Prime vs Zoom

[Mitchell]

Hi All,

I have just been introduced to the site by Geoff as we were whiling away the time at work on night shift. It looks great!

I have only recently taken an interest in photography and am shooting with an EOS350D. I am now looking to buy some new lenses. The question I have is about Zoom vs Prime lenses.

I have found that when I am shooting with a Prime lens it can be quite frustrating trying to compose the picture that I want - whereas with a Zoom lense this is not such a problem.

Does a decision to go with a zoom lens always mean sacrificing image quality? What sort of things should I consider in buying a balanced suite of lenses?

Thanks,
Mitchell.

[Geoff]

Hi All,

I have just been introduced to the site by Geoff as we were whiling away the time at work on night shift. It looks great!

I have only recently taken an interest in photography and am shooting with an EOS350D. I am now looking to buy some new lenses. The question I have is about Zoom vs Prime lenses.

I have found that when I am shooting with a Prime lens it can be quite frustrating trying to compose the picture that I want - whereas with a Zoom lense this is not such a problem.

Does a decision to go with a zoom lens always mean sacrificing image quality? What sort of things should I consider in buying a balanced suite of lenses?

Thanks,
Mitchell.

Welcome Mitchell!!
I'm guessing you will get a few responses to this question. Here's my two cents worth:

I think it comes down to how much you want to/can spend.

There are a number of advantages with prime (fixed focal length) lenses however if you have the money to afford a really good quality zoom lens then this can also do the job you want. I think it's a generalisation (but a fair one) that fixed prime lenses whilst may cost you a bit more (to do what you want) then they will be worth it.

You have already commented to me that one of our other new-ish members (Sheila - also a canon photographer) said that it's best to spend more money upfront and get quality glass than buying semi-sub standard/cheaper glass then going out a few months/years later with what you should have outlayed in the beginning.

What sort of things do you like to photograph? Ok..I know the answer to this already but it may help other people on the forum to give you advice. I look forward to you posting some of your travel images, particularly the ones from Cambodia!

Anyway, welcome again. You will find this place an amazing source of information, and, if you allow it to, a place to meet some fantastic like minded people and the chance to share your own knowledge/photos and skills as they develop!

[losfp]

It's a funny one - I actually find my framing improves when I'm using my 50mm prime lens! Since I can't zoom, it FORCES me to think more about my framing, and I actually move around until it looks good. When I have the zooms on my D70s, I get lazy and just use the zoom to frame the shot.

[Onyx]

Hi Mitchell, welcome to the forums. I'll back up Geoff's statements that you'll find this place to be a valuable and invaluable resource (both at the same time!)

Does a decision to go with a zoom lens always mean sacrificing image quality?

No. I think it used to be the case maybe 20 years ago when optics were not as refined as they are today, that primes were universally heralded as offering superior image quality. Today, I'm not so sure that still holds true. Likewise the argument for/against third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc.)
But to get equal image quality to a prime from a zoom lens - you'd probably have to look at the higher end; ie. the red-ringed L series lenses for you Canonites. The 18-55 "kit lens" from your 350D for instance would not compare favourably with any prime lens in its range. Likewise any slow consumer 70-300/75-300 telephoto zoom lenses.

No matter prime or zoom, it is definitely cheaper to buy once and buy it right (as per Sheila Smart's philosophy). If you buy sub-standard and move your way up as your needs change, there's a whole lot of money lost on mediocre lenses along the way. On the other hand, if you spring for the best and later find you're not using them and can no longer justify keeping them, you'll be pleasantly surprised by their strong resale values. The most favourable outcome of course is you continue to develop an interest in photography and maximise your enjoyment of this hobby having a set of lenses that won't constrain your shooting technique or photographic results but compliment your skill and reward your shooting.

Bottom line: Invest in L.

[myarhidia]

G'day Mitchel.

Firstly "as above". I agree with the comments already made. However one thing not mentioned with respect to prime V zoom is the speed of the lens.

A quality zoom (eg 17-55/2.8 ) is great, but many stops slower than the 50/1.4 prime, which is also a quality lens & much more affordable. So back to what was mentioned above, what are you planning on shooting. Will you be doing a lot of low light work? If so, then the speed of the lens should be an important part of your decision making.

Good luck & Welcome.

John

[gstark]

Mitvhell,

One technique that's often overlooked in these days of fast, high quality zooms, is that you can often move closer to (or further away from) the subject, in order to help change your framing.

But you are quite correct in trying to get your cropping right at the time that you're making the image. This of course requires planning, forethought, and the photographer to actually critically examine the elements present in the viewfinder, prior to pressing the shutter release. This is not a bad thing.

But it's all already been said - a high quality lens, whether zoom or prime, will help you to produce better quality images, but you should expect to pay a premium for such a lens, and regardless of whether it's a prime or zoom, it's still up to you to learn how to properly make the best use of that lens, find its sweet spot, and then start shooting the images that you're wanting to see.

[Heath Bennett]

I reckon the only zoom that beats the primes of its focal length is the 17-35 2.8 nikkor. And even with that thought, I doubt it could beat the 28 1.4 stepped down to 2.8 to match.

Primes are generally faster and smaller. Two huge bonuses.

Once stepped down to the zoom of their focal length they blow them away quality wise.

The main reason I buy zooms primarily is for convenience. I guess also because sometimes you have only a moment for a shot, not enough time to change lenses.

