# Are primes really more sharp?



## RedEye (Apr 24, 2012)

I'm checking out the MTF charts, and there does not appear to be a significant sharpness edge from using only prime lenses. Is reality misrepresented on the MTF charts? Are they not that much better than zooms?


----------



## tron (Apr 24, 2012)

It always depends on the specific lenses being compared. Many years ago I had the 28-70 f/2.8L zoom. I was not totally satisfied when I was printing 10in X 12in images (although I didn't know what it was bothering me). Then I started using a lot more the 24mm f/2.8 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 and suddenly everything was OK.

On the other hand when I got the 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS it was the 90s) I was impressed by its performance.

It was the first time that I had a zoom that produced fixed lens quality photos.


----------



## RedEye (Apr 24, 2012)

Thanks for the info. I'm just really bent out of shape about the new 24-70 delay so I'm trying to sort out something comparable for that range, and little is coming up.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 24, 2012)

RedEye said:


> Thanks for the info. I'm just really bent out of shape about the new 24-70 delay so I'm trying to sort out something comparable for that range, and little is coming up.



It depends which set of lines you're looking at for the MTFs. MTFs typically provide max aperture and f/8 data. *You can't compare a f/1.4 wide open to a f/2.8 wide open.* The larger the max aperture, the harder it is to maintain sharpness over the entire lens, but in many cases it doesn't matter much because the DOF is so thin and is not needed for portraiture.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 24, 2012)

Yes primes are absolutely sharper, but I think the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the exception to the rule. But like a 24-70 vs the 24L/35L/50L, no contest the primes are going to look better (hopefully this may change with the 24-70II). And of course primes have the better bokeh, better light gathering ability, etc.


----------



## FarQinell (Apr 24, 2012)

RedEye said:


> I'm checking out the MTF charts, and there does not appear to be a significant sharpness edge from using only prime lenses. Is reality misrepresented on the MTF charts? Are they not that much better than zooms?



The inherent problem with zooms is that they have a lot more lens elements than primes.

More elements therefore means lower contrast - fact of life!

All lens elements have to be positioned correctly on the optical axis within engineering tolerances - the more elements the greater the problem of providing you with a decent lens.

A Canon prime will always beat a zoom - sharper, lighter, cheaper!


----------



## leesutmost (Apr 24, 2012)

RedEye said:


> I'm checking out the MTF charts, and there does not appear to be a significant sharpness edge from using only prime lenses. Is reality misrepresented on the MTF charts? Are they not that much better than zooms?



Sometimes, 70-200II is also sharp but the img is not smooth and natural enough.
Primes, especially L class are sharp for the reason that it is more accurate in optical design.
Sharp is only one part, for primes, the unique feeling makes the difference.
Eg. 35L is rich in color and sharp enough even at F1.4
50L is not that sharp but is full of environmental feeling at F1.2
85L is extremely sharp at F1.2 and the bokeh is that nice...
This summarize may not be very accurate and complete but hope it could help understand


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 25, 2012)

leesutmost said:


> RedEye said:
> 
> 
> > I'm checking out the MTF charts, and there does not appear to be a significant sharpness edge from using only prime lenses. Is reality misrepresented on the MTF charts? Are they not that much better than zooms?
> ...



Environmental feeling - what?

I think zoom lenses are catching up and soon there will be no significant difference between a zoom and a prime (yes, they will be faster, but who does really need f/1.2?). My 70-200mm f/4 is extremely sharp, has great color and awesome contrast and costs less than some primes. So, I don't see the advantage of prime lenses at all (unless you are a professional photographer and need super sharp corners)...


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 26, 2012)

Using a prime isn't just about the optical integrity of the lens. It is about the way it makes you shoot and think about your shots. It slows you down so you concentrate on more detail. It also (usually) gets you closer to the action. Primes make street photography in particular, fun!

Also, they are almost always more sharp.


----------



## RedEye (Apr 26, 2012)

I guess a follow up question would involve macro.... Take the 50mm for instance, will the macro lense resolve better then the 1.2 or 1.4?


