|
Title: are prime lenses really that much cheaper than zoom lense? Post by: emanresu on December 16, 2009, 04:00:37 PM So I have been reading a few articles online saying why we should prefer prime lenses to zoom lenses. And one of the reason is cost - that because prime lenses are simpler to construct, they are as cheap as "a bug of crisps", says one post.
But I am not convinced that they are really that much cheaper. Just look at the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8, which is probably the cheapest lens ever by Canon, costs about $100. And the next one up is 50mm f/1.4, and it costs almost as much as my camera body. And neither one is the L series. With an 50mm f/1.2 L USM, it is a whopping $1,600, and for that price, I can get a 70-200mm f/2.8 L. Sure it is over 2 stops slower, but it is a lot more convenient, and f/2.8 is still decent for a zoom lens. What do you all think? Am I expecting too much (or too little on the pricing in this case)? ??? ??? Title: Re: are prime lenses really that much cheaper than zoom lense? Post by: george on January 07, 2010, 12:00:59 PM A zoom lens is a bigger compromise than a prime lens.
Generally speaking, a zoom is more elaborate in its construction, has more moving parts, can reach the quality of a prime with ....difficulty. The Canon 50 1.2 L is an exotic highest class lens, best material, dust-moisture sealed, close to perfect. You know that if you pick one and compare it with another same lens, there will me insignificant differences. For all that, it sure is overpriced ! But it is the "best" you can get. It is difficult to focus and has a minimal dof. If used creatively, can produce unique images !!!! The 1.4 costs 4 times less. You miss the superb craftsmanship and the 1 stop difference..... Otherwise the 1.4 will be pretty much as good as the 1.2 stopped down one stop. A bit more dof and at a very low light situation will expect highrer ISO thus higher noise Then comes the 1.8 which is probably as cheap as a lens can be. Cheap construction, not so smooth handling but sharp as a razor. So what do you do ? It is a commercial game between seller and buyer.... A Bentley compared to a Fiat. They will both take you there. Last week I sold my Nikon 18-200 because I thought the results were not good enough. Now I will probably go out an get myself a new one, it was such an all-around lens that did the job good enough and saved me from carrying three prime lenses... Does anyone have the 18-200 Nikon ? Could you please give me your opinion on the lens ? Title: Re: are prime lenses really that much cheaper than zoom lense? Post by: emanresu on January 28, 2010, 08:57:22 PM yes, and that is why I am reluctant to commit to any of these. I would like to get a sharp lens because the kit lens that comes with the camera is not that sharp. the f1.8 prime sure is cheap. but according to some reviews, it breaks quickly and easily, while others swear by it. What about other 3rd-party lenses? any comments/suggestions?
|