Do prime lenses still have some advantage over kit lenses when stopped down?












2














I understand the primary benefit of a prime lens is the fast speed that you can get from wider aperture sizes. But when stopped down (to get a deeper depth-of-view), does it matter which lens you use?



For instance, compare a 50/1.8 with the 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit lens when both are set to f/5.6.










share|improve this question









New contributor




saibara is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    2














    I understand the primary benefit of a prime lens is the fast speed that you can get from wider aperture sizes. But when stopped down (to get a deeper depth-of-view), does it matter which lens you use?



    For instance, compare a 50/1.8 with the 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit lens when both are set to f/5.6.










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    saibara is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      2












      2








      2







      I understand the primary benefit of a prime lens is the fast speed that you can get from wider aperture sizes. But when stopped down (to get a deeper depth-of-view), does it matter which lens you use?



      For instance, compare a 50/1.8 with the 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit lens when both are set to f/5.6.










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      saibara is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      I understand the primary benefit of a prime lens is the fast speed that you can get from wider aperture sizes. But when stopped down (to get a deeper depth-of-view), does it matter which lens you use?



      For instance, compare a 50/1.8 with the 18-55/3.5-5.6 kit lens when both are set to f/5.6.







      canon prime kit-lens






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      saibara is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      saibara is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 12 hours ago









      xiota

      8,29421448




      8,29421448






      New contributor




      saibara is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 18 hours ago









      saibara

      111




      111




      New contributor




      saibara is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      saibara is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      saibara is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          My experience (Sigma 17-70mm (which I found at least as good as my kit lens (a 18-55mm IS) vs Canon 50mm f/1.8, on an EOS 450D) is that you can still see the difference. Crop of a test shot from my window, back in 2011:



          enter image description here



          An f/1.8 lens also allows the camera body to use its more accurate AF sensor (but I don't think it mattered much here).






          share|improve this answer





















          • Of course, the difference in the example between 1/400 and 1/500 is nearly half a stop, although the right hand side, with the faster shutter, actually appears lighter. So AF isn't the only difference to watch for.
            – twalberg
            1 hour ago



















          3














          It obviously depends on the lenses being compared. Looking at this comparison of the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, both at f/5.6 for example, the prime is sharper, even in the center of the image.



          In this comparison with the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM, both at f/8.0, I see more purple fringing, less sharpness and more distortion in the image from the kit lens.



          No amount of stopping down will get the weight of the kit lens anywhere near of those of the two primes.






          share|improve this answer





























            2














            It depends on your requirements, the specific lenses, the camera, and the metrics you use. The only way to know is to test your lenses.




            • As you note, light gathering ability pretty much depends on the max F-stop, for which primes have the advantage. But when wide open, lenses tend to be softer and have more aberrations, so you might end up stopping down a lens anyway. A prime that performs unacceptably wide open has no "advantage".


            • Lenses tend to be softer wide open than when stopped down slightly. Some lenses "glow" when wide open in bright light. If you are stopping down a prime to the kit lens' max aperture, the prime is expected to have the advantage because the kit is operating at one of its weakest aperture settings (the other being fully stopped down).


            • A prime at the same "level" as the kit would normally be expected to hold the advantage at the same focal length. However, some primes are relatively soft at all apertures. For instance, I have a 50/1.4 that is softer than a 50-230/4.5-6.7 when both are set to F8. In normal photographs, the 50/1.4 offers greater creative control over aperture, but when sharpness is of great concern (or I need greater focal lengths), I know to grab the zoom.



            • If your "kit" lens is some 'L' equivalent glass (such as 24-105/4L), there's less room for improvement. The prime has to be that much better.



              The 50/1.8 is a sharp lens to begin with, and its sharpest setting is around F5.6, where it is sharper than the kit lenses (18-55/3.5-5.6, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 24-105/4L, 24-70/2.8L). The 24-70/2.8L is quite close though.



            • If your prime is old, or particularly weak, a modern kit lens would likely have the advantage. Similarly, a newer prime against an old kit lens would be expected to hold the advantage. But there have been cases where a newer revision of a lens performs worse than the older model.


            • If you are comparing a "good" copy of one lens with a "bad" copy of another, the "good" copy has the advantage, regardless of whether it is a prime or kit lens.


            • Full-frame lenses are at a disadvantage on crop-sensor cameras because the full imaging circle is not being used. It's like reading an eye chart at 3m vs 10m. Full-frame lens on crop sensor is reading the chart at 10m. Any lens weaknesses (contained within the imaged portion) are magnified by the crop factor.


