Evil DSLRs II - No Standard Prime ?

[mfunnell]

Ruben,

I guess I'm failing to see your objection to big zoom lenses on dSLRs. I can love a prime lens on an RF camera as well as the next guy, but for various reasons I also like these:









Am I supposed to not like 'em because they weren't taken with an RF camera and prime lens?

...Mike

 

[rxmd]

The inference of your post is that Canon is developing its digital cameras to fit their big EF line up. This is exactly the "conspiracy theory" an amateur explained to me at my job, an hour ago. According to him, first they will try to milk from the consumers the most for what they have invested in research and manufacture of their old lenses. Then they will become serious with a new, specifically digital new line - The same game like with camera obsolence.

I am not sure whether I understand you correctly, but this doesn't make sense.

Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "digital lenses". You probably mean the EF-S line of lenses for crop sensors, but I'm not sure.

Canon has an entrance segment with an APS-size sensor with 1.6 crop. With the 20D, they introduced a special variant of their lens mount (EF-S) for lenses that catered to this smaller sensor. From that point of view you're right; Canon is trying to sell digital-only lenses to low- and midrange consumers. However, on their professional cameras Canon has been using full-frame sensors for quite some time. They are likely to stay around, given that the trend at present goes towards full frame rather than away from it. Customers usually tend to upgrade towards higher-level equipment; they may start with a 400D, and then buy a 40D at some point, and then they may want a 5D. At the latter point they will consider their present investment in lenses. Because of this upgrade path, it makes sense for Canon to continue selling full-frame lenses. Because any "digital" (i.e. small-sensor) lens will be impossible to use on the full-frame bodies, it is dangerous for Canon to sell too many small-sensor lenses to entry-level customers. The reason is obvious: if they have to ditch all their Canon small-sensor lenses in upgrading and buy new full-frame lenses anyway, they may just as well buy a full-frame Nikon body instead, which will allow them to use old manual-focus lenses as well. So in order to keep their customers, Canon has to sell their lenses in such a way as to create a sense of investment with customers. Because the top of the Canon line will stay full-frame (sensor shrinkage is highly unlikely), you can be sure that Canon will continue to produce full-frame lenses. The only reason why they would stop producing full-frame primes would be because people stop buying them, and in that case neither can Canon be blamed, nor is it particularly likely.

So unless your colleague elaborates his conspiracy theory somewhat, I would be inclined to have some confidence in the availability of Canon primes in the future.

Philipp

 

[kevin m]

Ruben, the new quality zooms are as good as the primes, as far as my experience with Canon goes.

No offense, sitemistic, but your standards must be pretty low. I've shot with the 16-35 and 24-70 and neither comes close to a prime lens in IQ.

I think what Ruben is referring to, if I'm reading him correctly, is that there is no 'equivalent' small prime lens for the cropped sensor cameras. I have the 28/1.8, and it makes for a nice 'standard' lens on a 30d, but if you prefer shooting something equivalent to a 35mm lens, or wider, there's really nothing available in a compact prime lens. I bought the 24/1.4L when I bought the 20d, and while it's a fine lens, it's certainly not compact by any means.

AFAIK, Pentax is the only company that makes compact prime lenses for a cropped sensor camera.

 

[nicoy3k]

Aside from the 17-55 f/2.8. The best canon lenses are the non EF-S lenses L lenses. Your whole perception of "digital lenses" and the thinking that when using a non EF-S lens with a digital camera you are adapting to an old system therefore the image quality must suffer is flat-out-wrong.

I like rangefinder too, but current DSLRs are AMAZING machines. I'm new here, so I don't understand the bashing yet.

 

[gavinlg]

The inference of your post is that Canon is developing its digital cameras to fit their big EF line up. This is exactly the "conspiracy theory" an amateur explained to me at my job, an hour ago. According to him, first they will try to milk from the consumers the most for what they have invested in research and manufacture of their old lenses. Then they will become serious with a new, specifically digital new line - The same game like with camera obsolence.

