Primes over zooms

Does anyone prefer using prime lenses over zoom lenses?

from what I understand so far most prime lenses are equally or as sharp
as most of the zoom "L" lenses out there.

So do some people prefer to use prime lenses over zooms?

I would assume this would be just personal preference on this one...

I've been in this game for almost 40 years. There was quite a long period of time when no professional took zoom lenses seriously. Zooms were vastly inferior to prime lenses.

This is no longer true today. The best zoom lenses today rival the best prime lenses.

I shot mostly prime lenses in years past. Today I shoot just two lenses, the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L IS. They are as sharp as any prime I've ever used.

--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/Test

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

I'd be more inclined to say that the best zooms rival most primes, in nearly every situation, but there are situations where the prime reigns superior, and there are some primes that hold a decided advantage over zooms in situations where shallow DOF, low light, or absolute sharpness are the goal. I have a small range of primes that I use regularly, even though my zooms are my staples.

Gary Coombs said:

I've been in this game for almost 40 years. There was quite a long
period of time when no professional took zoom lenses seriously.
Zooms were vastly inferior to prime lenses.

This is no longer true today. The best zoom lenses today rival the
best prime lenses.

I shot mostly prime lenses in years past. Today I shoot just two
lenses, the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L IS. They are as sharp
as any prime I've ever used.

--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/Test

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

Click to expand...

--
Tom

there are situations that you must need a fast prime to get the job done. Sharpness has nothing to do with it.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
D60 -> 10D -> 1D -> 1D+300D -> 300D -> 1D+D60
http://www.pbase.com/drip

I shoot mostly primes. But I also will use the zoom when the situation calls for it.

They're tools. That's all.

m21s99 said:

Does anyone prefer using prime lenses over zoom lenses?

from what I understand so far most prime lenses are equally or as
sharp
as most of the zoom "L" lenses out there.

So do some people prefer to use prime lenses over zooms?

I would assume this would be just personal preference on this one...

Click to expand...

--
Ulysses
http://www.ulyssesphotography.com

I care about about getting the shot, that may mean having enough shutter speed, or having the ability to quick change focal length. The differences between a high quality zoom and a prime lens are not that drastic.

Primes are small and light and also are typically faster than nearly any zooms.

My zoom is a 70-200 2.8 IS and I also have primes in that range of 85 1.2 and 135 f2. The 85mm is more than 2 full stops faster than my zoom lens at that focal length and the shallow dof it produces as well as the low light I can shoot in cant be matched by a zoom lenses. When its the right tool for the job, its the only tool for the job, if you know what i mean.

I will say though that some primes do offer a level of sharpness that zoom lenses just cant match. my 135 f2 and 85 1.2 as well as 300 2.8 IS are very useful for their speed and bokeh but you'll never hear my complain about the image quality of them. Its as good as it gets and when the choice is there to use the prime or the zoom, and i have the time to set up a shot, the primes are always the clear choice.

Even at the same focal lengths, the primes typically have a bit better color, smoother bokeh and more sharpness.

The real answer is to have a mix of both, theres no rule saying you need to be just one or the other.

sometimes I need a fast versatile zoom lens for an unpredictable day of shooting and thusly I bring out my big 24-70 and 70-200 IS zooms. For other events I know that I will only need a certain focal length for a portrait shoot so I take my 85 1.2 and 135 f2. For other events I may need to travel light so I take a wide angle zoom lens and then a longer prime in case I need the reach for a rare shot.

Theres a use for every lenses made and Id love to own them all. Remember though that even if you do own every EF mount lenses made, it wouldnt really make sense to take them all with you so you will always have to pick and choose.

having an assortment of zooms and primes just gives you that much better chance of custom picking the "right" kit for a given day
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad

OK, you use primes. But do you put stickers on them?

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)

DSC

Ulysses said:

I shoot mostly primes. But I also will use the zoom when the
situation calls for it.

Click to expand...

Gary Coombs said:

I've been in this game for almost 40 years. There was quite a long
period of time when no professional took zoom lenses seriously.
Zooms were vastly inferior to prime lenses.

This is no longer true today. The best zoom lenses today rival the
best prime lenses.

I shot mostly prime lenses in years past. Today I shoot just two
lenses, the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L IS. They are as sharp
as any prime I've ever used.

