Primes vs. Zooms

[Alex1994]

OK, this forum has been a little slow in the past week, so I thought I'd spark some thought.

I personally believe primes to be superior to zooms:

Primes are:
- sharper glass for the money
- for the same price, faster glass
- smaller and lighter
- tools that make you focus far more on composition, which is what really matters

Zooms are surely just huge, clumsy, threatening pieces of glass that deliver sub-par results, right?

[miketoll]

Ha, that is a good old chestnut that has not reared it's head for a long time! What you say is theoretically true and was certainly noticeable back in the days of your Olympus OM1 ( ) but the quality of many good quality zooms these days is such that you would be hard pressed to tell whether a zoom had been used or not. The new Canon 70-200 L IS zoom is a match for almost anything prime or not for instance. The down side is that today's new materials and designs have made available 'all in one' zooms with incredibly wide zoom ranges which of course leads to too many design compromises and so quality definitely suffers. Same with 'kit' zooms which are built down to a price and will not match a 50mm prime at that focal length but does give versatility, That is the point of course, versatility. Two or three zoom lenses will cover an enormous range of focal lengths at a reasonable cost and are light enough to carry. A fixed focal length lens does not take a better picture if it is left at home because so many lenses are too heavy! Your last point of course has some validity but there are occasions when a zoom makes a shot possible where it would not otherwise be so because you can not move around or have not got the time to. One last point, smaller and lighter? At one focal length yes but not if you dial in all the focal lengths covered by the zoom. Horses for courses, I am lucky enough to use both zooms and a couple of fixed focal lengths (400mm and 100mm macro). There Alex that should help kick off the debate for others to join in.

[Nigel G]

Originally Posted by Alex1994

OK, this forum has been a little slow in the past week, so I thought I'd spark some thought.

I personally believe primes to be superior to zooms:

Primes are:
- sharper glass for the money
- for the same price, faster glass

But a lot more money to cover the same focal range

- smaller and lighter

Not if you have to carry more glass overall

- tools that make you focus far more on composition, which is what really matters

Zooms are surely just huge, clumsy, threatening pieces of glass that deliver sub-par results, right?

You've obviously never used Oly HG/SHG zooms

Here's one I did earlier with with an EFL of 100-400, f2.8-3.1, weight <1kg and cost <£1K -Morgan - I think you would be pushed to cover that range at that weight or price with primes

[postcardcv]

That's a superb set of sweeping statements - hopefully it will have the desired effect and get a bit of discussion going...

If used well then a prime should outperform an equivelent zoom lens, though in real world shooting you often struggle to see the difference. I've got both primes and zooms and like both - my main birding lens is a prime which I love as the IQ is stunning and I very rarely want a shorter focal length. However for shooting people I tend to use a pair of zooms and it allows me to alter my framing without moving closer and distracting the subject (I find this particularly handy when photographing kids).

I was recently involved in a discussion about primes vs zooms and one chap was explaining how much better his 85 f1.2 prime was compared to a 24-105 f4 zoom that I had. I couldn't argue that the extra stops would give him and huge advantage in low light and that at f4 his lens was clearly sharper. However I did have to laugh when he then turned on his studio lights and started shooting at f11 and was still claiming that his prime gave him a real advantage, when the results showed no difference between the lenses...

[Alex1994]

I think the ability of changing the focal length is really overrated. I can usually plan what prime to carry based on what I'll be shooting (I never carry more than 2 primes). So for portraiture I choose my 100mm, for cats in the street on holiday it's a 200mm, for a hike in a scenic area or even a city it's a wide-angle, street shooting needs a wide-angle, and if I don't know I just pack the nifty fifty. Fast 50mm lenses are superb, especially in cloudy Reading where most of the year is overcast.

Variable focal lengths encourage lazy and sloppy shooting in beginners - they just zoom in by a random flick of the wrist, whereas when you're counting paces or moving your head back and forth the framing is far more calculated.

How many times have I been stuck with my slow 24-135mm zoom with flash popping up, low shutter speeds...a fast prime just does the job.

In summary, you need a wide-angle prime for street and landscapes, a short tele for portraits and a 50mm for everything else (put in a decent macro if you want as well). That's an affordable but very high quality setup.