            • A prime cannot beat a kit lens in terms of focal-length versatility and convenience, unless the kit is so bad as to be utterly useless at all focal lengths. – The exception being this stack of primes I've been reading about...


            • The difference in sharpness between a prime and kit lens may be negligible. For instance, unless you spend all your time photographing brick walls, distortion and corner sharpness aren't important beyond a certain point.


            • The camera also matters. If the kit lens is able to resolve beyond the sensor's capabilities, there will be no improvement with a prime, no matter how much sharper it may be.



            This is just a list of tendencies. There are lots of exceptions. Also, having an advantage doesn't mean the lens is definitely better. It's like having a handicap in golf. You still have to play (test/use the lens) to win.






            share|improve this answer























            • Hmm. I'd say the crop factor comment is usually the other way around — the center of the image circle tends to be more sharp and be more corrected for aberrations, so full frame lenses on crop sensors actually have an advantage.
              – mattdm
              8 hours ago










            • @mattdm It depends on how you evaluate sharpness. Objectively, the lens will be equally sharp on either sensor as long as the evaluator accounts for the different sensor sizes. But if you evaluate sharpness the way many reviewers do, by photographing resolution charts to fill the frame, the full frame lens won't be able to resolve the same (apparent) level of detail on a crop sensor as it does on a full-frame sensor. It's like reading an eye chart at 3m vs 10m. Full-frame lens on crop sensor is reading the chart at 10m.
              – xiota
              7 hours ago











            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "61"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });






            saibara is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103934%2fdo-prime-lenses-still-have-some-advantage-over-kit-lenses-when-stopped-down%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3














            My experience (Sigma 17-70mm (which I found at least as good as my kit lens (a 18-55mm IS) vs Canon 50mm f/1.8, on an EOS 450D) is that you can still see the difference. Crop of a test shot from my window, back in 2011:



            enter image description here



            An f/1.8 lens also allows the camera body to use its more accurate AF sensor (but I don't think it mattered much here).






            share|improve this answer





















            • Of course, the difference in the example between 1/400 and 1/500 is nearly half a stop, although the right hand side, with the faster shutter, actually appears lighter. So AF isn't the only difference to watch for.
              – twalberg
              1 hour ago
















            3














            My experience (Sigma 17-70mm (which I found at least as good as my kit lens (a 18-55mm IS) vs Canon 50mm f/1.8, on an EOS 450D) is that you can still see the difference. Crop of a test shot from my window, back in 2011:



            enter image description here



            An f/1.8 lens also allows the camera body to use its more accurate AF sensor (but I don't think it mattered much here).






            share|improve this answer





















            • Of course, the difference in the example between 1/400 and 1/500 is nearly half a stop, although the right hand side, with the faster shutter, actually appears lighter. So AF isn't the only difference to watch for.
              – twalberg
              1 hour ago














            3












            3








            3






            My experience (Sigma 17-70mm (which I found at least as good as my kit lens (a 18-55mm IS) vs Canon 50mm f/1.8, on an EOS 450D) is that you can still see the difference. Crop of a test shot from my window, back in 2011:



            enter image description here



            An f/1.8 lens also allows the camera body to use its more accurate AF sensor (but I don't think it mattered much here).






            share|improve this answer












            My experience (Sigma 17-70mm (which I found at least as good as my kit lens (a 18-55mm IS) vs Canon 50mm f/1.8, on an EOS 450D) is that you can still see the difference. Crop of a test shot from my window, back in 2011:



            enter image description here



            An f/1.8 lens also allows the camera body to use its more accurate AF sensor (but I don't think it mattered much here).







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 17 hours ago









            xenoid

            2,490316




            2,490316












            • Of course, the difference in the example between 1/400 and 1/500 is nearly half a stop, although the right hand side, with the faster shutter, actually appears lighter. So AF isn't the only difference to watch for.
              – twalberg
              1 hour ago


















            • Of course, the difference in the example between 1/400 and 1/500 is nearly half a stop, although the right hand side, with the faster shutter, actually appears lighter. So AF isn't the only difference to watch for.
              – twalberg
              1 hour ago
















            Of course, the difference in the example between 1/400 and 1/500 is nearly half a stop, although the right hand side, with the faster shutter, actually appears lighter. So AF isn't the only difference to watch for.
            – twalberg
            1 hour ago




            Of course, the difference in the example between 1/400 and 1/500 is nearly half a stop, although the right hand side, with the faster shutter, actually appears lighter. So AF isn't the only difference to watch for.
            – twalberg
            1 hour ago













            3














            It obviously depends on the lenses being compared. Looking at this comparison of the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, both at f/5.6 for example, the prime is sharper, even in the center of the image.



