50 f/1.4 vs three short-tele zooms...

[FHPhotographer]

In looking for a good, relatively inexpensive Pentax zoom for an all-around lens for my K100D I kept seeing comments that none could, of course, come close to a prime. So I borrowed a couple and did the following tests. You judge.

All are 100% crops of RAW images at 50mm (or so) @f/8 under identical conditions, and converted to jpeg without any post processing.

Why this range and that setting? Because it seemed like a good compromise, plus that's what I had access to and was interested in for a light, all-around lens (and yes, the 28-70 should be in there but it's too large and heavy for my needs right now). You be the judge...

First, the baseline 50 f/1.4


Second, the lowest forum-rated zoom (6.4), the FA 28-90 f/3.5-5.6


Next, the forum well-rated (9) F 35-105 f/4-5.6


Finally the equally well-rated (9) and only lens in this group still available new, the FA 28-105 f/4-5.6


And then, just for the helluvait, I grabbed the "worst" of the zooms (the plastic fantastic 28-90 that's available at about $60? ) at @ 73mm under the same conditions and compared it to the 77mm prime that costs literally 10 times more and has a whopping forum rating of 9.8...
First the 28-90

Finally, the 77mm

[KungPOW]

Stop it man!

Don't make me break out my jupiter 9!

[roentarre]

Originally Posted by KungPOW

Stop it man!

Don't make me break out my jupiter 9!

You just made the point. Voe did extensive testing comparing Jupiter to Fa 77 ltd and lenses of similar focal lengths. Jupiter 9 is as good as Fa 77

Most of the consumer lenses on the market today are just as good as any other expensive so-called top notch lenses.

This is why it is not about the "tool". It is about what photographs you are aiming to produce using the tools. Some of us developed passions for certain lenses and you do not have to like these lenses.