----------



## birtembuk (Apr 26, 2012)

I think the "magic" of primes goes beyond MTF charts readings. It's not only about sharpness, but contrast, colors, depth and well, magic or what some would call environmental feeling. Obviously, comparing sharpness of a good zoom at f/4 with that of a prime at f/1.2 doesn't really do justice to the prime. Comparing it at f/4 would be another story. Surely zooms have tremendously improved over the years and can deliver stunning sharpness. Your 70-200/4 is a known solid performer, no doubt. But it's opening at 4 only. Until you have used some fast L glass, you should keep your judgment. Maybe the day you'll get one for test and take shots wide open, you'll realize that you're producing something different and maybe that day you'll change your mind. For me, apart from a 70-200/IS/II I don't want to bother with any other zoom in my bag.


----------



## myone (Apr 26, 2012)

It is really hard to explain how good are primes without actually using it. Just rent one, spend some time with it and you will know.

I recently bought a 35L and love everything about it. The ability to take sharp pictures constantly at f/1.4 change the attitude and taste of your pictures. The smooth bokeh renditions, colors, contrasts really set it apart from zooms.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 26, 2012)

I think the days of categorically saying primes are sharper than (quality) zooms are over. Its more a question of the versatility of a zoom vs wider aperture and lower weight of a prime. Primes are usually cheaper, too.

There are some shots that you can only get with a wide aperture prime. Yet there would rarely be a shot that you could only get with a zoom. (Unless you are doing some ultra tricky zoom-while-you-take-the-shot thingy - in which case you obviously need a zoom!).


----------



## SandyP (Apr 26, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> leesutmost said:
> 
> 
> > RedEye said:
> ...



Uhm..... f/4 is EXTREMELY slow of a lens. It's a death sentence for anyone who wants to work in low light. f/1.2 lets in almost 10x more light than f/4, think about that. 

There are countless examples of why primes are advantageous over zooms for image quality. Generally sharper, better contrast because of less glass in the way, lighter (usually), smaller, allows for slower shutter speeds when required. Also, the low light abilities. Try taking f/4 to: a concert, wedding, event, travel, anything remotely dark. Even in some dimmer day time scenarios where you want more speed. High ISO isn't going to save you. Not to mention more control over depth of field. This is a big one. Having the ability to choose more options when depth is concerned, is also a big plus. Who wants less?

Besides, sharpness is only one factor in making a good lens, and it's not even near the top of the list... but primes still win there, mostly.

I shoot at f/1.2, f/1.4 and f/2 all the time. Daily. Even with my film cameras I do. It's a necessity for a lot of people, and even if it isn't REQUIRED in some situations, having the ability to control the depth of field is an INCREDIBLE asset. Sure, you can get good depth of field blur from 70-200mm f/4 lenses, but you have to be pretty far away, even to frame closely at 200mm. My 50L, or the 85L, I can be quite close, and have insane depth of field control. 

To someone who spends his life taking photos of people, that's absolutely a key factor. But regardless of that, I find that most people drool over these lenses because of that, because they CAN achieve such results, even if it's a snap-shot, or a purely hobby sort of thing. 


Once you handle all the classic L primes from Canon (or I mean, a bunch) you start to see exactly what I mean. They are special lenses, and it's FAR more than just sharpness that makes them special. They produces extremely amazing images from an over all feel stand point. Once you know, you'll never forget.


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 26, 2012)

they're usually sharper, but not always
and they usually have much better bokeh, but not always

use the-digital-picture to get a visual idea of how much sharper they are (and, as pointed before, make sure you set the same focal length and aperture)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

and I have some tests, for both sharpness and bokeh, here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/bokehtests.html


----------



## elflord (Apr 26, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> Environmental feeling - what?
> 
> I think zoom lenses are catching up and soon there will be no significant difference between a zoom and a prime (yes, they will be faster, but who does really need f/1.2?). My 70-200mm f/4 is extremely sharp, has great color and awesome contrast and costs less than some primes. So, I don't see the advantage of prime lenses at all (unless you are a professional photographer and need super sharp corners)...



