Zoom and Prime Lenses

[Yi-P]

Coming back from some shooting with either fellow members in this forum or friends of mine around, I've noticed something interesting.

Most people tend to fill their bag with zoom lenses. That is from the wide angles of 12-24 to powerful zooms on 70-200. For the prime that stays in the bag which will be a 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 lens.

Zooms are bigger, bulkier than most primes, and they're usually more expensive and slower than primes. Will the little flexibility hold up against the fast and sharp primes? Whereas prime lenses will force you to move yourself around for composing a shot to your liking, and zoom will make you even lazier each time around.

As being a hobby/enthusiastic photographer (as most of us here are), do you think zooms are better than primes, or the other way around?

[pippin88]

Primes to decently cover the range of the 70-200 for less than the cost? Don't think they exist.

Don't know of wide wide angle prime either.

IMO, primes and zooms each have their places.
Being on a limited budget, I go with zooms, because they cover more situations with less lenses.

[Yi-P]

When using zooms, do you find yourself using every single mm available to you? I dont think these few mm will make a big hit.

Most zoom focals used are the widest and longest ranges, while the mid ranges are often ignored or simply slipped by during the zoom to get your perspective. In exception of a 18-200 which zoom range is way too much.

[Justin]

Naw, 18-200 is just right - my only lens through a month in Europe. I missed something wider, but the 18-200 was brilliant and I took shots at just about every mm the lens has.

Taking three or four primes to cover that would just not be practical.

But I don't use it often day to day - for portraits, the 35-70. I have a 28 but find I am not using it much at the moment (apart from with a macro-reversing ring, wow). I have a feeling I'm going big on the 12-24 over the next few months, loving the extra mm.

It's a matter of cost, i agree with pippin88

I'd love a big load of primes for various stuff, the sharpest, bestest lens I have is a 20 year old 50 f1.8 manual lens.

[Aussie Dave]

I agree that both zooms & primes both have their place.

Sometimes, you cannot move your location and a zoom allows you to get closer to the shot you're after.

Of course primes should give you nice images because they can be designed around that one fixed focal length, but the trade-off is their flexibility in certain circumstances.

However, the same can be said for zooms, where alot of them out on the market have a variable aperture, which can prove a nightmare in bad lighting conditions....so they too have a trade-off.

I guess it comes down to your budget, what you mainly shoot and what trade-offs you're prepared to live with.....

For the average hobbyist, the zoom lens is always going to be preferred, until lens lust kicks in

[Yi-P]

Its all well said about the places and use of them both.

For what I've seen from my photos, most of the 'stunners' and well composed, exposed shots come from a prime lens. In which using a prime lens forces me to think about what I shoot and how to get it. With a zoom on hands, I get to stand in one place and adjust the zoom until I 'get it right' and snap away. Zoom stops me from seeing a shot at an angle with its flexibility.

As said, being a hobbist and still learning at large, primes are more expensive to cover the range, but will definately boost up the joy of learning photography IMHO.


**
By the way, may I ask, what are the zoom and primes you have and what is the usage ratio of them?

[Reschsmooth]

Ideally, I would probably want to have a bunch of really fast primes that I can zoom with my position or simply crop. That said, a zoom provides the element of speed in that, with my 80-200mm, if I was too close at 200, I don't have to worry about changing lenses.

There will often be instances when you can't adjust your position or adjust it quickly, and a zoom can actually help.

P

[rokkstar]

Yi-P,

I have two primes, a 50 and 85 (the 85 you almost swapped at the portrait meet ).
I find I use my primes more and more. Granted, I have the kit lens, which is fantastic IMO, and a McZoom 700-300, but they hardly ever see light of day. I agree totally about what you said about having to think about the shot more with a prime.
I'd love a 17-35 to replace my kit because I use the primes for anything over 50mm. I'd also like a fast wide prime, like the 28mm. If I had that I might get the 12-24 instead.

I guess it just comes down to personal preference.

[cyanide]

For the most part, I use primes way more than zooms - well, so far in my shooting life, anyway (only 12-18 mths).

I haven't used the 18-70 kit lens for a few months now. My only other zoom at the moment (70-200 VR) has had a solid workout in the last fortnight as I am trying to cover an amateur football comp (played at night)... but apart from that I haven't used it much this year, actually. (Still love it, though... )

My primes, I use a lot. If I am carrying one only, attached to body, it is almost always either the 35mm f2 or the 50mm 1.4 (particularly if it's getting towards dusk). If I am carrying a couple of lenses, then it's some combination of 20mm / 35mm / 50mm, depending on the situation. I am hiding my wallet from myself over the 85mm 1.4... but it's just a matter of time. I find I prefer shooting at lower apertures.