            In this comparison with the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM, both at f/8.0, I see more purple fringing, less sharpness and more distortion in the image from the kit lens.



            No amount of stopping down will get the weight of the kit lens anywhere near of those of the two primes.






            share|improve this answer


























              3














              It obviously depends on the lenses being compared. Looking at this comparison of the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, both at f/5.6 for example, the prime is sharper, even in the center of the image.



              In this comparison with the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM, both at f/8.0, I see more purple fringing, less sharpness and more distortion in the image from the kit lens.



              No amount of stopping down will get the weight of the kit lens anywhere near of those of the two primes.






              share|improve this answer
























                3












                3








                3






                It obviously depends on the lenses being compared. Looking at this comparison of the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, both at f/5.6 for example, the prime is sharper, even in the center of the image.



                In this comparison with the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM, both at f/8.0, I see more purple fringing, less sharpness and more distortion in the image from the kit lens.



                No amount of stopping down will get the weight of the kit lens anywhere near of those of the two primes.






                share|improve this answer












                It obviously depends on the lenses being compared. Looking at this comparison of the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, both at f/5.6 for example, the prime is sharper, even in the center of the image.



                In this comparison with the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM, both at f/8.0, I see more purple fringing, less sharpness and more distortion in the image from the kit lens.



                No amount of stopping down will get the weight of the kit lens anywhere near of those of the two primes.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 17 hours ago









                null

                7,8971842




                7,8971842























                    2














                    It depends on your requirements, the specific lenses, the camera, and the metrics you use. The only way to know is to test your lenses.




                    • As you note, light gathering ability pretty much depends on the max F-stop, for which primes have the advantage. But when wide open, lenses tend to be softer and have more aberrations, so you might end up stopping down a lens anyway. A prime that performs unacceptably wide open has no "advantage".


                    • Lenses tend to be softer wide open than when stopped down slightly. Some lenses "glow" when wide open in bright light. If you are stopping down a prime to the kit lens' max aperture, the prime is expected to have the advantage because the kit is operating at one of its weakest aperture settings (the other being fully stopped down).


                    • A prime at the same "level" as the kit would normally be expected to hold the advantage at the same focal length. However, some primes are relatively soft at all apertures. For instance, I have a 50/1.4 that is softer than a 50-230/4.5-6.7 when both are set to F8. In normal photographs, the 50/1.4 offers greater creative control over aperture, but when sharpness is of great concern (or I need greater focal lengths), I know to grab the zoom.



                    • If your "kit" lens is some 'L' equivalent glass (such as 24-105/4L), there's less room for improvement. The prime has to be that much better.



                      The 50/1.8 is a sharp lens to begin with, and its sharpest setting is around F5.6, where it is sharper than the kit lenses (18-55/3.5-5.6, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 24-105/4L, 24-70/2.8L). The 24-70/2.8L is quite close though.



                    • If your prime is old, or particularly weak, a modern kit lens would likely have the advantage. Similarly, a newer prime against an old kit lens would be expected to hold the advantage. But there have been cases where a newer revision of a lens performs worse than the older model.


                    • If you are comparing a "good" copy of one lens with a "bad" copy of another, the "good" copy has the advantage, regardless of whether it is a prime or kit lens.


                    • Full-frame lenses are at a disadvantage on crop-sensor cameras because the full imaging circle is not being used. It's like reading an eye chart at 3m vs 10m. Full-frame lens on crop sensor is reading the chart at 10m. Any lens weaknesses (contained within the imaged portion) are magnified by the crop factor.


                    • A prime cannot beat a kit lens in terms of focal-length versatility and convenience, unless the kit is so bad as to be utterly useless at all focal lengths. – The exception being this stack of primes I've been reading about...


                    • The difference in sharpness between a prime and kit lens may be negligible. For instance, unless you spend all your time photographing brick walls, distortion and corner sharpness aren't important beyond a certain point.


                    • The camera also matters. If the kit lens is able to resolve beyond the sensor's capabilities, there will be no improvement with a prime, no matter how much sharper it may be.



