mynakedsoda
Leading Member
Simply based upon images I see from others with exif intact and what I see people I know do.
I can agree with that.
--
The worst vice is advice. - John Milton from The Devil's Advocate
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
zoom vs primes in M4/3s, the truth
- Thread starter Jere Landis
- Start date
--
The worst vice is advice. - John Milton from The Devil's Advocate
mynakedsoda
Leading Member
I've had more than one friend I was helping learn to take better photographs over the years do the following to help them. I gave them a cheap 50mm prime. I then asked them to use only that prime for one month. All I asked of them was at the end of that month to give me the 50mm back. It's an old exercise to help people how to "see". I've never had one that didn't feel like that exercise had helped them. I can see where you may feel that to be "nonsense" but like I said it helps alot of people to learn how to "see" images they would otherwise miss.
--
The worst vice is advice. - John Milton from The Devil's Advocate
Unless the cropping is very minimal, yes.
Me too - I use my primes for low-light and DOF control, otherwise I use a zoom. I never select a prime because of optical quality. While it used to be true that primes were sharp and zooms were horrible, that hasn't been the case for at least a decade or two. Primes still tend to be better optically, but the gap is so small now that any little bit of cropping you have to do with the prime will close the gap, at least when comparing to good quality zoom lenses.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
FlashInThePan
Senior Member
Primes are more often than not brighter and sharper than zooms, as well as smaller.
When you have a set of primes you can change lenses to compose, so cropping is not much of an issue but having to change lenses is.
I find that primes in the 28-60 mm (equivalent) focal length range are actually very convenient as you can "zoom with your feet". IMO zooms have the edge (in having the freedom to compose the shot you had in mind) in wider as well as longer focal lengths.
A kit consisting of an ultra wide to wide angle zoom, a few primes (35, 50 and 85 equivalent) and a tele zoom makes tons of sense.
YMMV
--
Jonathan
When you have a set of primes you can change lenses to compose, so cropping is not much of an issue but having to change lenses is.
I find that primes in the 28-60 mm (equivalent) focal length range are actually very convenient as you can "zoom with your feet". IMO zooms have the edge (in having the freedom to compose the shot you had in mind) in wider as well as longer focal lengths.
A kit consisting of an ultra wide to wide angle zoom, a few primes (35, 50 and 85 equivalent) and a tele zoom makes tons of sense.
YMMV
--
Jonathan
pity you dont understand that using primes its not about quality...its about composition..amateur use zoom couse they are lazy and they lost 80% of times moving hand on zoom.....mechanism....
its easier use zoom and quality of composition its lower...
its easier use zoom and quality of composition its lower...
Exactly my view. With the proviso that If I had to lose two lenses, it would be the two zooms, the 9-18, and the 40-150 which I love.
But I could do with only a 35 eq. prime. It is a matter of perspective and social interaction, and that can only be done 'with one's feet'.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Oops, at least half the shots in the "What Happens When We Die" set are taken with a Color-Skopar 50/2.5. I'm pretty sure every shot was taken at f5.6, so a zoom could have been used for all of them. Still, I prefer shooting primes.
This last sentence of yours says it all.
--
Time, that aged nurse,
rocked me to patience.
FlashInThePan
Senior Member
You got it.
I was thinking along the lines of the four thirds 11-22 (what a great lens - it took me a while to understand how lovely it is) and 50-200.
Four thirds has some really good zooms and mft has got nice primes... I hope Olympus eventually find a way to integrate the two systems!
--
Jonathan
I was thinking along the lines of the four thirds 11-22 (what a great lens - it took me a while to understand how lovely it is) and 50-200.
Four thirds has some really good zooms and mft has got nice primes... I hope Olympus eventually find a way to integrate the two systems!
--
Jonathan
Jere, you said it best right here. The fact is, few people are so decisive about composition as to go nuts whether they will have best DOF, bokeh, et cetera. In my own situation, I love to take pictures and just go out and take a bunch. It isn't like I am going to sell them or make huge prints. More than likely I will email them to you and others. I bet most here do the same. It is not a precise science, it is a hobby for most I bet. Use the lens which is on the camera. Mine is fixed and that sure simplifies it.
--
Time, that aged nurse,
rocked me to patience.
If you like shooting with primes, there is something boring about shooting a mediocre zoom even if you can't demonstrate why in photos. Further up in the thread I posted links to some of my "creative" photo sets taken with primes and immediately acknowledged that they all could have been taken with a zoom.
Just like the new Oly 45, the Color-Skopar 50 that I used in some photos has unique rendering properties that I personally like, but I can't say I'm relying on these for any of these photos.
Before I got my Oly 17 and adapters for my legacy primes I shot some really good photos with the 14-42 kit zoom and they were my first m43 photos to be shown in a gallery.
For prime shooters it is the experience etc. of shooting primes that makes it better. At its best, photography is an art, and all arts rely on the artist's emotions and feelings. There are no equations, photos of line pairs or brick walls to explain this. If you like shooting primes better then your photos will probably be better when you shoot a prime, if you prefer shooting zooms then your photos will probably be better when you shoot a zoom.
The OP shouldn't expect other people to explain what will work best for him, as I said in my initial post to this thread, it's a personal choice, there are prime people and zoom people, but in the end it is the photos that you take that matters.
Just like the new Oly 45, the Color-Skopar 50 that I used in some photos has unique rendering properties that I personally like, but I can't say I'm relying on these for any of these photos.
Before I got my Oly 17 and adapters for my legacy primes I shot some really good photos with the 14-42 kit zoom and they were my first m43 photos to be shown in a gallery.
For prime shooters it is the experience etc. of shooting primes that makes it better. At its best, photography is an art, and all arts rely on the artist's emotions and feelings. There are no equations, photos of line pairs or brick walls to explain this. If you like shooting primes better then your photos will probably be better when you shoot a prime, if you prefer shooting zooms then your photos will probably be better when you shoot a zoom.
The OP shouldn't expect other people to explain what will work best for him, as I said in my initial post to this thread, it's a personal choice, there are prime people and zoom people, but in the end it is the photos that you take that matters.
When I shoot a zoom, I tend to preset my zoom to a marked and known FL and frame as if I'm using a prime of that length. Not sure if it holds for the Oly kit zoom, but historically, most zooms are noticably better at the marked FL's. Also, for me, these are FL's that I have a long history of shooting in primes. The only really "zooming" I do is generally if I've set up my tripod and make a minor tweek in or out, but it is always minor.
So, yes, I'm agreeing with you. With a zoom or a prime you should be aware of the perspective you are getting from you FL, this is often as critical as framing, even when people aren't aware of it.
I guess some think the case for primes can be made for beginners who often frame with their zoom without thinking of perspective... but these same people can be handed a prime and make the same mistakes... don't know if there is any shortcuts to take. I know I'm still learning after shooting for more than 30 years!
In the old days when everyone started with a fast 50 on 35mm beginners probably got better photos from the start because -- while some think it is boring -- a 50mm FL is very safe perspective-wise. Haven't decided if that is really good, but if you take a good photo with a 50 the perspective is probably reasonable. When you hand someone a zoom with a wide FL of something like 24mm they take photos without recognizing the perspective implications of shooting something so wide.
Anyway, I like shooting primes. When I shoot something, I will usually start with a wider prime, like the Oly 17, shoot the general setting, then go back through with a longer lens for the details. I like concentrating on one perspective at a time and then moving to the other.
That's me, sometimes I miss shots shooting primes because I don't have another lens with me. When I shoot a zoom, sometimes I miss shots because I get distracted by seeing something I want to shot using a different FL.
What I say over and over again, "there are an infinite number of photos to take." You don't need to have every FL all the time to "be covered" for all possible photos, because there are infinite shots to take and you can never take them all anyway. So zoom shooters thinking they are missing shots with a prime are missing shots that they don't see.
So, yes, I'm agreeing with you. With a zoom or a prime you should be aware of the perspective you are getting from you FL, this is often as critical as framing, even when people aren't aware of it.
I guess some think the case for primes can be made for beginners who often frame with their zoom without thinking of perspective... but these same people can be handed a prime and make the same mistakes... don't know if there is any shortcuts to take. I know I'm still learning after shooting for more than 30 years!
In the old days when everyone started with a fast 50 on 35mm beginners probably got better photos from the start because -- while some think it is boring -- a 50mm FL is very safe perspective-wise. Haven't decided if that is really good, but if you take a good photo with a 50 the perspective is probably reasonable. When you hand someone a zoom with a wide FL of something like 24mm they take photos without recognizing the perspective implications of shooting something so wide.
Anyway, I like shooting primes. When I shoot something, I will usually start with a wider prime, like the Oly 17, shoot the general setting, then go back through with a longer lens for the details. I like concentrating on one perspective at a time and then moving to the other.
That's me, sometimes I miss shots shooting primes because I don't have another lens with me. When I shoot a zoom, sometimes I miss shots because I get distracted by seeing something I want to shot using a different FL.
What I say over and over again, "there are an infinite number of photos to take." You don't need to have every FL all the time to "be covered" for all possible photos, because there are infinite shots to take and you can never take them all anyway. So zoom shooters thinking they are missing shots with a prime are missing shots that they don't see.
tedolf
Forum Pro
Cropping 10-20% has pretty much no effect on IQ if you are shooting 8-10mp.
Depending on the lenses, the IQ of a prime can be quite a bit better than an equivalent focal lenght in a zoom. More importantly, most primes are 2-5 F stops faster than the zoom at the same focal length (e.g a f/1.4, 50mm legacy lens compared to the 14-150mm zoom at 50mm, 14-42mm v. a 40mm f/2.0 Leica prime) so subject isolation, etc. is vastly different.
Furthermore, there are many available light situations where the zoom is so slow that you can't get the shutter speeds you need to prevent motion blur (e.g. bride walking down the isle).
Finally, primes are always smaller and lighter than zooms. This is important for travel, hiking, etc.
I don't think anyone is going to agree with you. If you were correct everyone would buy zooms and no one would be clamoring for fast primes.
Maximus Decimus Tedolphus
tedolf
Forum Pro
Why wouldn't you always want to keep your ISO down if you could?
Better optical perfomance, higher shutter speeds, etc.
Who doesn't want that?
With experience it takes about ten seconds to change prime lenses. It can be done one handed, and if they have raised alignement dots a la Leica it can be done with your eyes closed.
Maximus Decimus Tedolphus
Anders W
Forum Pro
But why crop at all if you don't have to.
I assume we are talking about m43 lenses here. So what primes are distinctly superior to the 14-45 at comparable apertures? And what evidence do you have to back up your claims?
As far as I have understood, the OP does not suggest that we avoid using primes when the circumstances call for it (low light, shallow DOF). Rather, he suggests that there are also circumstances when using a zoom might be preferable (due to continuous and fast access to different FLs/FOVs).
So what smaller and lighter prime would you suggest as a replacement for the Panasonic X 14-42?
The 20mm, the 25mm, the 45mm Oly and the 45mm Panny macro are all sharper edge to edge at comparable apertures, especially when they are already closed down several stops and the zoom is still wide open.
Zoom are a compromise, in terms of speed, and also optics, in exchange for versatility.
14-45 is a very nice zoom, not suggesting it isn't, but shoot it at 45mm f4.5 vs either of the 45mm primes closed down to f4.5 as well and you can see, especially at the corners the primes are better.
F8-11 things equal out, largely due to diffraction, but one wouln't really buy a prime to shoot it closed down all the time, nor is it where its sweet spot is.
http://www.millsartphotography.com
Zoom are a compromise, in terms of speed, and also optics, in exchange for versatility.
14-45 is a very nice zoom, not suggesting it isn't, but shoot it at 45mm f4.5 vs either of the 45mm primes closed down to f4.5 as well and you can see, especially at the corners the primes are better.
F8-11 things equal out, largely due to diffraction, but one wouln't really buy a prime to shoot it closed down all the time, nor is it where its sweet spot is.
--
http://www.millsartphotography.com
Peter Nelson
Veteran Member
Carry what primes you think you will use on any paticular day. I think 3 focal length's are enpugh. Own many from 24mm through 800mm all in primes.
Now this applies best to FF, our m4/3 cameras spoil it for wide angle and of course extend the reach of our supertele lenses.
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes
Now this applies best to FF, our m4/3 cameras spoil it for wide angle and of course extend the reach of our supertele lenses.
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes
Definitely agree on the 25 and 45s.
Not so sure about the 20. It is not so much that I disagree, just that I can't say that I am as confident about it. There is not doubt that it is a stellar lens in terms of relative compromise of IQ vs size & speed. It is that slight compromise that gives me doubt. Anyway, I digress, I'm not about to recommend to people to give up their 20s because they have one of the current zooms.
To me, it is not about edge-to-edge sharpness anyway, I've found the biggest difference to be colour rendition and bokeh. Sure, I can mess with the colour in PP, but why would I want to if I can get it OOC? Although some might say 6 of 1 or half a dozen of the other... I spend more time shooting changing lenses or I spend more time in PP!
I just tend to find that the zooms tend to feel flat and a little less lively than the primes (even when they are stopped down to the same aperture).
And of course, there is not substitute when you feel the need for speed.
Not so sure about the 20. It is not so much that I disagree, just that I can't say that I am as confident about it. There is not doubt that it is a stellar lens in terms of relative compromise of IQ vs size & speed. It is that slight compromise that gives me doubt. Anyway, I digress, I'm not about to recommend to people to give up their 20s because they have one of the current zooms.
To me, it is not about edge-to-edge sharpness anyway, I've found the biggest difference to be colour rendition and bokeh. Sure, I can mess with the colour in PP, but why would I want to if I can get it OOC? Although some might say 6 of 1 or half a dozen of the other... I spend more time shooting changing lenses or I spend more time in PP!
I just tend to find that the zooms tend to feel flat and a little less lively than the primes (even when they are stopped down to the same aperture).
And of course, there is not substitute when you feel the need for speed.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum