the idea. For many folks with a modest array of lenses, getting a really good fixed-length lens may. in fact, be a much more achievable route for those critical situations.

gwilliams6

Read what I said "the latest top zoom lenses". Of course all zoom lenses are NOT created equal. But the latest top zoom lenses are truly a new breed of zooms with the latest optical designs and performance. You dont have to take my word for it, look up the latest tests results and reviews for yourself.

I personally have top primes and top zooms and I use them interchangeably.

Cheers and best to you.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

Can you post some links to your outdated statements.

User ID

Agree completely, both in concept and in practice. Certainly this is broadly known (it cant possibly be just you and me !)

But why youre bothering with explaining pragmatism or plain reality to gwilliam is beyond my imagination. Thaz really just pissing into the wind ... given that he is endlessly windy !!

User ID

Links ? Requesting documentation is the usual refuge of the typical UHH "expert". Links to stuff posted online ? Thaz such an unfunny joke :-(

Theres plenty material online to support whatever anyone wants to believe. Go find whatever upholds your "reality" and enjoy wallowing in it.

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

Misinformation persists...

Canon Zoom DXO assessment examples: EF 28-70 F2.8 = score 35, RF 28-70 F2 = score 33, EF 24-105 F4= score= 25, RF 24-105 F2= score 23.

Canon Prime: EF 85 F4= score 49, RF 85 F4= score 39, EF 50 1.2= 35, score RF 50mm 1.2= 39, EF 135 F2= score 39, RF 135 F 1.8= 53.

As you can see a prime is not only superior, but EF lenses score higher except for the 135 EF 1,8, Also The EF 85 outshines the RF 85 by a whopping 10 points.

Now add in TSE lens size and you will see these special Primes resolve even more.

If you think you are getting 100 percent resolution from your high mega pixel sensors using a zoom... you are mistaken.

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

Misinformed... you want to believe, that is why many also think a mirrorless camera can capture a vastly superior image...

User ID

.

mmmm ... bogus info battles ... mmmm

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

Who said ANYTHING ABOUT MIRRORLESS.
I not thinking of them on any level.
Please watch your quotes

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I'd like to see real life examples of wall hangers and not lab test under a microscope to see the difference.
Are primes worth the extra cost and/or zooms worth giving up the zoom range. With new cameras can a lot of cropping in post can make up for in camera zoom

zarathu Loc: Bar Harbor, MDI, Maine

THE ARGUMENT IS HUMOROUS.

In the 1970’s we would have killed for a zoom like we have today. Everyone used only primes because zooms were so bad. Then manufacturers made zooms that were pretty good, and we all gave a sigh of relief and bought zooms. Then the manufacturers all decided that no one was buying their primes so they made a push that pros buy primes(of course, they have always been sharper), and so everyone wants to think they are a pro so the consumers went back to buying primes. Then auto focus came in and zooms were not as good anymore. Then computer design came in and zooms got a lot better, but there turned out to be only a certain placement of the glass in the lenses that worked best and patents came in. Then mirrorless came in and the distance between the glass changed and patents went down for a while.

Bottom line is that primes are simpler to make and will always be sharper. But the other bottom line is that unless you are printing above 16 x 20, it will be nearly impossible to tell the difference between a zoom and a prime printed at 300 dpi, and nobody prints anymore.

The whole thing is just humorous.

I have all zooms except for one. Since I specialize in macro, I have a wicked sharp manual focus prime macro IRIX 150mm macro lens. It's sharper than Canon’s RF macro, even with a 2x teleconverter on it.

(And of course, I haven’t even mentioned the difference between a 20 mp vs a 45 mp sensor on lenses.)

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

Sorry, DXO lab results give the correct information.

After 130 plus years of glass grinding, RF mount lenses have not changed resolution like you think overnight. Lens coatings are a benefit, but overall if you read the results, RF lenses rate a bit less for resolution than EF lenses, with only a few exceptions.

I print 48 x 32 regularly so I know the benefit of primes and TSE lenses for corner tho corner sharpness. Most who post on the internet or view pictures on their PC's only need 6 mpx's and zoom lenses they purchase are not a limiter for them.

Some zooms are so inferior they render half of the sensors megapixels count... that's why a 10 year old DLSR can outperform a modern mirrorless with a zoom, if it has good prime glass..

zarathu Loc: Bar Harbor, MDI, Maine

yep. Doesn’t have to be DXO. Several other organizations measure lines per inch at different sensor resolutions. It's the reason for my critical work in macro, I use an Irix 150 mm manual macro. My manual 800mm f/11 is also pretty sharp, and actually sharp enough to still get a sharp shot with with a 1.4 tele extender on it. I have three specialties: macro and close up, and dead flowers, and hummingbirds. For all of them, I use primes.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

My 90 mm true macro 1:1 Tamron was outstanding for my dental practice.
I have 20 wall hangers all 16x20 that are super super sharp

Bill_de Loc: US

I guess you'll have to go to a good photo gallery. No matter what gets posted here is only as good as the software, hrdware, and monitor.

---