                    This is just a list of tendencies. There are lots of exceptions. Also, having an advantage doesn't mean the lens is definitely better. It's like having a handicap in golf. You still have to play (test/use the lens) to win.






                    share|improve this answer























                    • Hmm. I'd say the crop factor comment is usually the other way around — the center of the image circle tends to be more sharp and be more corrected for aberrations, so full frame lenses on crop sensors actually have an advantage.
                      – mattdm
                      8 hours ago










                    • @mattdm It depends on how you evaluate sharpness. Objectively, the lens will be equally sharp on either sensor as long as the evaluator accounts for the different sensor sizes. But if you evaluate sharpness the way many reviewers do, by photographing resolution charts to fill the frame, the full frame lens won't be able to resolve the same (apparent) level of detail on a crop sensor as it does on a full-frame sensor. It's like reading an eye chart at 3m vs 10m. Full-frame lens on crop sensor is reading the chart at 10m.
                      – xiota
                      7 hours ago
















                    2














                    It depends on your requirements, the specific lenses, the camera, and the metrics you use. The only way to know is to test your lenses.




                    • As you note, light gathering ability pretty much depends on the max F-stop, for which primes have the advantage. But when wide open, lenses tend to be softer and have more aberrations, so you might end up stopping down a lens anyway. A prime that performs unacceptably wide open has no "advantage".


                    • Lenses tend to be softer wide open than when stopped down slightly. Some lenses "glow" when wide open in bright light. If you are stopping down a prime to the kit lens' max aperture, the prime is expected to have the advantage because the kit is operating at one of its weakest aperture settings (the other being fully stopped down).


                    • A prime at the same "level" as the kit would normally be expected to hold the advantage at the same focal length. However, some primes are relatively soft at all apertures. For instance, I have a 50/1.4 that is softer than a 50-230/4.5-6.7 when both are set to F8. In normal photographs, the 50/1.4 offers greater creative control over aperture, but when sharpness is of great concern (or I need greater focal lengths), I know to grab the zoom.



                    • If your "kit" lens is some 'L' equivalent glass (such as 24-105/4L), there's less room for improvement. The prime has to be that much better.



                      The 50/1.8 is a sharp lens to begin with, and its sharpest setting is around F5.6, where it is sharper than the kit lenses (18-55/3.5-5.6, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 24-105/4L, 24-70/2.8L). The 24-70/2.8L is quite close though.



                    • If your prime is old, or particularly weak, a modern kit lens would likely have the advantage. Similarly, a newer prime against an old kit lens would be expected to hold the advantage. But there have been cases where a newer revision of a lens performs worse than the older model.


                    • If you are comparing a "good" copy of one lens with a "bad" copy of another, the "good" copy has the advantage, regardless of whether it is a prime or kit lens.


                    • Full-frame lenses are at a disadvantage on crop-sensor cameras because the full imaging circle is not being used. It's like reading an eye chart at 3m vs 10m. Full-frame lens on crop sensor is reading the chart at 10m. Any lens weaknesses (contained within the imaged portion) are magnified by the crop factor.


                    • A prime cannot beat a kit lens in terms of focal-length versatility and convenience, unless the kit is so bad as to be utterly useless at all focal lengths. – The exception being this stack of primes I've been reading about...


                    • The difference in sharpness between a prime and kit lens may be negligible. For instance, unless you spend all your time photographing brick walls, distortion and corner sharpness aren't important beyond a certain point.


                    • The camera also matters. If the kit lens is able to resolve beyond the sensor's capabilities, there will be no improvement with a prime, no matter how much sharper it may be.



                    This is just a list of tendencies. There are lots of exceptions. Also, having an advantage doesn't mean the lens is definitely better. It's like having a handicap in golf. You still have to play (test/use the lens) to win.






                    share|improve this answer























                    • Hmm. I'd say the crop factor comment is usually the other way around — the center of the image circle tends to be more sharp and be more corrected for aberrations, so full frame lenses on crop sensors actually have an advantage.
                      – mattdm
                      8 hours ago










                    • @mattdm It depends on how you evaluate sharpness. Objectively, the lens will be equally sharp on either sensor as long as the evaluator accounts for the different sensor sizes. But if you evaluate sharpness the way many reviewers do, by photographing resolution charts to fill the frame, the full frame lens won't be able to resolve the same (apparent) level of detail on a crop sensor as it does on a full-frame sensor. It's like reading an eye chart at 3m vs 10m. Full-frame lens on crop sensor is reading the chart at 10m.
                      – xiota
                      7 hours ago














                    2












                    2








                    2






                    It depends on your requirements, the specific lenses, the camera, and the metrics you use. The only way to know is to test your lenses.




