Zooms vs Primes and how the Nikon Z has changed my opinion

[Jack]

Out of the gate let me state that for my style of photography, it has always been about ultimate image quality. It's why I moved from 35mm film, to medium format film and ultimately large format film and dealt with film holders and ground-glass focus; it's why I waded into the depths of medium format digital as soon as it became viable; and that quest remained through digital DSLR's coming of age. But along with higher resolution DSLR's and 100% pixel view in Photoshop, it became readily apparent --and pretty quickly-- that lenses mattered. And quite a bit. Some of my historical favorites no longer cut the mustard so to speak... And ergo, we get to zooms vs primes. Within just the last few generations of high resolution DSLRs, we've seen landmark prime lens improvements from from virtually every major company, and then a huge new market for 3rd party lens producers like Zeiss and Sigma, all to satisfy our quest for ultimate image quality. Some of the highest end zooms got pretty darn good, and many nearly approaching primes for their ability to deliver IQ, at least stopped down a little. But never have the best zooms truly equalled, let alone beat the best primes.

Well, the Nikon Z lenses have changed that, or at least pushed far enough into prime territory I felt it warranted discussion Below is a U-tube from a guy called Ricci that does a pretty great job of comparing Nikon Z primes to the 24-70 zooms -- the 24/1.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 to the 24-70/2.8, wide open then at the same apertures stopped down. I give him an A+ for presenting real-life, well-captured comparisons and sharing them realtime. I deduct 2 points because he uses LightRoom ( ), and I deduct another 2 points in his second video comparing the 24-70/4 to the 24-70/2.8 where he had the f4 lens ever so slightly back-focused compared the f2.8 lens -- but nonetheless, the comp was enlightening. But I'll add back 2 points for the way he lays out and presents, and then lets you draw your own conclusions. This vid is about 30 minutes, but well worth it. The second video that compares the to 2 24-70's is shorter -- and pay attention to the slight back-focus -- it almost neutralizes the tiny differences between those two lenses.

First vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpb...G5MM2ur08KnY7yAwS5B0k6s2TF72QCIyYUFxOaAlX4MPs

Second vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUWFUYRRPTs

In conclusion, I currently do own the 24-70/4 and the 50/1.8, and I may well add the 24-70 2.8 Zoom when I get my second body. I may possibly also add the 85/1.8, or perhaps the 105 macro instead of the 85 -- *or* possibly just go with the 70-200/2.8 when it finally hits, as my gut says it will be as good wide open as the macro or 85 at f2.8

 

[Darin Marcus]

Ricci is one of the only 2 YouTubers I watch, photography-related. The other one is Monochrome Memoirs.

If I am not mistaken, he mostly compared sharpness in the 2.8 zoom vs. primes video.

One of the things that convinced me to buy the 85mm 1.8 S was the lack of asphericals

 

[KeithL]

Maximum aperture dictated that I go with primes.

The only exception for me was the 14-30 used almost exclusively for architecture with an inherent need for DOF.

 

[Jack]

Maximum aperture dictated that I go with primes.

Totally understand -- and why I got the 50.

And I'm going to don my flamesuit for this next comment But I believe it too -- IME, below say 24mm, more open than f1.8 doesn't get that much visibly shallower because the DoF is already pretty deep relatively, and conversely after about 105mm, opening up beyond f2.8 doesn't get all that much visibly shallower than because DoF is already so shallow to begin with. So faster aperture than f1.8 or 2.8 almost becomes moot once you're outside the 24 to 85 range... As an example, yes the 200/2 renders differently wide open than the 70-200 at 200/f2.8, but not all that significantly -- I think any significant look or feel gains to the typical full-body, shallow DoF shot are debatable...

 

[Bugleone]

Very, very interesting and actually incredible for old timers like me!.......

There's lots of things to come out of this;.....the little f4 zoom looks like a real gem to me!.....a box of lenses no less in a thing the size of a pot of mustard!.... Someone like me who likes depth of field and wants a camera/lens that will stay out of the way could plonk that on a Z7 and just get on with the snaps.

Also, I saw no distortion..although that may be due to software adjustment nowadays..... Once was the time when zooms really bent up your images, as I remember, and that alone was the reason for using primes.

 

[Jack]

If I am not mistaken, he mostly compared sharpness in the 2.8 zoom vs. primes video.

Yes, but in video #2, he directly compares the f2.8 zoom to the f4 zoom, and why I included it too -- definitely worth the watch

 

[Jack]

Very, very interesting and actually incredible for old timers like me!.......

There's lots of things to come out of this;.....the little f4 zoom looks like a real gem to me!.....a box of lenses no less in a thing the size of a pot of mustard!.... Someone like me who likes depth of field and wants a camera/lens that will stay out of the way could plonk that on a Z7 and just get on with the snaps.

Also, I saw no distortion..although that may be due to software adjustment nowadays..... Once was the time when zooms really bent up your images, as I remember, and that alone was the reason for using primes.

Welcome to GetDPI! Yes, the "little jar of mustard" sized f4 zoom is simply incredible!

You can turn on lens corrections differentially in the Z7 menu -- so good they can attenuate most everything. Of course this only affects the in-cam jpeg unless you use Nikon NX-d to process the raws, which will then auto-apply your in-cam settings.

