Zoom or Prime

NCV · Jan 6, 2015

Recently and very often when I see replies to questions about what lens to take on this or that trip or what lenses to buy, the replies often lean towards prime fixed focal length lenses instead of zoom lenses.

I am curious to know after reading lots of these posts what apart from the small image quality gain, or for when one needs special lenses ( hyper fast or fish eye for example) for particular tasks, what is the advantage of a fixed focal length over a high quality zoom for most photographic tasks?

My opinion is that for most photography the preference for prime lenses is a leftover from the time when zooms were markedly inferior to prime lenses. I grew up with prime lenses until many years ago I was shown the Nikon 35-70 2.8. After using that lens I felt the fixed focal length lens was now a largely redundant concept for most tasks.

I have four zoom lenses that cover from 8 to 300mm including the Lumix 12-35 2.8 and Lumix 35-100 2.8 with this setup I have never felt myself to be at any disadvantage either technical and aesthetical over when I used fixed focal length lenses. For travel and hiking photography I cannot imagine the hassle of fiddling around with a bag full of prime lenses and with a zoom I can always frame precisely what I want in the frame when it is not possible to zoom with my feet.

I accept that a fixed focal length lens is a good learning tool which enables one to appreciate angle of view an prospective effects, but that is about all.

What is your take on this?

http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/

TN Args · Jan 6, 2015

Please start a thread less asinine than one that says, 'apart from the advantages a prime lens has, I can think of no reason to have a prime lens'.

Prime: 1 to 4 stops faster, less distortion, greater fore/background separation, lighter camera in hand. Like you said, learning to 'see'.

Zoom: more convenient, less total bag weight, usually cheaper in total.

Next topic. Before someone finds a way to mention 'equivalence'.

alcelc · Jan 6, 2015

NCV said:
Recently and very often when I see replies to questions about what lens to take on this or that trip or what lenses to buy, the replies often lean towards prime fixed focal length lenses instead of zoom lenses.

I am curious to know after reading lots of these posts what apart from the small image quality gain, or for when one needs special lenses ( hyper fast or fish eye for example) for particular tasks, what is the advantage of a fixed focal length over a high quality zoom for most photographic tasks?

My opinion is that for most photography the preference for prime lenses is a leftover from the time when zooms were markedly inferior to prime lenses. I grew up with prime lenses until many years ago I was shown the Nikon 35-70 2.8. After using that lens I felt the fixed focal length lens was now a largely redundant concept for most tasks.

I have four zoom lenses that cover from 8 to 300mm including the Lumix 12-35 2.8 and Lumix 35-100 2.8 with this setup I have never felt myself to be at any disadvantage either technical and aesthetical over when I used fixed focal length lenses. For travel and hiking photography I cannot imagine the hassle of fiddling around with a bag full of prime lenses and with a zoom I can always frame precisely what I want in the frame when it is not possible to zoom with my feet.

I accept that a fixed focal length lens is a good learning tool which enables one to appreciate angle of view an prospective effects, but that is about all.

What is your take on this?

http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/

I'm a zoom guy and am totally agreed with your point of view. But can see a new round of battle between Zoom vs Prime would be started....

Be honest, although nowadays IQ of M43's zooms are already nearly as good as most prime, a major difference is primes are normally 1.8 as a norm and a lot of them could reach 1.4 or even faster still within a tiny built. On the other hand, 2.8 zoom is normally the fastest and is relatively larger and heavier....

oeoek · Jan 6, 2015

For me the use of primes has little to do with image quality, the pro primes are good enough. However, I prefer primes because it forces me to take more concious dissensions regarding perspective and composition. Using primes for someone with enough experience is a state of mind thing. I could take the same pictures with a zoom, but in my experience, I usually don't...

--
My photo's: http://jankusters.tumblr.com/

tt321 · Jan 6, 2015

Lens swapping is a hateful thing to do for me, but zooms only reduce this problem, not cure it. I remember having to swap lenses 10 times during a 300 metre walk even though I had two zooms with me.

