Prime Lens vs. Zoom Lens

I am upgrading to DSRL for the first time with the Alpha under consideration and am doing research on the relative merits of prime vs zoom. I would appreciate any comments from the more illustrious contributors to this forum on this comparison.

Much obliged

prime--- better quality..... usually faster.... less compromises..... better build

cons----- you have to move to get in closer or back off to get farther..... sometimes alot heavier...... less ability to play around with....

zoom---- more compromises in speed build quality..... more range the lens does the leg work instead of you.....

i tend to prefer zoom lens.... but its sometimes advisable to get a prime...... depends what kind of photography you do and your budget......

anyways im not as experienced as others so take my words with a grain of salt......... post it in other boards.... like canon slr lens forum they will also help you...

Alex

Modern Zoom are amazingly sharp, sometimes even sharper than most prime (such as Tamron 17-50, Tamron 28-75, Sigma 17-70). However, most "ZOOM" people refers to are like theTamron 28-200XR, which are slower, darker, and softer than any prime.

In short, it really depens on which ZOOM lens you're comaring against which prime. NOT ALL PRIME ARE SHARP, most need to be step down quite 1-2 stops for sharpness. I tend to favor zoom for composition reasons, and zoom also "tend to have" shorter mininum-focusing-distance which makes indoor shots easier.

Having said that, I do prefer to shoot prime when I have the time or the money!!!

.....but you'll fall in love with prime after you've used a good one....
--
Maxxum 7
KM 5D
10 Lenses from 20mm-300mm
5600 HSD

I can see there are issues of versatility, good optics and price. I like to get in on the action (so maybe a prime, say a 50mm starter lens) rather than lurking about like a sniper or voyeur with zoom when photographing people, which I prefer as a more interesting subject matter.

In addition to sharpness, primes also excel at distortion, contrast, bokeh, etc.

Thomas

I was lucky to buy many Minolta zooms and primes. It was a bit late to discover how good prime lenses are with much better colour, sharpness, less distortion, lighter etc
Here is a comparison made between a prime and a zoom, on the same camera





--
Mark K
http://www.pbase.com/herbridgemo

For a starter I　always start with zooms. Even with better optics, there is still much sharpness to be desired from zoom lenses.
Can you tell which is zoom and which is prime?





--
Mark K
http://www.pbase.com/herbridgemo

There is a wide variation in the quality and performance of "primes" just as there is with zooms. Not all primes are great, not all zooms are dogs.

Primes are generally simpler in design (production costs should be lower) and less difficult to get optically correct.

Zooms trade the need to carry more gear for the ease of not zooming with your feet. But they are generally mechanically and optically more complex. So something has to give if you want to keep the price down.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharp.shtml
--
Mark K
http://www.pbase.com/herbridgemo

I am planning to get an A100 when the price drops a little.

But before that I have been researching lenses -- comparing what is available versus how they rate, and attempting to find them ... gosh, e-bay has been picked over by hungry vultures :-(

These two sites have been very useful to me.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

http://www.vividoptic.com/Articles/MinoltaPrimesP1.htm

VP
--

Fujica STX-1N film SLR.

Sony DSC - H 1 (with Canon 250D Macro & 1.7x telephoto VCL-DH1758); Sony DSC - P 1 5 0;

People buy primes as they are fast, and faster than zooms.

A high quality zoom compared to a high quality prime, I have serious doubts printed on large sizes anyone could tell the difference. Sharpness wise that is...but hey some people swear it.. ( But then they would if they bought one)

Optical technology is a lot better than 30 years ago...

Good reasons for either...get a prime cos its fast...

Get a zoom cos its handy........

--

Mark K said:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharp.shtml
--
Mark K
http://www.pbase.com/herbridgemo

Click to expand...

I cant help but laugh when I read that LL piece by Reichmann...

He says some ok things...to a degree..

But to state hand holding a shot leads to inferior images...well sorry Reichmann thats a load of bull.......

If I shoot at a fast enough shutter speed then it matters not..

Another tester who needs a reality check
--

I have recently had a chance to examine this "myth" in detail.

A few years ago, I went on safari to Botswana. The only wildlife lens I had at the time was a Tokina 100-400 zoom as it was all I could afford. I got a lot of good shots that I really liked. I was happy.

Then I bought a Tokina ATX 100-300 f/4 zoom for my 7D. When I compared the photos from the two lenses, I could see the difference clearly, without having to zoom way in or get out a microscope. The 100-300 produced better images.

I fell in love with that lens. I used it as my main wildlife and zoo lens for about a year. I thought about getting a Minolta 300 f/4 G, but my Tokina was sharp, built like a tank and produced great images, AND had the extra 100-300 zoom range! Seemed like a no-brainer and I was happy.

Then my Tokina broke. It needed repair, and I was off on another trip. So I bought a used 300 f/4 G and took it with me instead.

I am converted. I get more usable, sharp, clear shots with the KM lens than I did with the Tokina zoom (with which I was very happy). Am I getting rid of the zoom? No. But when I want the best shot I can get and I can get away with the lack of zoom range, I will choose the KM lens every time.

Zooms are great, and I love them. Primes are a pain if you take a variety of pictures out in the field because changing lenses on a windy/rainy day out in the bush isn't generally a great idea.

But you get what you pay for. A great quality zoom is a great lens and better than a cheap prime.

--
---------------------------
Chris Harrison