Zoom sharper than prime?!!!

[munfai]

Came across this article on the net...

here

Strange to see that the 200mm prime fares worse than the 70-200 zoom in some cases...

Hmmm, I wouldn't trust his simple test completely. From the looks of it, the difference in performance is too much. Looks to me like the 200mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4L are out of focused than anything else.

Well, in the long past, primes used to be better than zoom. But nowadays, lens design is so good, it is quite controversial how much better they are compared to zooms. Well, especially if it's an L zoom.

But the benefits of primes are usually that it's cheaper, lighter, smaller and usually faster than zooms. In the case of the 200mm f/2.8, I suppose it's never as popular cos the aperture is the same as the zoom and most pple would rather pay more and endure the weight and bulk of the more versatile 70-200 f/2.8.

From what I've heard and read, the f/4 is supposed to be a wee-bit sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS and the IS vesion comes in last. Not the other way round.

Anyway, as long as it's an L, u can't really go far wrong. As for MTFs, they are another story altogether which these days, I find I'd rather not spend too much time looking at...

[munfai]

Quote: Originally posted by psyche From what I've heard and read, the f/4 is supposed to be a wee-bit sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS and the IS vesion comes in last. Not the other way round.

where did u hear this from?

[sriram]

He shot his images on a D60. Let him shoot slides and examine them under a high power loupe. I've seen a few instances where the sensor on a D60 was misaligned a little bit causing some areas to appear out of focus. This test tells you almost nothing.

As for the 200/2.8L, it is one of the sharpest lenses I have owned and could even stand up to the famed 100/2.8 macro.

[adamadam]

Originally Posted by psyche From what I've heard and read, the f/4 is supposed to be a wee-bit sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS and the IS vesion comes in last. Not the other way round.

I was searching the forum for something, before asking questions, but came across this!

The f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8? Can anyone confirm this
thanks

[Adam Goi]

Not all primes are made equal ... so are the zooms!

[adamadam]

Hi Adam :P
So that means yes?

[Dr_ARCHer]

Originally Posted by adamadam Hi Adam :P So that means yes?

I think Adam meant that some primes are better than other primes, even for the same brand/model, and some zooms are better than other zooms for the same brand/model. Which means that some zooms may end up being better than some primes.

[leef]

As for the 200/2.8L, it is one of the sharpest lenses I have owned and could even stand up to the famed 100/2.8 macro.[/quote]

Hi,bro
when you give up this,let me know.

[theITguy]

Zoom or Prime, just buy what you need and can afford to

[adamadam]

No no no no no no
Sorry! I just realised that from all your replies, then reading my question, it was rather vague.

What I meant was, between the 70-200 f/4L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS, the 70-200 f/4L is sharper?

Quote: From what I've heard and read, the f/4 is supposed to be a wee-bit sharper than the f/2.8 non-IS and the IS vesion comes in last. Not the other way round.

Not a zoom vs prime question.

and

Quote: I think Adam meant that some primes are better than other primes, even for the same brand/model, and some zooms are better than other zooms for the same brand/model. Which means that some zooms may end up being better than some primes.

does this refer to good copies and bad copies of the same thing? like, one batch from another?

[zekai]

lens comparison test are a bit... waste of time.

[SpitFir3]

he got a bad copy of the prime and a good copy of the zoom?..

[dundee]

Well, its still primes all the way for me! after the 35/1.4L, theres no turning back.....

I think the test needs to be repeated using fresh lenses and some ASA 64 slide... Manual focused with a proper focus screen.... then compare the results with a good slide projector. My money's on the 200/2.8L

[adamadam]

Originally Posted by zekai lens comparison test are a bit... waste of time.

if you were choosing between 2, which would you choose without comparing?

[John Tan]

Originally Posted by adamadam I was searching the forum for something, before asking questions, but came across this! The f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8? Can anyone confirm this thanks

I can confirm that f4L is sharper than f2.8L when it is wide open...but when both len set at the same f4...the sharpness is the same but... the f4L got more contrast & saturation than f2.8L...it must be the new technology make the new len better even thought it is only $1k+ L len...just like the case with 17-35L f2.8L vs 17-40 f4L...

[leef]

Originally Posted by dundee Well, its still primes all the way for me! after the 35/1.4L, theres no turning back..... I think the test needs to be repeated using fresh lenses and some ASA 64 slide... Manual focused with a proper focus screen.... then compare the results with a good slide projector. My money's on the 200/2.8L

I agree with you bro,after try many zoom including 70-200mm,finally I want 50mm/1.4,and plan to get 35/1.4 and 135/2L soon.
They are just smaller/lighter/faster/better image quality,and I just settle down only one focal length at a time to slowly take pic.

BTW where to cheapest of 35&135mm??

[ST1100]

IMO, in choosing btw the 200/2.8 prime and zoom(s), optical quality is a non-issue. Cost and weight/size alone would likely make the decision.

[freelancer]

The 200/2.8 is clearly much better than the 70-200 (any version) based on photodo/photozone tests and actual images I have seen. For some lenses, the prime may not be better than the zoom (cheap prime versus L zoom) but not the 200/2.8 which is a spectacular lens even amongst the Canon primes

[adamadam]

Would it be a good idea to get the zoom lens, to find out which focal lengths are used most, then get the prime versions of those focal lengths?