That's why my next camera is very likely the FZ1000.

The other thing about primes is that in M43, zooms are not a little worse in quality than primes. They are a lot worse if you compare at the same price points, in most cases. Which zooms selling for less than £300 can touch the 45/1.8 and 20/1.7 in terms of picture quality? What about the Sigma primes? Any zooms costing £130 competing with those on IQ? You need to go to the F2.8 zooms which are expensive, heavy and bulky compared with most primes.

Now an FZ1000 plus a very small M43 with the 20 and/or 45 would make a very good travel set whose convenience, cost and ultimate IQ beats or rivals an M43 with a set of F2.8 zooms. The absence of any prima dona super glamour pro type of item in this collection is the only disadvantage.

NCV · Jan 6, 2015

TN Args said:
Please start a thread less asinine than one that says, 'apart from the advantages a prime lens has, I can think of no reason to have a prime lens'.

Asinine twisting of what I wrote and the points I made I think.

TN Args said:
Prime: 1 to 4 stops faster, less distortion, greater fore/background separation, lighter camera in hand. Like you said, learning to 'see'.

Software takes care of distortion these days in M43 does it not?

The others are valid points.

TN Args said:
Zoom: more convenient, less total bag weight, usually cheaper in total.

Next topic. Before someone finds a way to mention 'equivalence'.

I wrote this post after reading a thread where it was suggested in some replies to take primes in a situation (hiking) where a prime lens would be of no advantage and less practical than a zoom.

TN Args said:
--
Arg

NCV · Jan 6, 2015

tt321 said:
Lens swapping is a hateful thing to do for me, but zooms only reduce this problem, not cure it. I remember having to swap lenses 10 times during a 300 metre walk even though I had two zooms with me.

I hate lens changing too. Sensor dust is always waiting in ambush!

I have second hand second bodies. I found a GX1 for €150

tt321 said:
That's why my next camera is very likely the FZ1000.

I am tempted by the Lumix LX100

tt321 said:
The other thing about primes is that in M43, zooms are not a little worse in quality than primes. They are a lot worse if you compare at the same price points, in most cases. Which zooms selling for less than £300 can touch the 45/1.8 and 20/1.7 in terms of picture quality? What about the Sigma primes? Any zooms costing £130 competing with those on IQ? You need to go to the F2.8 zooms which are expensive, heavy and bulky compared with most primes.

Good points. I was lucky to have enough photo "junk" to pay for the 2.8 zooms in part exchange.

tt321 said:
Now an FZ1000 plus a very small M43 with the 20 and/or 45 would make a very good travel set whose convenience, cost and ultimate IQ beats or rivals an M43 with a set of F2.8 zooms. The absence of any prima dona super glamour pro type of item in this collection is the only disadvantage.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xiafei/

NCV · Jan 6, 2015

alcelc said:
NCV said:

Recently and very often when I see replies to questions about what lens to take on this or that trip or what lenses to buy, the replies often lean towards prime fixed focal length lenses instead of zoom lenses.

I am curious to know after reading lots of these posts what apart from the small image quality gain, or for when one needs special lenses ( hyper fast or fish eye for example) for particular tasks, what is the advantage of a fixed focal length over a high quality zoom for most photographic tasks?

My opinion is that for most photography the preference for prime lenses is a leftover from the time when zooms were markedly inferior to prime lenses. I grew up with prime lenses until many years ago I was shown the Nikon 35-70 2.8. After using that lens I felt the fixed focal length lens was now a largely redundant concept for most tasks.

I have four zoom lenses that cover from 8 to 300mm including the Lumix 12-35 2.8 and Lumix 35-100 2.8 with this setup I have never felt myself to be at any disadvantage either technical and aesthetical over when I used fixed focal length lenses. For travel and hiking photography I cannot imagine the hassle of fiddling around with a bag full of prime lenses and with a zoom I can always frame precisely what I want in the frame when it is not possible to zoom with my feet.