EDIT - I'm actually quite happy I started off with cheaper lenses as I didn't know how to treat them correctly. Now I know better and all my glass is well cared for.

Technically a lens may be better, buut it may not show in the final product in real life! Even going through older photos the other day, I was amazed with how much the lens quality does not matter. With pathetic glass I was pulling off shots that were just as good as shots I take today.

[Geoff]

Good advice Heath - but Mitch is a canon user so the 17-35 ain't going to be of use to him

[Oneputt]

Heath you made a very good point at the end there. Whilst we all love to own the best gear, and I am no exception, I have taken some great photos with a fairly basic point and shoot.

[shutterbug]

Hi Mitchell,

First question is what type off photography are you into?

What are your current lens?

I would get a 50mm, fast, light weight and makes you think and cheap too.

Vince

[rookie2]

If I had my time again I would have just stuck with my D70 + kits len read ALL the relevant threads here and just kept practicing and learning with that lens.

HOWEVER...the lens lust hits us rookies hard and quickly burnt a hole in my pocket with a nikkor 50mm 1.4 and 70 - 300 ED and extension tubes.

I know they are not top of range but nearly a year down the track I am just starting to appreciate how difficult it is to really 'know' a camera and lens and what it does, without spending hours of quality time in the field (and then refering back thru here for great advice from wisened heads).

while I dont regret having the other lenses in my bag they are not in use much compared to the kit lens. In my future life (ie kids grown, job gone, mortgage a memory) I want to do lots of macro and sports. I will use the 70 -300 in the coming months for kids sport so not a bad place to learn the ropes.

in a nutshell - Get by with kit lens with lots of practice and forums like this (plus mags/books) .

Easy to say but very deifficult when early photos inspire you and create the early stages of lens lust (is this a documented condition?

just my two bobs worth (or jills worth for those PC members)

cheers

[PiroStitch]

Definitely consider what sort of photography you would like to pursue. If it's birds, motor racing, animals - obviously a zoom will be required. If you're more into portraits or landscapes, zooms may be an option but primes will mostly be preferred here (for me anyway ).

Also there is a zoom function on primes, it's called legs This method is not applicable however if moving back and forth manually causes severe injury (ie. trucks on the highway, chasing crocs, etc)

[Steffen]

One technique that's often overlooked in these days of fast, high quality zooms, is that you can often move closer to (or further away from) the subject, in order to help change your framing.

So true. Plus, while zooms let you choose the cropping on the spot, moving back and forth also changes the perspective, with sometimes interesting results.

To the orgininal question: I wouldn't worry too much about whether the gear you buy is top of the line or better or worse. Just buy the few bits you reckon are cool and you can afford - and make them sing! A lot of people (myself firmly included) tend to sulk over the poor quality of their pictures and wish they had the proper gear to take really good shots. In reality, that's mostly BS. The most important bit of gear is the proverbial 6 inches behind the viewfinder. The good news is, this is also the only piece of gear that improves over time.

Cheers
Steffen.

[ipv6ready]

Few things about this Q that I will add. Some will agree, some wont. But if I had my way again this is what I would do.

1. Buy secondhand cheaper glass from ebay. Take it out and Practice and practice. Then practice some more. No point saving up for a 70-200mm Nikkor VR if the kit lens is all you have.

2. During this time save money for quality glass.

3. You will have a better idea of what you want as you get aquainted with photography

4. Unless you won lotto you are not going to get everything By this time you will know what it is you want to do mainly. Portraits, night shoots, sports or landscapes. Get quality glass that helps you take better photos for your chosen area. ie. I like taking pics of landscape and portraits so got quality wide angle and medium telephoto lenses. I also wanted brokeh etc

5. When the time comes buy quality glass new from birdie, you can't go wrong or secondhand from members here, usually well taken care off, as member know how to treat their equipment.

6. When you get the new stuff sell your old duplicate stuff on ebay and recoupe.

Another thing to note, once in a while I get asked by collegues to take pics of work soccer comp or want some reach. So bought a cheap 200-400mm sigma apo. For the amount of times I use this lens, its top value.

I could not justify upgrading this lens to a 200-400mm nikkor vr but if you wanted to take pics of wildlife mainly you might disagree. Also it might be the weight and size that are important to you, because you want to go bush walking and hiking all the times. You get my drift.

7. Don't discount cheaper glass. As some are gems especially on a DSLR's smaller sensor as you are using only the "sharper" centre of the image circle.

8. The real important thing....it's you the Photographer that frames the shot, composes and press the shutter release.

[gstark]

I like taking pics of landscape and portraits so got quality wide angle and medium telephoto lenses. I also wanted brokeh etc

For the newbies here, brokeh is the term used to describe the financial state of photographers after they've bought that one lens that gives them those beautiful out of focus highlights.



Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Glen]

I like taking pics of landscape and portraits so got quality wide angle and medium telephoto lenses. I also wanted brokeh etc

For the newbies here, brokeh is the term used to describe the financial state of photographers after they've bought that one lens that gives them those beautiful out of focus highlights.



Sorry, couldn't resist.

How accurate

[Grev]

For the newbies here, brokeh is the term used to describe the financial state of photographers after they've bought that one lens that gives them those beautiful out of focus highlights.

I'd go brokeh for the bokeh too!

[Mitchell]

For the newbies here, brokeh is the term used to describe the financial state of photographers after they've bought that one lens that gives them those beautiful out of focus highlights.

Thanks to wikipedia I'm now in on the joke...
It's like learning a new language