Cheers,
Ruben

Unfortunately thats why you shouldn't trust everything you hear. The reason why canon changed from the original FD mount was so that they could get on with NEW technology - USM focussing which is literally silent and extremely quick/accurate in operation. They also wanted to make some very exotic, expensive and fast lenses, and the present (at that time) FD mount didn't allow that, due to the lens mount opening not being large enough.

The only lenses developed specifically toward a digital sensor at the moment are olympus zuikos. The sensors in olympus DSLRs are whats called a "crop sensor" and are basically half the size of the "full frame" sized sensor in the canon 5d/1ds or nikon d3 line. In brief, when light hits a digital sensor past a certain angle, its quality degrades a little, this is why olympus went with the half sized sensor, so that light around the edges did not have to bend at such extreme angles - hence the term "digitally designed lens." This problem can be offset with better quality glass and coatings, as the new nikkor 14-24 f2.8 shows - with spectacular results.

Of course, much of it is marketing. You can use a nikkor f mount SLR lens from 1955 and it will work perfectly on an adapter on a canon DSLR. It will also exhibit the same optical characteristics as it would on a film body.

Basically, canon is where it wants to be with it's lens mount and electronic focussing. To change to a so called "digital designed lens," they'd have to change the physical size of their sensor (at current, their flagship camera sensors are the same size of 35mm film, a major selling point of the canon bodies) to a smaller one, the mount of their lenses (which would bring in extra crop factors and conversion lengths) etc etc. As you can see, theres no way.

Olympus designed their digital lenses basically around a digital sensor. because the sensor is half the size, their lenses don't actually have an extreme corner performance, as the light projected by the lens doesn't have to reach the extreme angle. The positive is obviously sharper corners of the image, and slightly lower distortion. HOWEVER, they suffer in that the depth of field is effectively twice that of a full frame digital sensor with the same lens, and the noise characteristics are made worse. Diffraction also occurs much earlier - around f5.6-f8.

 

[Solinar]

Ruben, the dichotomy between consumer and pro zooms has been around for a while. Pro zooms, if they are full frame, generally get you within a stop or two of the better primes and equal the price of three or four prime lenses. Many of which are able to maintain a constant wide open aperture as well.

Consumer zooms usually cost as much as a single prime lens to double the cost and there are compromises made. Usually vignetting occurs at both ends of the range and you loose two stops or more at wide open aperture.

There is no conspiracy. It's just there are two different markets for lenses.

Now with regards to image stabilization within the lens versus within the camera. The in lens IS controls camera shake at the image nodal point. So, the corrective lens element doesn't need to move to such a degree as an in-camera anti-shake system. This advantage becomes more pronounced at longer focal lengths. Also, you can see the in-lens IS working via the viewfinder, which is not the case with in-camera IS.

All the other trappings, I call them "the must have feature of the season" are to sell cameras. Live view, dust shakers, in camera B/W, and the like give the sales person at the counter ammunition which he or she can rattle off with regards to why this years camera is better than last year's model.

Granted there is progress with regards to lower noise sensors and better in-camera processing, which I think will continue as the DSLR era progresses.

 

[kevin m]

Well, I do shoot handheld which covers up some of the finer points of the lenses, but in my experience in practical use, I can see no real difference.

I agree about the handheld part... that's why I think Leica M primes are overkill as well as over-priced. And I think there's a lot of sample-to-sample variation, particularly with the 24-70. Some people love theirs, others have had to return multiple copies.

I noticed the difference on those occasions when I would shoot wide interior shots on a tripod. That's when you can really see the difference between a good wide prime and a zoom.

 

[bmattock]

If my memory or knowledge doesn't default me, between the end of the 60's and begining of the 70's there was an amazing flow of lenses, including zooms, and system parts, by the big manufacturers of that period.

Yes, I believe that is true. This was my era as well, being in my late 40's now.

But consider that at the time, cameras were durable goods. Yes, manufacturers wanted to sell bodies, but for many, a body once purchased was considered to be good for maybe a decade or more. Most of the amazing technological advances which caused people to buy new camera bodies had happened - instant return mirrors, TTL metering, and even AE for those who wanted it. AF was still some ways off.

So I believe the manufacturers concentrated on 'system' building. Now you had the body, but did you have the eleven different flash units they made? All the lenses? Winders and so on? It was a mad dash to see who made the most - and best - accessories.

This is not what i am seeing now, quite a few years since digital cameras are on the market. But, as stated, i am a big ignorant here.

I believe digital cameras are more of a commodity item now. This is not an indictment of digital; as you know, I love and use both film and digital. But my four-year-old *ist DS is considered pathetically out-of-date now. Doesn't bother me, but in honesty, after 50,000 shutter actuations, it probably is time for a refresh.

While my 1962 Canon FX just had a CLA and is ready for another 40 years service...

What I do enjoy about the digital era is how cheap it has made my beloved mechanical cameras and lenses, and how the technology for digital keeps evolving and becoming less expensive as well. It's strictly a win-win for me. My camera body does not have anti-shake or face-detection or a gazillion megapixels, but that's OK; when I next dip a toe in the water, that will be on the list of standard capability at the price I paid four years ago.

Point is - when the camera body is a commodity item and not a durable good, the manufacturers have to put their efforts into making camera bodies and innovations in digital technology and not as much into the 'system'.

Now, this or that folk can claim how wonderfull he is doing in adapting this or that prime manufactured some 30 years ago, but my instinct tends to tell me, that digital specialized lens should be better than any adaptation. Specially, digital primes.

I feel that my Pentax *ist DS kit lens is a fine lens. Not well-made in the traditional sense of my SMC manual focus primes, but the image quality is acceptable to me and it has proven to be durable enough for my needs.

However, to compare quality of construction, the older prime lenses of brass and glass win every time. For critical examination of output, I still believe the older primes are superior, but I may be biased. They're certainly faster (at least the ones I can afford) - and that's important too.

Just my feeling.

I hear you. I am wearing a 1970's era Seiko 5 mechanical wristwatch. I have a $30 USD Casio that keeps better time. I wonder why I wear the mechanical watch?

 

[Matthew Allen]

I feel that my Pentax *ist DS kit lens is a fine lens. Not well-made in the traditional sense of my SMC manual focus primes, but the image quality is acceptable to me and it has proven to be durable enough for my needs.

I agree. Assuming we're talking about the 18-55 1:3.5-5.6, it's actually pretty darned good for a lens that is almost given away when you get it with a camera body, and it's supposed to be one of the better kit lenses out there. Incidentally a new version of this lens has just been announced with one fewer element. I wonder if it'll be as good, or perhaps better...

As to the general point, I think that if you're only comparing resolution and contrast then some modern zooms are amazing performers that are comparable to primes. That said, I think most zooms lack character in their rendering. The better ones appear 'neutral' to my eyes but with cheaper zooms there is sometimes a distinct ugliness to the way they render subjects.

Matthew

 

[Solinar]

It is good to hear that Olympus is doing some right these days.

Sticking to the current crop of APS-C DSLR's, my sole consumer zoom - an 18-70 AFS-DX Nikkor - turns my D50 or D80 into rather expensive point and shoot cameras, but oh do I love the user interface versus what I've had to contend with on a compact P&S. It is my vacation lens, so to speak.

Fast 1.4 primes are nice, too. They are affordable by me. They noticeably brighten the viewfinder and you gain a couple of stops or more in low light versus a consumer level zoom. However, when traveling - the less I carry through the airport, the better. So, the zoom comes with me and maybe the 30/1.4 Sigma, which I'm on my second example.

You would think that primes always outperform zooms, but no always. The Sigma 30/1.4 one such exception. Some zooms do better at their sweet spot, if it is around 30mm, than the Sigma. If your intent is for a defocussed background, then the soft periphery of the Sigma 30/1.4 shouldn't be much of an issue.

 

[Pascal]

Thats what I really think. I started out with a Pentax KM back in '77 with it's then normal 50. I used that lens to the best of it's (my) ability and grew to love it. Later was added a 28 then a 135. A standard set-up. I think that a zoom would have slowed down my learning process then, and even today I'm sure I take better photos with primes than a zoom. Without spending a fortune, zooms are a slow, nasty, poor quality alternative to primes, and I really believe that any zoom can limit your ability to see and think in a photographic sense. I would never recomend a zoom for a beginner or even an expert who wants to get to the truth of what composition and framing are really about.

Most of my primes are either Olympus or Zeiss and I do appreciate primes for their impressive resolution and color/contrast. In fact, my primes outnumber my zooms almost 4-1.

However, a few zooms that I feel could easily match and in some cases, even outperform several primes out there (including those high $$$ L's Canon and Nikon's ED stuff). I use these converted lenses (except the 70-200mm f3.5-4.5) on Canon mount SLR's with AF and auto aperture stop down.

Contax Zeiss 17-35mm f2.8.
Contax Zeiss 24-85mm f3.5-4.5
Contax Zeiss 70-200mm f3.5-4.5
Contax Zeiss 70-300mm f4-5.6 (especially at f8 or smaller)

Some more excellent zooms that can put primes to shame:
Contax 35-70mm manual focus lens
Olympus 35-80mm f2.8

For autofocus, the Olympus 7-14mm f4.0 is hard to beat. I am very impressed with this wide angle.

The other lenses in the current 4/3rds line up that are exceptional are the Zuiko 35-100mm f2.0, Zuiko 90-250mm f2.8, Leica 14-50mm f2.8-3.5, Zuiko 50-200mm f2.8-3.5, etc.


These zooms cost a bit, but you get what you pay for - which is something I see you agree with. However, the same applies to primes. You can get a Canon 35mm f2 for around $200, or you can spend $1000 and get the 35mm f1.4 L and still not be happy with it. Or you could spend $500 and get the zeiss 35-70 and have the color and microcontrast that Zeiss is capable of. You have to spend the $$$ if you want the results. The quality exists in zooms plus you have the additional ability to frame your subject better rather than be stuck at one focal length.

Nikon has an excellent new 14-24mm zoom. Other than for the Zeiss 21mm f2.8, it seems to hold up to against almost every other prime in that focal range.

 

[KoNickon]

No question that "pro" zooms are superb these days, with performance very close to primes. But their price is breathtaking -- more than the camera body in many cases. So asking the camera store to swap that gruesomely slow kit lens for its pro-level equivalent makes for an expensive proposition, impractical for most of us.

What would be great is if the camera companies would allow you to forgo the kit zoom in favor of a fast prime. I'm not sure the high volume stores (order takers, really) would let you do that unless the manufacturers authorized it.

 

[ruben]

Hi,

First kindly let me remind you about my first class ignorancy about the digital camera world, I started with at my o.p.

Secondly, I have nothing against zooms, being digital or pre-digital. This side issue is not with me.

But I do have a simple question. If new digital zooms have surpassed old primes, as some say, can't new digital primes surpass digital zooms ? And if theoretically it is possible, why a side company as Sigma is making a 30mm f/1.4 instead of Canon ?

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Solinar]

......... and why a side company as Sigma is making a 30mm f/1.4 instead of Canon ?

Cheers,
Ruben

Actually, Sigma makes this lens for Pentax and Nikon as well. I believe that it was Nikon, not Canon that dropped the ball with regards to an affordable ultra fast prime in this focal length. Nikon did make a splendid 28 f/1.4 AF-D, but it was priced in Leica territory and it still had a waiting list, as it was a limited production lens.

 

[Pascal]

Hi,

If new digital zooms have surpassed old primes, as some say, can't new digital primes surpass digital zooms ? And if theoretically it is possible, why a side company as Sigma is making a 30mm f/1.4 instead of Canon ?

Cheers,
Ruben

Actually, Canon does make primes like the 24mm f1.4L and 35mm f1.4L. The 35mm f1.4L can beat the Sigma in terms of resolution, color, contrast, etc. any way you look at it. Only issue is while the sigma is $450, the canon retails for $1100 new.