I accept that a fixed focal length lens is a good learning tool which enables one to appreciate angle of view an prospective effects, but that is about all.

What is your take on this?

http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/

Click to expand...

I'm a zoom guy and am totally agreed with your point of view. But can see a new round of battle between Zoom vs Prime would be started....

Just a nice discussione I hope where we can all learn something.

alcelc said:
Be honest, although nowadays IQ of M43's zooms are already nearly as good as most prime, a major difference is primes are normally 1.8 as a norm and a lot of them could reach 1.4 or even faster still within a tiny built. On the other hand, 2.8 zoom is normally the fastest and is relatively larger and heavier....

NCV · Jan 6, 2015

oeoek said:
For me the use of primes has little to do with image quality, the pro primes are good enough. However, I prefer primes because it forces me to take more concious dissensions regarding perspective and composition. Using primes for someone with enough experience is a state of mind thing. I could take the same pictures with a zoom, but in my experience, I usually don't...

rsmithgi · Jan 6, 2015

There are two advantages of primes, faster max aperture and, especially in the M43 world, compactness. Also, the vast majority of M43 users are not using the F2.8 zooms. They are using the F3.5-5.6 or F4-5.6 variety and the max aperture difference is much larger between those zooms and primes.

On two recent trips, I used zooms outside during the day and switched to primes in the evening and indoors. Usually I carried a camera bag during the day and in the evening I carried my E-M10 with 14mm F2.5 in one pocket and my 45mm F1.8 in the other pocket.

In other words, the answer (for me) to the zoom or prime question is "both".

richarddd · Jan 6, 2015

oeoek said:
For me the use of primes has little to do with image quality, the pro primes are good enough. However, I prefer primes because it forces me to take more concious dissensions regarding perspective and composition. Using primes for someone with enough experience is a state of mind thing. I could take the same pictures with a zoom, but in my experience, I usually don't...

A problem with primes is that you can't get precise control over both perspective and framing.

s_grins · Jan 6, 2015

NCV said:
Recently and very often when I see replies to questions about what lens to take on this or that trip or what lenses to buy, the replies often lean towards prime fixed focal length lenses instead of zoom lenses.

I am curious to know after reading lots of these posts what apart from the small image quality gain, or for when one needs special lenses ( hyper fast or fish eye for example) for particular tasks, what is the advantage of a fixed focal length over a high quality zoom for most photographic tasks?

My opinion is that for most photography the preference for prime lenses is a leftover from the time when zooms were markedly inferior to prime lenses. I grew up with prime lenses until many years ago I was shown the Nikon 35-70 2.8. After using that lens I felt the fixed focal length lens was now a largely redundant concept for most tasks.

I have four zoom lenses that cover from 8 to 300mm including the Lumix 12-35 2.8 and Lumix 35-100 2.8 with this setup I have never felt myself to be at any disadvantage either technical and aesthetical over when I used fixed focal length lenses. For travel and hiking photography I cannot imagine the hassle of fiddling around with a bag full of prime lenses and with a zoom I can always frame precisely what I want in the frame when it is not possible to zoom with my feet.

I accept that a fixed focal length lens is a good learning tool which enables one to appreciate angle of view an prospective effects, but that is about all.

What is your take on this?

http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/

When I take shots outdoors in a broad daylight, I'll definitely take with me a ZOOM(s) as a main lens.

When I take shots indoors, I prefer primes.

Note: I think that reasoning behind my habit is very simple - I have bad one

Franka T.L. · Jan 6, 2015

this question is actuslly no longer judt zoom vs fix focal. while in psst era we can safely rely the question to just the optical quality. that unfortunately is not the case now as the lens is no longer just the optical debice and design precedence on key non optical festures snd performance play into the game snd this is no more spparant in many of the M43 lens as oppose to classically optic take precedence approach.

within M43 your obsetvation wad somewhat valid and this bears out that most of us do not benefit from the advantage of a true quality fix focal Steven Leungvds quality zooms.

so the question become if you the photographer can made use of the difference and yes they are there. zooms are good today, but given the same tech any Mfr can give you an Steven Leungbeyter fix focal with superior imaging. whether they offer it is something else and one if avia is then simply a matter of whethet one could harvest those quality.
--
- Franka -

markymark101 · Jan 6, 2015

I have the 12-40 and several of the better primes.