It's not about "needs" (or for that matter "super sharp corners"). I notice you have the 50mm f/1.4 in your gear list. If you mount that lens and shoot in low light, what aperture will you use ? Would you shoot at f/4 and slower or will you find a use for f/1.4-f/2.8 ? 

The 70-200 f/4 is a fine lens but doesn't have the wow factor that the 135L, Sigma 85 Canon 85L or even the 85 non-L offer. 

It's not just about "sharp corners" (for teles it's not about that at all), it's not about "needs", it's about the effect of those extra stops.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 26, 2012)

I think it is less that primes are inherently sharper, and more that they are generally sharper for the cost.

Primes are simplier then zooms. There is no reason you can not make a zoom lens with the same sharpness and general quality as a prime lens, but it will be more complex and cost more. So to a degree it is about value.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Apr 26, 2012)

...

Environmental feeling - what?

I think zoom lenses are catching up and soon there will be no significant difference between a zoom and a prime (yes, they will be faster, but who does really need f/1.2?). My 70-200mm f/4 is extremely sharp, has great color and awesome contrast and costs less than some primes. So, I don't see the advantage of prime lenses at all (unless you are a professional photographer and need super sharp corners)...
[/quote]

good point - not to mention better flexibility


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 26, 2012)

RedEye said:


> I guess a follow up question would involve macro.... Take the 50mm for instance, will the macro lense resolve better then the 1.2 or 1.4?



First, to your original primes _v_ zooms, as others have pointed out, "It depends." The 16-35 is a significantly better 20 f/2.8 than the prime, and it easily beats the other consumer primes in that range (28 f/2.8, _etc._). On the other hand, the TS-E 24 absolutely mops the floor with every other wide-angle lens on the market, be it prime or zoom or whatever.

And, yes. The 50mm compact macro is an awesome lens. Autofocus is pathetic, and it's not exactly fast wide open at f/2.5. But stopped down to f/8, it'll slice right through all the other 50s. If you're the type who values sharpness over speed, the 50 was made for you. If you're doing art reproduction or product photography or anything like that and you need anything close to that focal length, it's a no-brainer.

Of course, the opposite is also true. If your goal is low-light, shallow DoF portraiture, even the Plastic Fantastic will do a better job. Of course, that's something of an unfair comparison, considering that the Plastic Fantastic is itself an utterly shockingly good lens, especially considering it costs less than a decent filter. (Yes, yes -- the other 50s are better in so many ways. But, damn, the Plastic Fantastic is still amazing.)

Cheers,

b&


----------



## ecka (Apr 26, 2012)

RedEye said:


> I'm checking out the MTF charts, and there does not appear to be a significant sharpness edge from using only prime lenses. Is reality misrepresented on the MTF charts? Are they not that much better than zooms?


The smart rule is - Don't choose one lens over another just because it is better (sharper), choose what is good enough (sharp enough) for you.
Primes are better in many ways, while sharpness being just one of those things. This one factor is slowly fading, because now there are some pretty sharp zooms. Yes, some ... not many. The cheapest 50/1.8II at f/4 is as sharp as the big boys up there. I prefer primes for their large apertures (brighter, better subject isolation, bokeh), size/weight and high image quality (including sharpness) specially for the non-L price. For what I do, any top grade zoom lens can be replaced by just 1 or 2 decent primes and serve even better for the reasons I've already mentioned.
Talking about f/2.8 primes - the best possible zoom can only be near as good as the best prime, never better. If it is - then the prime in your comparison is not that great.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 26, 2012)

RedEye said:


> I'm checking out the MTF charts, and there does not appear to be a significant sharpness edge from using only prime lenses. Is reality misrepresented on the MTF charts? Are they not that much better than zooms?




To me that's beyond the point of why I like primes. Sharpness in this day and age seems almost a little overrated - especially given that a lot of "sharpness" in digital photography is to some degree artificial. Aesthetics have certainly changed because of that. I don't really mind that my 50 1.4 can be a bit "soft" wide open. Often that's exactly the look I'm after - I even throw in some "grain" in post processing to get back to what the same lens design gave me in the film days.