--
Gary Coombs
My Profile contains my Equipment List
http://GaryCoombs.com
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/New
http://GaryCoombs.com/10D/Test

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

Click to expand...

--

Gary is right and I have been shooting about the same amount of time. For 35 of those years I used primes exclusively.

The two L zooms he mentioned are indeed very good but they are still not as good as the top L primes for contrast, detail, and bokeh. To be able to compete with the top primes they have to be stopped down to at least f/4 with the speed advantage going to the primes.

Jim V.

I also own a 24-70l and 70-200 2.8 IS and those lenses can deliver some amazing performance but they do need to be stopped down to really excel.

I also own the 85 1.2L and the 135 f2 and those lenses are as good wide open as the zooms are stopped down.

So, the point being that even though the 135 f2 for example is "just" 1 stop faster than the 70-200 zoom, if you want equal performance in terms of sharpness, you'll need the zoom at f4 so its actually 2 stops faster for the sake of argument.

Now the 70-200 is an amazing zoom so 2 stops on a prime isnt bad, but then if you consider something like a 100-400l zoom, good but no the best, its f4.5 wide open and needs about f8 for best performance so suddenly its a 3 stop difference just to equal the same image quality as the prime wide open.

that there is something to keep in mind if your after the utmost sharpness a lenses can deliver and still expect to shoot in real world situations.

--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad

m21s99 said:

Does anyone prefer using prime lenses over zoom lenses?

from what I understand so far most prime lenses are equally or as
sharp
as most of the zoom "L" lenses out there.

So do some people prefer to use prime lenses over zooms?

I would assume this would be just personal preference on this one...

Click to expand...

I'm either setting up a shot where I know for certain where the subject is...or shooting candidly.. I use primes for set up shots and my zooms for more candid subjects...or for sports with the exception of my 300mm f2.8L Yes, the primes are at least as good as the LO zooms... and I have:

Primes

15mm fish, 24mm f2.8, 35mm f2.0, 50mm f1.8 ( recently replaced by) 50mm f1.4m 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 macro, 135mm f2.0, 300mm f2.8

Zooms
17-35mm f2.8L, 28-70mm f2.8L, 70-200mm f2.8L

Yep, from what I own, I can vouch that the primes are in deed better than the zooms...but not as pratical in every shooting situation.. the zooms have their uses as do the primes.

Well, those are my personal thoughts..

JP

--
http://www.onemodelplace.com/member.cfm?P_ID=6108

I am very much into my primes...
http://jpringlephoto.com/Pages/SingleLightSource0.htm
:O)
I love photography

I like zooms for most everyday use because of the convenience. I simply get more shots that way. I also use primes though, mostly for special requirements like macro, low light, tele, shallow DOF. I don't generally like to go out with only primes, too fiddly and time consuming to switch lenses often. There's definitely a place for both.

• Anders @ http://www.andersostberg.com *

m21s99 said:

Does anyone prefer using prime lenses over zoom lenses?

from what I understand so far most prime lenses are equally or as
sharp
as most of the zoom "L" lenses out there.

So do some people prefer to use prime lenses over zooms?

I would assume this would be just personal preference on this one...

Click to expand...

m21s99 said:

Does anyone prefer using prime lenses over zoom lenses?

from what I understand so far most prime lenses are equally or as
sharp
as most of the zoom "L" lenses out there.

So do some people prefer to use prime lenses over zooms?

I would assume this would be just personal preference on this one...

Click to expand...

I prefer primes mostly because I simply "see" better with them. A zoom complicates things too much by giving me too many options; I don't have enough brainpower to process all those possibilities fast enough, so I tend to miss shots, and the ones I get tend to be more bland and indifferent.

The more compact size and greater brightness are nice bonuses.

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

I do feel like I'm getting better pictures out of the two primes that I bought. I have 17-40 F4.0L, 24-70 F2.8 Sigma and 70-200 F2.8L zooms and 50mm F1.8, 85mm F1.8 primes. Most of my pictures have been inside without the flash and most have been taken with the 50mm prime.

I'm sure much of it has to do with my learning curve, but the better shots are with the primes. Better meaning, better color, better bokeh, and of course speed. I have the 550ex flash, but still get better pictures without it.

