Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 26, 2008, 11:51 AM   #21
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
As for that Minolta 85mm f/1.4G not being used much, feel free to send it to me and I'll try to help you break it in some. :-)
Well I'm also in the possession of the only diminutive AF-500 Reflex and still in search of a good Sony... :lol::-):G





-> As we're fully aware of fast prime and their use at the tele-end, have we look at the other end of the scale - Again which one would you rather have?

Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 D
f/2.8 f/4 f/5.6 f/8
Center 1864 2065 2235 2113
Border 1461 1579 1704 1817

Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 @ 24mm
f/2.8 f/4 f/5.6 f/8
Center 2012 2241 2224 2093
Border 1465 1804 1960 1894

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-n...report?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-n...review?start=1
-> Notice how the (digital)zoom exceeds the (full-frame)prime in key areas, notably vignetting, border sharpness, and CA for landscape!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2008, 12:33 PM   #22
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
-> As we're fully aware of fast prime and their use at the tele-end, have we look at the other end of the scale - Again which one would you rather have?
Neither one. :-)

It is a bit harder to find brighter primes as sharp at 24mm. I do use a zoom for 24mm.

For example, I'll use a Tamron SP 20-40mm f/2.7-3.5 AF lens, which tests slightly sharper at f/2.8, compared to Minolta's 20mm f/2.8 and 24mm f/2.8 AF primes according to the charts at http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

It tests sharper than most wide zooms, too.

This Tamron's MTF chart is also relatively flat until you reach the corners using a smaller APS-C size sensor (since it's designed for 35mm cameras). You do have to watch it in harsher lighting. It's a bit more prone to loss of contrast from flare shooting into brighter light sources compared to my Tamron SP 35-105 f/2.8 AF lens.

Or, I'll use my Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF lens. It's not bad at 24mm either (and this Minolta lens tests sharper compared to similar zooms like Canon's 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens)

http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2008, 1:23 PM   #23
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I do keep a Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5.-4.5 AF zoom on my camera more often than not for casual shooting as a walk around lens. I like the flexbility of a zoom and I find the 24-85mm range to be about the right compromise between quality and flexiblity for the types of photos I normally take (mostly friends and family). I posted some straight from the camera snapshots from mine in this thread a while back:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=84

But, I tend to use a prime pretty often, too.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2008, 4:23 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Good discussion going on: just the right amount of kerosene being tossed about to keep things warm without the full flame of a bucket of gasolene.

What is left for the OP and others is to look up the price of the lenses being talked about. My impression is that, in general, for the same price at the same focal length, a fixed focal length lens will be sharper, faster, and/or better in some way than a zoom.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2008, 8:35 PM   #25
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

BillDrew wrote:
Quote:
What is left for the OP and others is to look up the price of the lenses being talked about. My impression is that, in general, for the same price at the same focal length, a fixed focal length lens will be sharper, faster, and/or better in some way than a zoom.
May be we need some basic math:

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D 109.95
Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D 299.95
Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D 309.95
Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D 459.95
Nikkor 16mm f/2.8D 769.95
---------
1949.75

Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 639.95

So yes if one compare against any one prime then I would agree, but if one needs more than one focal lenght then the table may be turned... Even if one removes the 35mm f/2.0 and the 16mm f/2.8 the three remaining fixed lenses still cost more than a zoom (and I'm not even counting the flexibility of all the ones in between focal lenght)

-> and please do check the sharpness, vignetting and CA on the remaining two primes as well... The zoom does look better in more than one way than the primes!

How about adding up the weight next??? :lol::-):G

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2008, 10:05 PM   #26
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

But, two of those primes are brighter than the zoom, too. You can't use f/1.8 or f/2 on a zoom that doesn't have those apertures available if you need them in lower light. ;-)

Or, how about a longer lens? Try finding an f/2.8 zoom with 135mm available for $119.95 (what I paid for my Minolta 135mm f/2.8 AF lens from the used department at http://www.bhphotovideo.com a while back). :-)

OK, they have gone up a bit. But, they're still very inexpensive compared to an f/2.8 zoom.

Sorry about the hot pixel. I've never bothered to fix it and I uploaded this one a long time ago. It's gone on newer images (the camera maps them out monthly and you can force a remap by setting the date up a month if desired). I don't use this lens very often, since it's a bit too long for what I typically shoot. KM Maxxum 5D, Minolta 135mm f/2.8 (stopped down to f/5.6, but the other side of the river is far enough away that f/5.6 worked for this framing without the background being distracting). This was at ISO 800 (it was much darker out not long before this was taken, and I forgot to lower it any for this shot).






JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2008, 10:46 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

Just to stir the pot a little bit more:

One other reason for prime lenses is when shooting multi-exposure shots, whether for panos or HDR series. With a zoom, you need to be using one or the other extreme to be sure the shots will be aligned properly, and check that it hasn't moved between shots. Not a problem with a prime lens. If your zoom slips at an intermediate setting, getting it back to the exact setting can be a bit of trouble.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2008, 8:56 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
...
May be we need some basic math:

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D 109.95
Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D 299.95
Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D 309.95
Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D 459.95
Nikkor 16mm f/2.8D 769.95
---------
1949.75

Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 639.95

So yes if one compare against any one prime then I would agree, ...
I'd for sure make the comparison with the 50mm f/1.8. A bit better than a factor of two faster and about a factor of six cheaper. Those numbers go a long ways toward paying for the wear on shoe leather that comes with manual zooming.

Seems like most dSLRs have a fairly fast, pretty good 50mm available at about a hundred bucks - mostly second hand kit lenses from chemical SLRs.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:26 PM.