Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd Even if all zooms were, in some Bizarro alter reality, optically better than all primes, there is still the nagging
problem of the bulk factor. Save the Pringles cans for your chips; make mine a prime.
Can you create a survey that simulates actual hands-on experience?
Typical, "if you don't like the result, blame the test", behaviour. Can I create a test that re-creates your "actual hands on experience?" No, I can't, because I have no idea what your "hands on experience" is. If you were thinking there is some "hands on experience" that is common to everyone, well, no that doesn't exist, so it would be impossible.
As for tests, I don't get paid for this, I don't do it when people ask me to do it, I do it when it amuses me.
But can you create a survey that recreates your actual hands on experience? Of course you can. Quit waiting for me to do it. If you are going to wait a long time.
I do the best I have with what I have, and I have no idea how good a sample I have for each of the lenses I have, my lenses have been subject to carrying degrees of abuse, etc , etc.. I'm not saying it's the perfect test.
I am saying it's better than the unsupported drivel people carry around in their heads based on ridiculously subjective opinions with absolutely no head to head comparisons of any kind. There are 4 or 5 guys who answered the survey and could tell which image was the prime and were willing to pay for what the prime has to offer. I'm not saying there isn't a difference, there is. I see a clear difference in edge to edge and overall sharpness and resolution. And those would appear to be what makes an image for maybe 7% of the forum if you subtract the random selection value from those who selected the prime. But,the vast majority of voters selected other elements besides resolution. Factors such as contrast, apparent sharpness, as opposed to resolution test sharpness and colour rendition.
After running this test, my clear choice would be the Tamron 17-50, this from viewing all the images taken, not just the one's published. followed by the FA 35-80, the 35-80 strictly for it's colour rendition an apparent contrast.
Nevertheless, that's just me. My issue with prime supporters is not that they don't know what they are talking about. They do. My problem with prime supporters is their aggressive opinion, that their opinion is somehow, the informed opinion and that everyone else with different values are somehow mistaken. My opinion is that different values create different choices, none better than the others. My numbers show that unless you are going to buy really expensive prime lens, of which I don't own any to test, odds are about 10-1, you're going to be happier with a zoom.
My basic advice, cover your entire shooting range with zooms, and buy fast primes in focal lengths where you need low light performance, remains unchanged. Shooting at ƒ5.6 the advantage of primes is completely dependent on the values of the photographer, and the best zooms rival the best primes. The biggest advantage to primes remains you have more choice in sub ƒ2 primes than you do in sub ƒ2 zooms. That's when the size thing really comes into effect. Compare a Sigma 18-35 ƒ1.8 to a 31 ltd ƒ1.8. At that level the prime distinction is in the ball park. But walking down the ladder, by the time you get to the Pentax 14mm ƒ2.8, that size advantage is long gone.
In Pentax land the 31, 43, 50, and 77 are the primes worth considering, because of the quality of those lenses. Not necessarily because they are primes. And if you want fast glass those are enough to make the brand worth investing in.