 

[Darin Marcus]

Yes, but in video #2, he directly compares the f2.8 zoom to the f4 zoom, and why I included it too -- definitely worth the watch

Video #2 was released on April 14, 2019. I'm almost certain I watched it soon after that.
But on that day I already had photos from 2 days of shooting with the f2.8 on my computer
I am still happy with my decision to replace the f4 kit lens with the f2.8

 

[Jack]

Darin,

Clearly I was late to the Z party But I was somewhat reluctant to off my EF lenses and D bodies. In the end, it took me about 8 months to work up the gumption to do it -- and I did, and replaced my entire D/EF kit with a Z and S lens kit -- and yes, I'm really glad I did, and frankly wish I had done it a year ago too! The 24-70/2.8S is a winner for sure, a zoom that is as good or better than the best primes available

Cheers,

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Looked at the first video. For the 24 and 35mm lenses, there isn't much of a difference to write home about, but the 50 and 85mm are not only sharper, but they render the colours fresher, brighter also when stopped down, and the bokeh is softer (look at the numbers on the lens in the background), also when at the same aperture as the zoom. I do print very large sometimes, so these things matter.

My choice would be the 14-30mm f/4 zoom and 50 plus 85mm primes. I would probably also add a Sigma 135mm (plus FTZ adapter) for longer focal lengths and a macro. I like shooting with primes, since they are easier on my brain. Just one focal length to think about :thumbup:

 

[Darin Marcus]

Darin,

Clearly I was late to the Z party But I was somewhat reluctant to off my EF lenses and D bodies. In the end, it took me about 8 months to work up the gumption to do it -- and I did, and replaced my entire D/EF kit with a Z and S lens kit -- and yes, I'm really glad I did, and frankly wish I had done it a year ago too! The 24-70/2.8S is a winner for sure, a zoom that is as good or better than the best primes available

Cheers,

Don’t worry about it Jack. The game is still young, and the best is yet to come, assuming Nikon is able to play their cards right

I am a bit worried about the open-ended delay of the 70-200mm f2.8 S (and other items), but I realize I would not be able to put it to good use in the current conditions anyway...

 

[Jack]

Jorgen,

I would not disagree with your 3-lens choice. At all

The current lineup of ZS lenses is so good, that I think any photographer could say, "____, ____ and ____ would be my top three-lens package," and I would simply reply, "Great choices!"

All that said, the 50 is a standout, sharper than almost anything else available... And the zooms are darn close to it

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jorgen,

I would not disagree with your 3-lens choice. At all

The current lineup of ZS lenses is so good, that I think any photographer could say, "____, ____ and ____ would be my top three-lens package," and I would simply reply, "Great choices!"

All that said, the 50 is a standout, sharper than almost anything else available... And the zooms are darn close to it

50mm is inscreasingly important to me, which is interesting since that's where I started 50 years ago (OM-1 with Zuiko 50mm f/1.8). It is a very versatile focal length, and although I too have been through the "50mm-is-boring" phase, I've come to my senses. The pragmatic choice is a Z6 and more or less any 3 or 4 lens combination. You bought the 70-300 AF-P lens, didn't you. Are you still happy with it?

What I hardly ever see with zoom lenses is a certain "sparkle" that I get from good prime lenses. For WA lenses, I'm not too worried about that, although I wouldn't mind seeing a WA zoom lens that can compete with the Zeiss 21mm in that respect, or the Zuiko 8mm Fisheye that I currently own. Oh... and the 50mm f/5.6 for Fuji GX680. For me, wide angle lenses is mostly a question of getting the job done. I use them for industrial and architeture images which is work. You either have a 14mm or you go home.

For people shots on the other hand, I want to see the subject coming out of the canvas, talking to me. This is the reason why I picked the 58mm as the only lens on some other thread that you started, and it's the reason for my love affair with the Zeiss 21, the only WA lens I've tried that works well for portraits, environmental and group portraits that is.

The 85mm f/1.8 might be reason enough for me to consider a Z. That lens shows great promise. And the 50mm? What I wish Nikon would do is come up with a good quality, compact 150ish prime, anything between 135 and 180mm. F/2.8 would be fine, or even 3.5. This race towards 3 pound 135mm lenses is not for me, although I might buy one in the future if there are no smaller alternatives. That 1.8 blur looks cool of course, but children become scared when they see those lenses and dogs chase me down the road :shocked:

 

[Jack]

Jorgen,

I do have the 70-300 AF-P, and am "enjoying" it, but to be really clear, it has zero magic... But it works. Here is a 100% crop from an image I recently took with it handheld on the Z7, and at its worst end @300mm/f6.3 -- (PS: I shoot the Z7 in 4:5 aspect ratio mode, not 2:3):
Full:

100% crop:

~~~

I do think the 24-70's are "as good as the primes" at the respective apertures, with the caveat the 50 is a cut above -- meaning a cut above everything I've ever used to date; it is the best lens I've ever owned...

The 14-30 is good, but not magical, especially at the wide end, but it is pretty darn good in the 18-28 range and as good as most primes I've owned in those ranges in the past -- and good enough for me that I don't feel any desire to get the 20 prime. And that's saying something, because the 20/1.8 prime is probably even better than the Zeiss 21. (Yes, really.)

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

And that's saying something, because the 20/1.8 prime is probably even better than the Zeiss 21. (Yes, really.)

Are you talking about the Z-mount or F-mount 20mm? If F-mount, I disagree. The Nikkor is probably as sharp as the Ziess at the same aperture, and lacks the moustache distortion. For colour rendering and microcontrast however, I prefer the Zeiss, but that might be a matter of taste and mood. I see a similar difference (minus the distortion) between Panasonic/PL lenses vs. Zuiko lenses for MFT. While Panasonic/PL lenses offer the look of Dutch renaissance painters, the Zuikos render more in the style David Hockney and Edward Hopper, clear, well defined colours. Which one I would choose? Yes, please... I'll take both or all :ROTFL: :facesmack:

 

[Jack]

Z mount 20. ZZZ mount!!!