Sharpness wise the 12-40 is on par with the primes. However, there is still something special about the rendering of the primes - maybe it's my imagination or maybe it's me being nostalgic, but the pics taken with primes like the PL 25mm or the OL 45mm just seem to have that something the zoom can't quite match.

Saying that, my 12-40 rarely comes off the camera. It's just too convenient, and when I'm out with others who could care less about taking pics with anything other than a phone, they can get a bit perturbed waiting for me to change lenses.

If it's just me alone waking about, I'm leaning back to using all primes.

George Spencer · Jan 6, 2015

oeoek said:
For me the use of primes has little to do with image quality, the pro primes are good enough. However, I prefer primes because it forces me to take more concious dissensions regarding perspective and composition. Using primes for someone with enough experience is a state of mind thing. I could take the same pictures with a zoom, but in my experience, I usually don't...

baxters · Jan 6, 2015

The small size of the 14mm & 20mm pancakes, 17mm and 45mm are lost on a monster like the GH4. Ditto for the mini-monstrous EM1. Pack the 12-35, 12-40 and 40-150 PRO on them. Add a double handed grip, four inch wide neckstrap, and you're all set for world domination.

It was the sleek shape of the GF1 that attracted me to M43, even though I bought the less expensive EPL1. In those days, there weren't many lenses to add. The 20mm was one of the few available. It got me back into primes. Today, you can put small fast primes on those old cameras and they still compete.

I'll take a few small lenses, including the smaller zooms, and swap them as needed. The big zooms are of no interest here.

cfh25 · Jan 6, 2015

Received a recent newsletter from Guy Edwardes, a British landscape/nature photographer, and it contained the following:

"I have always preferred the flexibility of zoom lenses for landscape photography, as they allow me to get my composition just right in-camera. This is more important to me than any slight increase in image quality that I might obtain using prime lenses. There is no doubt that the very best prime lenses outperform the best zoom lenses in some areas, but as long as my lenses provide all the quality that I need for the sizes that my images are normally reproduced then that’s all that matters to me. I did use an extremely sharp set of Zeiss prime wide-angle lenses for a time, but eventually switched back to zooms."

Think that sums it up precisely.

Loga · Jan 6, 2015

Member said:
Just a nice discussione I hope where we can all learn something.

Not too much to learn, IMHO. There are situations, where fast zooms are much more practical, e.g. weddings. However, I used to see a blog where the photographer used two OM-Ds, one prime on each (12 and 75 I believe). He took extraordinary photos.

Anyway, I love my Panasonic 14mm f2.5 lens. And I like the way my GF2 looks and feels when attached. This is a personal thing in a degree.

clengman · Jan 6, 2015

richarddd said:
oeoek said:

For me the use of primes has little to do with image quality, the pro primes are good enough. However, I prefer primes because it forces me to take more concious dissensions regarding perspective and composition. Using primes for someone with enough experience is a state of mind thing. I could take the same pictures with a zoom, but in my experience, I usually don't...

Click to expand...

A problem with primes is that you can't get precise control over both perspective and framing.

SF Photo Gal · Jan 6, 2015

Really kind of a silly argument. I own AND USE the Panny 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8's AND the 20, 25, 45, and 75 primes. (Which i might add, except for one, I've bought all used on E-Bay.)

My first choice are the primes, but when you're shooting in a situation where your field of view is constantly changing, I pull out the zooms.

SF Photo Gal aka Faggurl
San Francisco, CA

Zoom or Prime

NCV

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

NCV

Guest

NCV

Guest

NCV

Guest

NCV

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

markymark101

Guest

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts