Full Version: Primes VS. Zooms
My question is would a non "L" prime lens, such as a 24mm f/2.8 give you a "better" image than a "L" zoom, such as 16-35mm f2.8L/17-40mm f4L at the respective focal length? I shoot Canon so that's what I used as examples. Other manufacture owners feel free to chime in.
Not in my experience. I owned a 17-40L that was better than two different 24mm non-L primes I owned. My 24-105L is even better than the 17-40L was.
Zooms have gotten really good.
Zooms have gotten really good.
QUOTE (Sheldon N @ Nov 30 2007, 11:08 PM)
Not in my experience. I owned a 17-40L that was better than two different 24mm non-L primes I owned. My 24-105L is even better than the 17-40L was.
Zooms have gotten really good.
Zooms have gotten really good.
If you want the best possible quality than you can't buy Canon glass. I had a 24L 1.4 and sold it again, because the difference to my 24-105 (which is extremly good) wasn't enough.
the 50/1.8 and 1.4.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.