                    • As you note, light gathering ability pretty much depends on the max F-stop, for which primes have the advantage. But when wide open, lenses tend to be softer and have more aberrations, so you might end up stopping down a lens anyway. A prime that performs unacceptably wide open has no "advantage".


                    • Lenses tend to be softer wide open than when stopped down slightly. Some lenses "glow" when wide open in bright light. If you are stopping down a prime to the kit lens' max aperture, the prime is expected to have the advantage because the kit is operating at one of its weakest aperture settings (the other being fully stopped down).


                    • A prime at the same "level" as the kit would normally be expected to hold the advantage at the same focal length. However, some primes are relatively soft at all apertures. For instance, I have a 50/1.4 that is softer than a 50-230/4.5-6.7 when both are set to F8. In normal photographs, the 50/1.4 offers greater creative control over aperture, but when sharpness is of great concern (or I need greater focal lengths), I know to grab the zoom.



                    • If your "kit" lens is some 'L' equivalent glass (such as 24-105/4L), there's less room for improvement. The prime has to be that much better.



                      The 50/1.8 is a sharp lens to begin with, and its sharpest setting is around F5.6, where it is sharper than the kit lenses (18-55/3.5-5.6, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 24-105/4L, 24-70/2.8L). The 24-70/2.8L is quite close though.



                    • If your prime is old, or particularly weak, a modern kit lens would likely have the advantage. Similarly, a newer prime against an old kit lens would be expected to hold the advantage. But there have been cases where a newer revision of a lens performs worse than the older model.


                    • If you are comparing a "good" copy of one lens with a "bad" copy of another, the "good" copy has the advantage, regardless of whether it is a prime or kit lens.


                    • Full-frame lenses are at a disadvantage on crop-sensor cameras because the full imaging circle is not being used. It's like reading an eye chart at 3m vs 10m. Full-frame lens on crop sensor is reading the chart at 10m. Any lens weaknesses (contained within the imaged portion) are magnified by the crop factor.


                    • A prime cannot beat a kit lens in terms of focal-length versatility and convenience, unless the kit is so bad as to be utterly useless at all focal lengths. – The exception being this stack of primes I've been reading about...


                    • The difference in sharpness between a prime and kit lens may be negligible. For instance, unless you spend all your time photographing brick walls, distortion and corner sharpness aren't important beyond a certain point.


                    • The camera also matters. If the kit lens is able to resolve beyond the sensor's capabilities, there will be no improvement with a prime, no matter how much sharper it may be.



                    This is just a list of tendencies. There are lots of exceptions. Also, having an advantage doesn't mean the lens is definitely better. It's like having a handicap in golf. You still have to play (test/use the lens) to win.






                    share|improve this answer














                    It depends on your requirements, the specific lenses, the camera, and the metrics you use. The only way to know is to test your lenses.




                    • As you note, light gathering ability pretty much depends on the max F-stop, for which primes have the advantage. But when wide open, lenses tend to be softer and have more aberrations, so you might end up stopping down a lens anyway. A prime that performs unacceptably wide open has no "advantage".


                    • Lenses tend to be softer wide open than when stopped down slightly. Some lenses "glow" when wide open in bright light. If you are stopping down a prime to the kit lens' max aperture, the prime is expected to have the advantage because the kit is operating at one of its weakest aperture settings (the other being fully stopped down).


                    • A prime at the same "level" as the kit would normally be expected to hold the advantage at the same focal length. However, some primes are relatively soft at all apertures. For instance, I have a 50/1.4 that is softer than a 50-230/4.5-6.7 when both are set to F8. In normal photographs, the 50/1.4 offers greater creative control over aperture, but when sharpness is of great concern (or I need greater focal lengths), I know to grab the zoom.



                    • If your "kit" lens is some 'L' equivalent glass (such as 24-105/4L), there's less room for improvement. The prime has to be that much better.



                      The 50/1.8 is a sharp lens to begin with, and its sharpest setting is around F5.6, where it is sharper than the kit lenses (18-55/3.5-5.6, 18-135/3.5-5.6, 24-105/4L, 24-70/2.8L). The 24-70/2.8L is quite close though.



                    • If your prime is old, or particularly weak, a modern kit lens would likely have the advantage. Similarly, a newer prime against an old kit lens would be expected to hold the advantage. But there have been cases where a newer revision of a lens performs worse than the older model.


                    • If you are comparing a "good" copy of one lens with a "bad" copy of another, the "good" copy has the advantage, regardless of whether it is a prime or kit lens.