Why buy primes over zooms? For me, I found that:

a) I wanted a faster lens than the kit immediately; then the 50mm wasn't always wide enough;

b) I really couldn't make a choice between the 17-55 and the 28-70, so in the interim I bought some primes to "tide me over" (some were secondhand, which helped the wallet, too).

If I had a fast zoom in the right range, I *might* find myself carrying that more often than the prime combos - but I am not sure. I've been deliberating over the 17-55 vs 28-70 decision for months... it's been a hard one. But I will definitely keep my primes, regardless - they are great for when you want an extremely portable but good quality package.

[Yi-P]

Matt,

By the time you tried on the 85/1.4, I knew you wouldnt like to take it off your camera, do you? Its simply a beautiful glass, despite its relatively large/heavy side, but still not anywhere near the monster 17-55 or 28-70 size/weight. Its just right on the hands, and the 2 extra stops and DOF, its just amazing.



At the moment, I have more primes over zooms. For the zooms I have the 10-20, 18-70 and 70-300, quite a great range to cover up with. Tho, they are not fast lenses at all. Using them indoors when flash is not a true option, they're mostly useless. I use most the 18-70 for casual events, its light and small, wont intimidate many people, among with the SB800, its just what I need. The 10-20 uses are mostly outdoor for landscapes, sometimes indoor in tight spaces, the 10mm is just amazing. Lastly, my 70-300, its been sitting here in boredom of darkness in its own bag for months and have not seen any light.

On the primer side, I basically got what I need now. A range at 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.4 and 300/4. Missing the wide and mid-long rangees, but It doesnt matter too much for me, I rarely use those ranges. Adding a 20 and 180 primes can be a dream, but I cant afford them. Now, most of my best shots come from these lenses, simply because they make me think about what I shoot before pressing the shutter.

[jdear]

Im starting to shoot more and more weddings where you dont have the luxury of time to fiddle around swapping prime lenses and adjusting your position. I have 2 camera bodies and Ill be shooting with both in tandem but I cant imagine changing lenses between 35/50/85/300 and foot zooming.

I just placed an order for the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS lenses which will add to my 50mm f1.8 and 60mm f2.8 macro.

For a long time I only shot with a 50mm f1.8 on my nikon F100 as I couldnt afford any other lense. I agree you do have to think a bit more about composition, but for what Im doing, Ill prefer zooms and the odd prime here and there. (canon 85 f1.2L calleth)

my 2c

Jonathan

[JordanP]

I must say that in my experience (limited as it is) fast primes have an edge. That said, the majority of my shooting is done with the 17-55 2.8 and the 70-200 vr 2.8. The only prime in my gear is the 85 1.8

I feel I'm lacking at the wide end, but with what is availible .... that will be another zoom (10-20 Sigma). As for Macro, I don't have that covered yet ... but it will not be a zoom - too much a specialist lens.

Biggest issue for me shooting weddings is as mentiioned by jdear. There isn't much time to keep swaping lenses. 2 camera bodies means the 17-55 and the 70-200 get a good workout. The only time the 85mm is on the camera is at the begining when I am shooting inside and 70-200 would not be ideal.

Some people can tell the difference between a fast prime and fast zoom shot by looking at the image - most can't.

Cheers,

[Yi-P]

I shall agree with those money making shots which you cant afford the time (and money lost) in changing lenses, is where the zoom comes into play.

As for professionals who feed their wife and children by taking photos, its by all means they need the flexibility and quality to bag their shot on the run, they have no time to loose.

As I first mentioned at start, it is from a hobbist and enthusiasist point of view. And for the pros, let me rephrase it to your leisure time in taking pictures, not on the rush in a job.

[cyanide]

I am also curious - for those who do use primes, if you are going out to shoot (but without anything specific in mind), do you carry a couple of lenses or do you commit to just one focal length for that outing and just "make it work"....?

For me - it comes down to 'carrying space'. I am still waiting for my Slingshot 200 so until then I more often than not just take the camera + attached lens only. Otherwise my only other bag option is a really old and beat up toploader than I don't like much...

[Gordon]

I am also curious - for those who do use primes, if you are going out to shoot (but without anything specific in mind), do you carry a couple of lenses or do you commit to just one focal length for that outing and just "make it work"....?

