SK 40-80mm LS vs 3 primes [45,55,80] and the winner is!

[Judge]

If price is not that much of an impacting factor and you had an opportunity to acquire either the SK 40-80mm LS or 3 primes the 45,55mm LS,80mm LS

Which would you go for and why ?


Obviously the aperture does play a roll with the 3 primes, but besides that,any other reasons would be great to hear from different people.

Dont hesitate to share

 

[MILESF]

This is a bit subjective as I tend to prefer prime lenses but I have the 45,55 and 80mm primes but have no desire for the 40-80mm. I would tend to go out with the 45mm and the 120mm macro and would then take the 80mm if I needed a third lens.

It's horses for courses though.

 

[DB5]

I think it's obvious what the answers will be.

The primes are better but the zoom is more convenient with a speed penalty.

For some that makes the primes the only option and for others that makes the zoom the only option.

Take your pick. For me it's both options, prioritising funds and needs. Try a zoom plus your most favoured standard.

 

[Ben730]

I don't have the Zoom, but I had it in my hands. I think the 45,55 + 80 are lighter than the Zoom. :ROTFL:

 

[Paul2660]

I don't feel the answer is all that obvious, the 40-80 is IMO as sharp as any of the stated primes. I have used them all.

I would recommend you try to locate a dealer and try both the zooms and primes.

Both the 40-80 and 75-150 are incredible optics and you are hard pressed to see any differences.

My comparisons, 35LS, 40-80 (@40) and 32mm Rodenstock, are all so close I can't see enough difference to say on is better than the other.

The new 45mm LS is very sharp indeed, the 55LS has always been a bit lacking IMO and the 80mm LS is excellent

The only issue I have on the zooms is mass. They are both as heavy as a Nikon 200-400, or very close and thus I can't carry them in the field as often as I used to. You can really can't hand hold the XF and 100MP back with the 40-80 and expect a tack sharp subject, at least I can't. where as with the primes, hand holding is very possible. I don't expect P1 will ever add VR or IS to their lenses, (I can't imagine the cost).

Paul Caldwell

 

[ejpeiker]

I own the 28LS, 35BR, older 45, 40-80BR, 75-150BR and have shot extensively with the 55 and 80. Here's my take:
From a versatility standpoint and being able to frame your subject exactly how you want, the zooms are very convenient. In most shooting situations, if properly focused (and properly trimmed if you use AF), you will find little difference at f/5.6 or higher f-number on the wide end of the 40-80 zoom and f/8 or higher f-number on the long end. Wide open, the zoom is not as good as the primes at the same aperture as the zoom which is to be expected since the primes are being shot stopped down while the zoom is wide open - no surprises there. Where there is a difference is when shooting into a bright light source where the zoom has more flare and it is an aperture shaped flare which shows up with bright point light sources. On the wide end, the 35BR is better than the 40-80 in all shooting conditions, the 28 is worse than the zoom in all shooting conditions but then again that is a completely different lens and dramatically wider so it isn't really a valid comparison. If I were to build a prime kit in your range of interest I would probably go with the 35, 55 and 80 as that gives you a real nice range (the 45 is just not that wide although the new one is excellent)

I totally agree with Paul on the size and weight of the zooms - they are big and heavy.

As an aside, the 75-150 is absolutely awesome in it's entire range.

Hope this helps.

 

[Landscapelover]

Hi,

I've had BR 40-80, SK 28, 35 BR, 45 (older version), SK 55, SK 80mm (in this range) . The image quality of 40-80 between f/8 and 16 are similar to the prime lenses for my landscape photography.

The only problem of 40-80mm is heavy weight. Otherwise, it is perfect for framing and convenience.

The common lenses in my bag nowadays are 28, 35BR, 40-80 and 75-150mm. 28 is excellent but soft. 35BR is slightly better (barely noticeable on the big prints) than the 40-80mm at 40mm.

The advantages of the prime lenses are not image quality but weight and filters.

I've used IQ3100.


Best regards,

Pramote

Zenfolio | Pramote Laoprasert Photography

 

[dougpeterson]

Personally I'd rather have three primes than one heavy zoom.

With one large zoom lens you cannot reduce your carry weight and size when needed.

With three primes you can carry one, two, or all three to balance between size/weight and focal length flexibility. Plus you gain a much faster aperture.

Even shooting weddings I rarely miss the inability to instantly change focal length. Changing from one to the other in 6-8 seconds is fast enough.

For me, personally I'd rather have 35, 55, 110 than 45/55/80, but that's a very personal choice.

Optically the 40-80 is so good that if you're shooting mostly at f/8 and higher that the image quality is a non-factor in the decision.

 

[Egor]

I would go with the primes (and have) not due to IQ but the weight and size. The 40-80 is a monster!
I originally bought it (40-80) because I had nothing in that range and needed it to fill the gap, but now I have overlap with the primes and have decided they are more useful to me than the zoom. For the time I had nothing in that range (about 2 years) the 40-80 was used quite often, but not as much as my 120MacroAF.

I have all of those primes you mention plus 35LS, and the 40-80 and 75-150 zooms.