[andy153]

II have several primes and zooms - I too, usually only carry a couple of lenses with me, with the possibility of a third, depending upon where and what I am going to shoot. The two main lenses are zooms - a 12-24 f2.8 Nikkor and a 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor - each on their own body - the third lens is usually a 16mm Fisheye Nikkor. If I'm shooting Infrared then I have my 17-35 f2.8 on camera and may take a 70-200 or 70-300 with me. If I want to travel really light I take a D3/D700 with a 28-200 Nikkor lens on it. For wildlife I take 300 mm and 500 mm primes or one prime and a 50-500 Bigma zoom.
So where is this leading to as far as this post is concerned? Well I would suggest it is a matter of personal choice, prime or zoom. The important thing in all this is that unless your glass MAKER is a good one you might as well stick a milk bottle on the front of your camera and shoot through it ( Idea for someone ? ) Some of todays manufacturers are not up to making milk bottles - I know that there are some good ones out there but QUALITY is what is needed in your lenses, and you need to be tough if you get a dud. Yes, I've had a couple of dud Nikkors in my time but both were quickly replaced ( They came from Taiwan, NOT Japan ). And in spite of what some assert - faster prime lenses are not always the answer. You out there know your budgets and know what you like to photograph so my advice would be - always get the best lenses you can afford, be they zooms or primes....... and then learn to use them properly. As for Alex' last point - They used to nickname the 24-120 range of Nikkor zooms as "Streetsweepers" - a lot of journo pro's thought this range gave them the best opportunity of getting 99% of the shots they would need - as they made a living from this - who are we to argue with their years of depending on such lenses for their livelihoods?

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by Alex1994

In summary, you need a wide-angle prime for street and landscapes, a short tele for portraits and a 50mm for everything else (put in a decent macro if you want as well). That's an affordable but very high quality setup.

While that lens line up might work for you it certainly wouldn't do the job for me - I like to photograph birds and so need long lenses too...

I had a job last weekend which involved taking shots at a conference, I had restrictions as to where I could stand and was glad to be using a 70-200 zoom. I needed to take full length and close up shots throughout the day and switching between primes would have been a lot more hassle than shooting with one lens. I know plenty of people shoot weddings with prime lenses but I'd hate to do so, a 28-70 on one body and a 70-200 on a second and I can shoot the whole day without having to change anything but memory cards. Perhaps that's just me being lazy, or maybe I'm just playing it safe, but either way I'll be stick to what I know.

[andy153]

Originally Posted by postcardcv

I know plenty of people shoot weddings with prime lenses but I'd hate to do so, a 28-70 on one body and a 70-200 on a second and I can shoot the whole day without having to change anything but memory cards. Perhaps that's just me being lazy, or maybe I'm just playing it safe, but either way I'll be stick to what I know.

Well said - Another point is that most Camera/Lens makers respond to what the market wants or needs - if no one wanted primes and/or zooms - then one or the other would disappear from their catalogues. As a photographer I try and have the highest quality, most effective and flexible for the job lenses with me at the necessary times - pity the chap with the super duper 50 mm f1.2 prime who arrives and finds there is not enough room at a location for him to step back or move forward to be able to frame the shot.

[Alex1994]

Don't forget that we don't all have a bottomless pit of money. I'm a student and so very strapped for cash (hence my decision to shoot film on a 70s SLR - may sound silly but I've done the maths and it works out). For me zooms that rival the quality of my primes are just completely way out of budget (me being cheap doesn't help). Exotic L-series Canons or 70-200 f2.8s are completely unaccessible to me. As for keeping two lenses on two bodies...I can dream.

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by Alex1994

Don't forget that we don't all have a bottomless pit of money. I'm a student and so very strapped for cash (hence my decision to shoot film on a 70s SLR - may sound silly but I've done the maths and it works out). For me zooms that rival the quality of my primes are just completely way out of budget (me being cheap doesn't help). Exotic L-series Canons or 70-200 f2.8s are completely unaccessible to me. As for keeping two lenses on two bodies...I can dream.

I don't think there are many with bottomless pits, but we can all dream! I'm fortunate enough to make a bit of money out of photography (and have an understanding wife) so have managed to buy some nice kit. I agree that cheaper zooms can be upsettingly poor, where as cheap primes (like the Canon 50 f1.8) can be stunning.