Digital BW, The Print

> From: claudej1@... [mailto:claudej1@...]
>
> This is certainly a valid point for f/8 or f/11 shooters. At
> those apertures,
> "not much to be gained" certainly applies as the differences are
> minimal (but
> still slightly in favor of the primes by a narrow margin on paper).
>
> Where the real big differences lie is in the f/2-f/4 range. Here,
> the primes stomp the zooms for sure.
>
> Hey, selective focus and low light capability is one of the few
> weapons us
> portrait/Wedding photographers have left to combat the point and
> shooter clients with HP inkjets at home!!
>
> The 85mm f/1.2 L is still a better lens at 85mm than the excellent 70-200
> zooms of any make at f/2.8, and they can't do f/2. Most of the
> time you get what
> you pay for, but the law of diminshing returns sets in rather
> quickly, just like in audio.

I wouldn't dispute that primes are sharper than zooms, and there may be
cases where you can see the difference on a DSLR. I base my opinion on the
fact that the Canon bodies have a generous amount of anti-alias filtering
over the sensor, which places an absolute limit on how sharp an image you
can get with any lens. Knowing something about the math involved, it seems
to me that the sharpness I get with the 70-200mm L is right around where
that limit must be. In other words, if I could get any sharper, I'd start
seeing color moire, which is something that Canon cameras are known for not
having. But I could be off by a little, and there could be some room for
greater sharpness. Not a lot, though.

At some point, I'll probably pick up a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4, just to see what
it can do.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...