5

The trinity 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm zooms are lens that professionals rely upon for the convenience of a zoom but a good quality similar to a prime. A lot of development has gone into these as we see multiple generations of these lens as well as third parties making copies of their own.

There are many primes back in the day between 70-200mm (75, 85, 100, 105, 135, 180 and 200 just to name a few). Only recently have we seen Nikon release a 105/1.4E and Sigma with their expanding Art line with an 85/1.4 and 135/1.8.

Since people had gravitated to the 70-200/2.8, will we see this same trend with the 24-70/2.8 as primes in the focal lengths are "ignored" in favor of a good zoom? Or is it fairer to say that most of the lens/optical development has gone into improving zooms as primes are good enough and updates are marginal within the 24-70 range?

Related

Community
  • 1
unsignedzero
  • 2,063
  • 13
  • 33
  • The only two focal lengths in your list that aren't represented in current production are 75 and 100. There's no record of Nikon having made a 75mm, F-mount lens, and the last time they made a 100mm lens was the 100 f/2.8, which was discontinued in 1985. There's been a 105 in the lineup continuously since 1981. So I guess I'm not seeing the trend of primes in the 70-200 range going away. – Blrfl Mar 01 '17 at 21:24
  • 3
    This question is primarily opinion-based. The assertion that primes in the 70-200 range have been ignored "since people had gravitated to the 70-200/2.8", is open to interpretation. – scottbb Mar 01 '17 at 21:53
  • I should clarify: I think this is a very interesting question, but I think it will generate more discussion and opinion than a good Stack Exchange question would warrant. Perhaps this can be "round-tabled" in chat to make it better for SE? I'm not sure about other SE sites, but I've noticed that the Photo.SE community is very good about not "question sniping" something that somebody brings up in chat. – scottbb Mar 01 '17 at 23:08
  • @scottbb How does one move a question into chat? – unsignedzero Mar 01 '17 at 23:18
  • ... um... not sure.. ? =) Sorry, I don't think it's possible to move it to chat. But you can just copy/paste into a new message in chat – scottbb Mar 01 '17 at 23:46
  • 1
    Since the 14-24 is pretty much only a Nikon thing, and a fairly recent one at that, is this question Nikon specific? – Michael C Mar 02 '17 at 02:46
  • 1
    Before a set of three f/2.8 zooms were the professionals holy trinity a set of 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm primes were because the zooms back then were nowhere near the quality they have been in the past 10-15 years. – Michael C Mar 02 '17 at 02:48
  • 1
    what is the practical side of your question? there are many different lenses because people have many different needs. Don't buy something you don't like/need – aaaaa says reinstate Monica Mar 02 '17 at 03:28
  • @MichaelClark I keep forgetting Canon is 16-35/2.8 not a 14-24/2.8. This is meant for both Nikon and Canon. – unsignedzero Mar 02 '17 at 09:06
  • Canon also has the EF 11-24mm f/4 that is rectilinear with very little barrel distortion all the way down to 11mm. – Michael C Mar 02 '17 at 09:28
  • Weird question... I have 24, 28, 35 & 50 primes and not a 24-70. I have 85, 105 & 135 primes and not a 70-200. The only "pro" zoom I have is the 16-35 2.8D, and some "consumer" zooms on mid range and telephoto just for travelling light. Oh, how heretic!! I don't have the "holy trinity"!!! – roetnig Mar 02 '17 at 10:02
  • @roetnig You have an "original" trinity: 24mm, 50mm and 85mm primes. – Michael C Mar 02 '17 at 14:00
  • @MichaelClark yes, but not the "holy trinity" as mentioned by the OP. I rarely use zoom lenses, primes are better and lighter (and cheaper if you don't mind to use good old lenses instead of the latest). The best of using primes is that make you think the photograph in advance. – roetnig Mar 02 '17 at 14:08
  • Sometime, though, you need to think about more than one photograph in quick succession with different angles of view from the same position. Like any tool, it all depends upon for what you're using it. – Michael C Mar 02 '17 at 14:11
  • 1
    Exactly, still don't get the point of the question. Some use zooms, some primes, some both. And still prime lenses are the first recommendation for starters that want to go beyond the kit lens. Reasons: quality, affordability and makes you think before shooting. But it's just a matter of taste – roetnig Mar 02 '17 at 16:13
  • 1
    @roetnig The introduction of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II in 2010 was a sort of watershed moment for zoom lenses. Nikon and others have followed suit with very high quality telephoto zoom lenses. Other than updates to Canon's and Nikon's Super Telephoto series there have been a dearth of prime lenses introduced past 85mm until the recent introduction of the new Nikon 105mm and the new Sigma 135mm f/2. Not many folks were talking about the older 135mm, 180mm, and 200mm prime lenses already on the market, either. A few years later a wave of 24-70mm upgrades have emerged as well. – Michael C Mar 03 '17 at 04:28
  • @roetnig: Michael Clark seems to answer it best. Development of short telephotos have disappeared. I understand that primes and zooms have their uses. I too long primes but I have a zoom and I'm debating about getting something longer a prime between 70-200 but notice that there haven't been many new designs. – unsignedzero Mar 05 '17 at 02:18
  • @unsignedzero Or, in retrospect, at least for Canon and Nikon development of lenses in general had moved to (secret) new lens mounts for their respective yet to be announced (in 2017) mirrorless systems. – Michael C Jun 11 '20 at 14:40