Sure, there are many cases where you want tack sharp parts of the photograph. Primes do that as well (just like the good zooms of today). But it's mostly about control over DOF and best possible background blur with fast primes.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 26, 2012)

Yes and No.

Yes, because the good primes offer excellent sharpness at insane F-stops (F/2 and faster). Something which no zoom can do. Thats why Super primes like the 24mm 1.4L II, 35mm 1.4L, 50mm 1.2L and the 85mm 1.2L II are so expensive, your paying for the wide open performance and sharpness at those fast apertures.

and

No, because at small F-stops (F/4 and slower) most of the benefits of primes go away, but IMO color is still better on primes than zooms because of less elements.


----------



## helpful (Apr 26, 2012)

Some of you have been talking about the words "environmental feeling" and wondering what that means and why primes are better because of it.

I have no idea what the meaning of those words is as applied to a lens, but let me suggest a possible interpretation.

People with zooms are prone to zoom when they should be moving. It's not the focal length of zooming that is wrong, but just the perspective. People with a prime lens tend to become sensitive to adding the "environmental feeling" (whatever that is) to the photograph, because they move to where a person would actually move in order to see a human perspective of the scene.

If someone with a zoom lens would move and zoom, then that could be circumvented, but the very act of zooming makes everyone, including me, forget how to properly move. It's just too much for the brain to process. A prime lens takes this confounding factor of zooming out, and let's one more naturally take pictures, and capture the "environmental feeling."

I am kind of liking those words even though they have no meaning except what we choose to give to them.


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 26, 2012)

elflord said:


> !Xabbu said:
> 
> 
> > Environmental feeling - what?
> ...



The interesting thing is that I feel like the 50 f/1.4 is almost unusable between f/1.4 - f/2.0. It's super soft (some people also call it dreamy), which means it doesn't really add anything to my flexibility. Stopped down it might be slightly sharper than my Tamron or the Canon 70-200, but there's literally no real world difference. And I personally much prefer the look I get from my 70-200mm f/4 - better colors, better contrast, ...
And yes, I get beautiful portraits from the f/4 - even at 70mm it gives nice OOF blur and above 120mm or so it becomes a perfect portrait lens when you want to get some distance to your subject (which allows me to get very candid shots).


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 26, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > !Xabbu said:
> ...



Perhaps a bad 50mm 1.4 copy? Its happens, but when I had mine it was superb, and heres an "Enviromental" portrait @ f1.8.


----------



## AJ (Apr 26, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> they're usually sharper, but not always
> and they usually have much better bokeh, but not always


Yes indeed. And:

they're usually faster, but not always
they're usually cheaper, but not always
they're usually smaller and lighter, but not always
they can tilt and shift, but not always
they can focus closer (macro lenses), but not always

.. and they're usually blacker in color, but not always.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 27, 2012)

helpful said:


> Some of you have been talking about the words "environmental feeling" and wondering what that means and why primes are better because of it.
> 
> I have no idea what the meaning of those words is as applied to a lens, but let me suggest a possible interpretation.
> 
> ...


Good point. Indeed, as I said before, using primes makes you shoot differently. It also gives you a different image. Comparing shots at 17mm or one with the same framing with a 35 or 50L where the photographer has moved back a few steps, you will notice considerable differences. Using wides for people often leads to big-foot or big-head syndrome. Unless you are after that look, one needs to step back and zoom in, or better yet, use a lovely prime. Primes force you to work with what you have and it you want consistency in your images, one of the easiest things to do it stick with just a couple of primes (eg. 35 or 50 for the street, 85 for more intimate portraits).


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 27, 2012)

I love primes. 

I especially love my 85. My 50 is amazing too. 

I think a couple advantages of primes have not been mentioned yet... 
They usually (but not always) have less distortion, and less vignetting. And, on the higher end stuff, less fringing I think too. 

8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)


----------