                    • Full-frame lenses are at a disadvantage on crop-sensor cameras because the full imaging circle is not being used. It's like reading an eye chart at 3m vs 10m. Full-frame lens on crop sensor is reading the chart at 10m. Any lens weaknesses (contained within the imaged portion) are magnified by the crop factor.


                    • A prime cannot beat a kit lens in terms of focal-length versatility and convenience, unless the kit is so bad as to be utterly useless at all focal lengths. – The exception being this stack of primes I've been reading about...


                    • The difference in sharpness between a prime and kit lens may be negligible. For instance, unless you spend all your time photographing brick walls, distortion and corner sharpness aren't important beyond a certain point.


                    • The camera also matters. If the kit lens is able to resolve beyond the sensor's capabilities, there will be no improvement with a prime, no matter how much sharper it may be.



                    This is just a list of tendencies. There are lots of exceptions. Also, having an advantage doesn't mean the lens is definitely better. It's like having a handicap in golf. You still have to play (test/use the lens) to win.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 7 hours ago

























                    answered 12 hours ago









                    xiota

                    8,29421448




                    8,29421448












                    • Hmm. I'd say the crop factor comment is usually the other way around — the center of the image circle tends to be more sharp and be more corrected for aberrations, so full frame lenses on crop sensors actually have an advantage.
                      – mattdm
                      8 hours ago










                    • @mattdm It depends on how you evaluate sharpness. Objectively, the lens will be equally sharp on either sensor as long as the evaluator accounts for the different sensor sizes. But if you evaluate sharpness the way many reviewers do, by photographing resolution charts to fill the frame, the full frame lens won't be able to resolve the same (apparent) level of detail on a crop sensor as it does on a full-frame sensor. It's like reading an eye chart at 3m vs 10m. Full-frame lens on crop sensor is reading the chart at 10m.
                      – xiota
                      7 hours ago


















                    • Hmm. I'd say the crop factor comment is usually the other way around — the center of the image circle tends to be more sharp and be more corrected for aberrations, so full frame lenses on crop sensors actually have an advantage.
                      – mattdm
                      8 hours ago










                    • @mattdm It depends on how you evaluate sharpness. Objectively, the lens will be equally sharp on either sensor as long as the evaluator accounts for the different sensor sizes. But if you evaluate sharpness the way many reviewers do, by photographing resolution charts to fill the frame, the full frame lens won't be able to resolve the same (apparent) level of detail on a crop sensor as it does on a full-frame sensor. It's like reading an eye chart at 3m vs 10m. Full-frame lens on crop sensor is reading the chart at 10m.
                      – xiota
                      7 hours ago
















                    Hmm. I'd say the crop factor comment is usually the other way around — the center of the image circle tends to be more sharp and be more corrected for aberrations, so full frame lenses on crop sensors actually have an advantage.
                    – mattdm
                    8 hours ago




                    Hmm. I'd say the crop factor comment is usually the other way around — the center of the image circle tends to be more sharp and be more corrected for aberrations, so full frame lenses on crop sensors actually have an advantage.
                    – mattdm
                    8 hours ago












                    @mattdm It depends on how you evaluate sharpness. Objectively, the lens will be equally sharp on either sensor as long as the evaluator accounts for the different sensor sizes. But if you evaluate sharpness the way many reviewers do, by photographing resolution charts to fill the frame, the full frame lens won't be able to resolve the same (apparent) level of detail on a crop sensor as it does on a full-frame sensor. It's like reading an eye chart at 3m vs 10m. Full-frame lens on crop sensor is reading the chart at 10m.
                    – xiota
                    7 hours ago




                    @mattdm It depends on how you evaluate sharpness. Objectively, the lens will be equally sharp on either sensor as long as the evaluator accounts for the different sensor sizes. But if you evaluate sharpness the way many reviewers do, by photographing resolution charts to fill the frame, the full frame lens won't be able to resolve the same (apparent) level of detail on a crop sensor as it does on a full-frame sensor. It's like reading an eye chart at 3m vs 10m. Full-frame lens on crop sensor is reading the chart at 10m.
                    – xiota
                    7 hours ago










                    saibara is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    saibara is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                    saibara is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    saibara is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103934%2fdo-prime-lenses-still-have-some-advantage-over-kit-lenses-when-stopped-down%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    CARDNET

                    Boot-repair Failure: Unable to locate package grub-common:i386

                    Aws NAT - Aws IGW- Aws router