1 Answers1

6

Will primes become rarer in the 24-70mm range for DSLRs like they did for the 70-200mm?

Probably not. The biggest advantage of most primes in the 24-70mm range is the wider than f/2.8 aperture to which the zooms, for the most part, are limited. Most telephoto primes past 200mm do not share that advantage.

There are also many prime lenses in that range that, while not cheap, provide image quality that even the best 24-70 f/2.8 lenses can't touch. The Zeiss Otus series, for example.

On the other end of the scale, consumer grade primes in the 24-70mm space can provide wider apertures and image quality that rivals or bests the premium zoom lenses at a fraction of the price.

This is not so much the case with telephoto lenses, where larger apertures require entrance pupils that significantly increase the size and weight of the lens. A 200mm f/2 requires a front element just as large as a 400mm f/4!

Telephoto zoom lenses are also easier to design since the entire focal length range is a telephoto design. Most 24-70mm zoom lenses start out at 24mm as retrofocus designs and shift to telephoto by 70mm. This highly complicates things.

Higher magnification also requires better optical design and precision manufacturing for the same image quality that can be had from shorter lenses with looser tolerances. As super telephoto lenses beginning at 300mm make it abundantly clear, even a prime lens with that much glass in it can be quite expensive. A 135mm f/2 typically costs as much or more than a 70-200mm f/4. So the advantage of price disappears somewhere between 100mm and 135mm for lenses designed for cameras with the 36x24mm format.

The reason there haven't been a who lot of updates for existing prime lenses in the 24-70mm lengths can probably be partially attributed to the relative maturity of the designs in that range that have been around for a couple of decades. The few updates that have been released by Canon, for instance, either add a non-optical feature such as IS (EF 24mm f/2.8 IS, EF 28mm f/2.8 IS, and 35mm f/2 IS introduced in 2012), a new AF motor type (EF 50mm f/1.8 STM introduced in 2015), or make significant improvements to things such as lens coatings that improve the lens' performance in certain challenging conditions (EF 35mm f/1.4 L II introduced in 2015).

Update: In retrospect, part of the reason we weren't seeing much lens activity from at least Canon and Nikon in the years leading up to 2017 when this question was asked is because they had shifted a lot of their lens development resources to their new yet to be announced mirrorless systems. I'm not as familiar with Nikon as with Canon, but in the past couple of years beginning in the second half of 2018 Canon has introduced 35mm, 50mm, and two 85mm prime lenses among the 11 lenses introduced so far in the RF mount with a 20mm registration distance that is much shorter than the EF mount 44mm registration distance.

Michael C
  • 175,039
  • 10
  • 209
  • 561
  • The last paragraph answers it! I'd ask about ultrawides but given how they're mostly retrofocal designs that require large physical apertures which need a lot of glass, I assume a similar argument applies? – unsignedzero Mar 05 '17 at 02:23