I'm a prime kinda guy the 18-70 is attached to the relatively unused D70 sitting in my bag, it hasnt had an outing since I got the D200 and added to my collection of primes, apart from letting my gf use it on a trip to Central Oz in May.
Mostly if I'm heading bush and have a limited lens carrying capacity, such as when riding my mountain bike I take along just a few lenses, depending on what I might see to shoot. Generally it will be something like: 30 f/1.4 + 85 f/1.4 or 30 f/1.4 + 105 f/2.8 micro. If I'm really short on space I'll take the old manual 55 f/2.8 micro instead of the 105.
If I have a bit more space and there might be wildlife or birds to photograph I might add the manual 180mm f/2.8 or even the manual 300 f/4.5 to my Camelbak pack.
Quite often I carry all that extra weight around and dont take any photos, then it just becomes weight training on the bike

If I'm hiking instead of riding I'll take a larger pack and add the 20mm f/1.8 too. If I dont have the 20mm with me I can sometimes just stitch some 30mm images together.

Sure a zoom would be handy in case of a wedding, but its a long time since I did any wedding photos, so I dont really miss zooms at all

Gordon

[JordanP]

I shall agree with those money making shots which you cant afford the time (and money lost) in changing lenses, is where the zoom comes into play.

As for professionals who feed their wife and children by taking photos, its by all means they need the flexibility and quality to bag their shot on the run, they have no time to loose.

As I first mentioned at start, it is from a hobbist and enthusiasist point of view. And for the pros, let me rephrase it to your leisure time in taking pictures, not on the rush in a job.

I still stand by my first and last sentances - making money or having fun. Primes have the edge and quality zooms are all but. If it is a quality issue and the best is the only option, then fast primes. It is a close contest if it is not about the absolute best.

[whiz]

I find that the very last thing that I consider when looking at any image, is if it was taken with a prime or zoom.
The difference between zoom and prime these days in visible sharpness has decreased to the point where if you get a good zoom, it is every bit as sharp as a prime for general purpose photography.

There will always be people who disagree with the Primes are better line of thought. I think that we should confine that back to the past where it belongs.
Consider what you're likely to need, or bring your whole kit.
The choice is yours, but if you're printing 6x4's, you're not going to notice a lot of sharpness difference.

There is way too much unsubstanciated bullshit associated with lens selection.
Keep that in mind.

[Matt. K]

As mentioned by others, the sharpness issue is pretty well resolved (pun intended) but one issue that can be relevent is reliability. If I were going to the North Pole for a 3 month shoot I would insist on primes. They are less likely to freeze up and they require no battery power. They will also take more rough handling and so are more likely to survive a nasty drop.

[Justin]

are you suggesting a meet, Matt? It'd round out Yi-p lens tests for sure!

[spaz]

My 50 just sits on the camera all the time - I think I've used the 18-70 for about 10 shots (if that) and the 70-300 is also rarely used (except for one portrait sitting).

Since the first time I used a prime I said that it makes composition much more interesting especially when you need to "zoom out". That being said, I would definitely like to add an 85 (anyone want to give me $1500) and something a littler wider around 24-35.

I'm actually such a fan of primes that I've got a new website going up soon - take a look in the General forum "50mm Prime Owners - Help Me"

[Yi-P]

are you suggesting a meet, Matt? It'd round out Yi-p lens tests for sure!

What lens tests are we going for now?

[padey]

As being a hobby/enthusiastic photographer (as most of us here are), do you think zooms are better than primes, or the other way around?

Generally for a hobbyist, any zoom you can afford is the right lens. No need to read any further.

Regarding Primes there is no one answer, just because there are some great primes and some rubbish primes. For example comparing the best nikon zoom to the best nikon prime (70-200mm f2.8 Vs 200mm f2), the zoom needs to be stopped down to f5.6 to match the sharpness of the prime at f2. The bokeh from the f2 prime is creamyer then the zoom. Or compare the kit lens to the 85mm f1.4. To get equivalent sharpness to the f1.4 you need to stop it down to f8. There are some times when you can't do that. Yet the 14mm f2.8 prime is rubbish compared to the 12-24 f4.

My point is you really need to treat this question in a case-by-case basis. Generally you do what you pay for. Ie 28 & 50 & 85 f1.4s, 105 & 135 f2, 180 2.8 and 200 f2, 300 f2.8 are all superior then any equivalent zooms.

Eveyone has talked about flexability, but have missed that primes are more flexible then zooms regarding DoF and usage in low light. Comparing the 50mm f1.4 Vs the 17-55mm f2.8. There are two stops different between these lenses. The difference between 2 stops is like ISO400-ISO1600. So you can get shots with the faster prime that you couldn't with a zoom.