In fact, the Canon 35mm f1.4 L is considered by canon shooters to be a part of the "Holy L lens Trinity" which include the 35mm f1.4 L, 85mm f1.2L, and 135mm f2L - three primes that are exquisite for what they delivery.

These three primes (and now they have a 50mm f1.2L) -- stopped down to f8.0 or their capability to shoot at large apertures puts them in a position that can not be matched by any zoom or primes available today.


I have used all four canon L's on my film and digital SLR's and have also tried the Sigma 30mm f1.4 on a Canon body. While the Sigma may be compact and cheaper, you can see it has some shortfalls when compared to the canon 35L - especially when shooting at large apertures. The sigma can not be used on the full frame SLR's like the 5D or 1Ds. The sigma contrast is nowhere close to what the 35L is capable of. The resolution is lacking on the Sigma, etc. etc. Then again, you are paying less than half the price.


Plus you also have to consider the fact that Canon can sell more zooms than they could primes. So why invest R&D and production cost/time on primes when you can make a lot more $$$ selling zooms - consumer demand. I recall back in the 80's-90's, all OEM's were releasing these exotic primes that cost an arm and a leg. When lenses like the 200mm f2L, OM 250mm f2.0, 180mm f2.0, Nikon 6mm fisheye, Olympus 8mm FE, 800mm f5.6, 1200mm f5.6 L etc. were available. Today, the demand for exotic high $$ glass simply does not seem to exist.... just my opinion.

The optical formula simply can not be duplicated today. Lenses like the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 or Pentax primes or other exotic lenses than used lead or rare earth elements simply can not be manufactured today due to restrictions. Yet Zeiss surpassed 400 lp/mm on the resolution of the recently released the ZF 25mm prime. So it can be done, but it costs too much and there isn't that much demand for it.

How many here would pay $3700+ for a Leica 75mm f1.4 when you can get a 5D and 24-70L or 85L for the same price or less.

 

[ruben]

Well, I am leaving this enligthening thread on behalf of the Weekly Picks.

So far my resume from this thread, on behalf of my ignorancy and my nephew is that the best price/quality/convenience formula for him is to replace his EF zoom on behalf of a Canon digital zoom. With it, he will continue to be stucked by a starting f/3.5, unless he goes for either the EF 28mm, or EF 35mm.

About the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 I think no in-depht opinions were given so far, in terms of price/convenience, unless I missed it. Pascal's above commentary is rather scarce about what the Sigman cheaper 1.4 can give in the positive grounds.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[splitimageview]

Nikon still lists a few manual focus lenses:

http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5

There are some zooms that approach the size of primes, but usually they are the f/3.5-f/5.6 variable aperture type. There are no 'fast zooms' (say, f/2.8 across the zoom range) that approach the size of a fast prime (which is usually a stop or two faster than f/2.8.)

I've heard the new zooms are as good as primes, but I haven't used them to confirm.

Sure wish Nikon had a prime lineup like Canon's.

 

[Solinar]

About the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 I think no in-depht opinions were given so far, in terms of price/convenience, unless I missed it. Pascal's above commentary is rather scarce about what the Sigman cheaper 1.4 can give in the positive grounds.

Cheers,
Ruben

They are there - but are buried:

• Brighter viewfinder
• 2 stops faster in low light
• the ability to defocus unwanted backgrounds

 

[Chris101]

I dunno about Canon, but Nikon has a 35mm f/2 for about $330 and a 35 f/1.4 for about twice that. The 1.4 is manual focus though. The fact that they are not 'digital' doesn't really mean that much though. I use the f/2 as my 'digital normal' lens by the way.

 

[cmedin]

Pentax are certainly committed to putting out nice primes. The current lineup has something like 11 primes in it, including some REALLY great ones like the 43/1.9 Limited. There's also a sweet, sweet pancake 40mm:
http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses/lens_40

edit: with the crop factor, the 31/1.8 is probably worth looking at as a 'standard' prime.