I shoot with IQ250 and IQ3-100 and the 40-80 is a spectacular lens, but its huge and heavy.
For hand-holding (which I rarely do (hello,..product studio) but it does come up from time to time, even in the studio) if I have to go wide-zoom-hand-held, then I actually use my lightest zoom which is an old Mamiya 55-110. Not great optically but and not in same league as any of the other newer zooms but its small, lightweight, and gets the job done. Unless I need to hand-hold-close-focus, which the 55-110 can not do. I have my 40-80 up for sale in BS because of the overlap my new 35 gives me.

Here is an example where 3 of these were recently used in-studio but hand-held. I included some relevant 100% crops to show IQ differences. Not a definitive test or anything, but I thought it may help.
The 40-80 was at 45mm, and the 55-110 was at 55mm

 

[msstudio]

It's all about the application (to me). For travel, adverse weather, location shooting I prefer the zoom, despite the weight. It keeps the dust out and I can quickly change my image coverage. For studio and long time handheld, the primes win every time, that and if one is down, you can save the day with another lens. I actually see the need to have them all, if you work with these focal length frequently (starting with the zoom). Personally I'm not in any need to cover every possible focal length, I like a normal to slight tele, so that's where I live, and have for a long time now.

 

[Geoff]

Zooms from Schneider are funny lenses. They made a 140-280, and a 75-150 for the Rollei 600X series and Hy6, and then replaced the smaller one with 60-140. Went shooting with a friend who took an image of birds with the 60-140. It blew me away - feather detail, birds about 100' away, I think the lens was at 140 for the shots posted below - the second a crop from the first. I hope posting these is OK.

The lens makes sense as one lens fits multiple needs, but its a heavy beast. Who can deal with these lenses, and why? I con't imagine a pro with those at a sporting event - would be Canikon. So is it for a studio shooter - easy variation, on a tripod, weight is not an issue? Can't imagine that market is so big.

 

[Egor]

Zooms from Schneider are funny lenses. They made a 75-150 for the Rollei 600X series and Hy6, and then replaced it with the 60-140. Went shooting with a friend who took an image of some birds with the 60-140. It blew me away - feather detail, birds about 100' away, I think the lens was at 140 for the shots posted below - the second a crop from the first. I hope posting these is OK.

The lens makes sense as one lens fits multiple needs, but its a heavy beast. Who can deal with these lenses, and why? I con't imagine a pro with those at a sporting event - would be Canikon. So is it for a studio shooter - easy variation, on a tripod, weight is not an issue? Can't imagine that market is so big.

I agree. I can't imagine walking around with a IQ/XF/SK 40-80 or 75-150 rig. Makes sense in my studio when I could only afford 1 or 2 lenses and needed a complete range. For shoots outside the studio for people I don't even consider my MFD rigs. Used Canon forever, just switched to Sony but any of the small formats are much better suited for that type of work.

 

[Wayne Fox]

I don't have the Zoom, but I had it in my hands. I think the 45,55 + 80 are lighter than the Zoom. :ROTFL:

Depends. If you opt for the 35 and 80 non LS lens then yes. But if you opt for the LS lenses then the zoom is 1.4 lbs lighter.

The 3 LS primes weight 5.42 lbs. The zoom is 4.08 lbs. The 35 and 80 non LS with the 55 LS is the lightest combo at 3.05 lbs.

I had the 28, 45, 55, and 80. I considered buying the 35, but decided to try the 40-80 in place of the 45,55, and 80. It’s big, but it’s sharp through the whole range and I really do like maximizing the crop using the zoom. I have the original 75-150 as well as the new LS 75-150. At this point I’ll prob sell the LS version because I don’t think it’s any sharper than my other one, and the weight difference is enough to be a consideration(4 lbs vs 2.4 lbs). I’m having an internal debate with myself because the leaf shutter coupled with electronic shutter means I can get 100% vibration free captures.

 

[etrump]

It’s been said already but I opted with the 40-80 even though I primarily hike with the thing. As I get older and the hikes are generally longer I decided drop my weight instead of the bag. :ROTFL: With prints selling ever larger I can’t waste the resolution by cropping and my subjects never seem to get the idea they should fit into a particular lens field of view. I can tell you the quality of the image with the 40-80 is as good or better than the primes I have used. Speed is not that much of an issue because I shoot scenics. If I were doing portraiture or sports it woukd be a different story.

On a totally unrelated note, the 35 LS is a killer lens. I carry it even though I could use the 40-80. I print 8’ images from that lens and wish I could print larger than 48x96. It’s just that good! Size and weight is a pain but it’s worth it and your core will thank you. :loco:

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I too have the 40-80 and it is superb - but in truth I'd rather carry my 35, 55,and 80, simply because the 35 BR is so outstanding. When I'm hiking a lot (as I am now in Texas) I carry the 55, 80 and 150. If I'm travelling but not for photography, I chuck the XF with the 40-80 on the back seat just in case I need to shoot something. As already stated, horses for courses.

Still, if I were to survey my files for the last year or two, I'm sure I'd find very few were shot with the zoom. The one time it's really useful is when shooting in dusty conditions and not having to change lenses.

 

[DougDolde]

Get one cheap here

https://www.mpb.com/en-us/used-equi...chneider-40-80mm-f-4-0-5-6-ls-aaf/sku-678753/