IBE

Just had a frustrating conversation with B & H. I asked which would give sharper images under exactly the same conditions, my kit 18-55 canon or the new prime 24mm canon(not L series) using my Canon T1i? There answer was very vague. He swaid it depended on many variables. I told his that I do mostly landscape and that all other factors are the same. He would not commit to an answer. What do you all think?

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

Prime lens

dachs

primes win hands down on image quality full stop

primes from top brands win over cheap Korean rubbish, though the latter are working hard watch this space.

A prime lens shot that has to be heavily cropped ('cos you could not cross two mauntain passes to get he shot) ah well, then you wish you had the zoom.

A distant street shot that could've been framed tight with a zoom but you didn't have time to swap lenses from your 35mm prime, which needs 75% cropping to get the composition? Ah well

So there most definitely is a place for zooms, as there is a Cratier Bresson place for primes & footwork, the way of working is down to your methods and understanding.

Even Leica in their handbooks notify this; a highly cropped image from a prime is poor quality whereas a zoomed in shot (given a top brand zoom) may be way better as less image is thrown away.

But, we are talking lens design, construction, and hence cost. Most (not all) kit zooms go straight in the bin except at f8 at mid zoom.

The best (Zeiss, Leica, Rodenstock etc) primes will work within one stop of wide open.

These physical compromises - some at thousands of dollars - only your working methods and choices can balances.

Good luck on your learning curve but for me, anything less than Zeiss and Leica are in the bin. Nikon 18mm excepted, a few Minolta Rokkor similar and a couple of old Asahi Pentax primes would suit if I had the cameras to mount them. But of the older zooms, only Angenieux came anywhere near it.

But then, I am a very slow worker!

ohallboyz Loc: Boston, MA

I am shocked he didn't say primes. My primes are definitely sharp.

rebride

Primes for the most part are sharper per se.
Zooms if you use at optimized f/stop are more than fine.
Often sharpness is more then overrated.
It is the image and the light that matters.

dachs

as I wrote - it is all a balance of what you are doing. A prime 24 is great but if you do not have your 90mm with you, you might (on an isolated mountain top or a distant street scene), wish you'd taken the Canon "L" zoom or Nikon "ED" equivalent.

Even you have the alternative superb 135mm lens, by the time you have changed primes, you have lost the shot....

All down to the way you work, and your acceptance levels of image quality. Over to you.....

corryhully Loc: liverpool uk

yes primes are sharper, but as rebride states
Often sharpness is more then overrated.
It is the image and the light that matters

dachs

could not agree more;-
1) you use what you can afford, and what you've got right in front of you.
2) the best lens in the world, when the Hindenberg explodes, if it is deep in your bag, it is utterly useless.

Robert Capa's D-Day shots are totally spoiled but they are up there with the best ever,

The pic is the thing, we can get totally over-hyped by quality of the image.

Go for acceptable, real and if not so much noise it distracts, you wo'nt go far wrong.

lovitlots Loc: Tottenham, Ontario, Canada

Primes are always sharper than Zooms optically speaking. But photographically speaking it's what ever lens you have available that suits your needs best. Worry more about the lighting and composition as that is usually most important in your picture. Most of the time we don't enlarge a picture enough for us to even see the differences and a lot of times the differences are such that our eyes can't even detect them.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

It DOES depend on many variables, but in most situations you will definitely get a sharper image with a prime lens. (User experience notwithstanding.)

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

i have zooms and primes and they all have their best place and time.

Millismote Loc: Massachusetts

My 100mm F2 prime is sharper than my 24-105 L series at 100mm. It's just not as convenient some times.

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

The B&H photo answer puzzles me as just about any lens is better than the 18-55 Canon kit lens. I have run test for use in workshops I teach and that lens is the one I always start with. I compare it to the Canon 18-135, Canon 18-200, Sigma 18-250, Tamron 18-270, Canon 35mm f/2.0 and the Canon 24-105. Zooms have come a long ways in the last 3 or 4 years but a good prime will normally out do a zoom. J. Goffe and remember the f/stops here!

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

I am surprized no one has mentioned "Bokeh". If I have spelled it right, and I just found out recently about this and have just spent the last couple of days researching this very question. The idea of the prime lense is to get one 1.4 to 1.8 aperture in order to get the prized circular blurs behind the subject, more specifically, the face. The opinion seems to be that a prime lense from Nikon, Canon or better gives this blur better that the Tamrons, etc., being desired in portrait photography, which is what I am delving into right now. The main drawback, and I would like to hear other opinions on this, is that the affordable ones have no aperture ring, only focus is adjustable. This seems to be an acceptable tradeoff for that perfect portrait shot with great bokeh, but unless you are specializing in close up portraits, the zoom is an all around better lens for travel shots and everyday use. Right now I am afraid to commit to a lens with no aperture adjustment; how have you other photographers dealt with this? I will never forget the new worlds that opened up when I got my first zoom, the compositional advantages of not having to back up and crawl forward around obstacles that are always there in the field was a revelation.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

All conditions being equal, primes should produce better images.