Petteri Sulonen said:

I prefer primes mostly because I simply "see" better with them. A
zoom complicates things too much by giving me too many options; I
don't have enough brainpower to process all those possibilities
fast enough, so I tend to miss shots, and the ones I get tend to be
more bland and indifferent.

Click to expand...

I have done weeding recently. And my friend lended me 10D and 24-70L, I had my EOS 30 and 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.
I first time used digital EOS.

More convienet was 50/1.4 and 100/2 on 10D than this zoom. Zoom 24-70 isn't good for 10D (1,6x)- is terrible, you waste money.
You haven't got wide lens or tele. Tele 70/2.8 is far worse than 100/2.

Crop faktor 1,6 and 112mm from 24-70mm isn't the same like 100/2 on full frame. I was disappointed. The 24-70 much better works on full frame, you have wide and standard even.
I know now that only Canon 1Ds will be good for me. I prefer EOS on film now.
10D has terrible Viewfinder - small, far, dark.
I can't see bokeh and I see tht 70mm is limited and it isn't 112mm.

Who write that 24-70 is like 38-112 , let see like look frame from 100mm on analog camera.

paul said:

Petteri Sulonen said:

I prefer primes mostly because I simply "see" better with them. A
zoom complicates things too much by giving me too many options; I
don't have enough brainpower to process all those possibilities
fast enough, so I tend to miss shots, and the ones I get tend to be
more bland and indifferent.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

paul180756 said:

Crop faktor 1,6 and 112mm from 24-70mm isn't the same like 100/2 on
full frame. I was disappointed.

Click to expand...

How so? Apart from depth of field, 62.5 mm on the crop factor is identical to 100 mm on full-frame.

paul180756 said:

The 24-70 much better works on full
frame, you have wide and standard even.

Click to expand...

Correct.

paul180756 said:

I know now that only Canon 1Ds will be good for me. I prefer EOS on
film now.

Click to expand...

Only problems with the 1Ds are that (1) it's a huge clunker, (2) it's not as sensitive as the lesser EOS's, and (3) it costs way too much. I'm hoping against hope that the rumor about a $3000 full-frame 3D are true...

paul180756 said:

10D has terrible Viewfinder - small, far, dark.
I can't see bokeh

Click to expand...

I concur with you here. It makes me mad to look through my EOS-650 nowadays.

paul180756 said:

and I see tht 70mm is limited and it isn't 112mm.

Click to expand...

How isn't it 112 mm?

paul180756 said:

Who write that 24-70 is like 38-112 , let see like look frame from
100mm on analog camera.

Click to expand...

Again, what exactly is the difference that's bothering you? Whatever your perception is, for purposes of perspective, 70 mm is equivalent to 112 mm on film.

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

Petteri Sulonen said:

Petteri Sulonen said:

Crop faktor 1,6 and 112mm from 24-70mm isn't the same like 100/2 on
full frame. I was disappointed.

Click to expand...

How so? Apart from depth of field, 62.5 mm on the crop factor is
identical to 100 mm on full-frame.

Click to expand...

Exactly but depth of field it isn't the same what perspecive.

Compare: 50/1.4 and 100/2 - you can get the same depth of field when you take 50mm and go near subject, but the perspectives will be diffrent.

Petteri Sulonen said:

(3) it costs way too much.

Click to expand...

Yeah ! I prefer now have got two or three bodies 30 or 3 (for convenient with primes or differents films) than one 10D.
Only Crop 1,6x is too expensive for me.

Petteri Sulonen said:

Again, what exactly is the difference that's bothering you?
Whatever your perception is, for purposes of perspective, 70 mm
is equivalent to 112 mm on film.

Click to expand...

Take EOS 650 with 100mm lens and 10D with 70mm (112mm) and look through both - You see huge difference.
I can see that 70mm is only cut and it hasn't perpective of tele like 100mm.

Paul

Have you never run out of foot zoom range? To hold an EF 70-200 2.8L IS and have the ability to compose the shot without tripping over tables or falling into the gutter is, is, is, simply an experience every photog must enjoy. At least once. With a fixed f2.8 the complications of SS v. aperture v. DOF, etc. are bygones, thus permitting the button pusher to focus on the image (and EC, fill flash, CF storage, WB, etc.). I love zooms, but I also shoot primes, is this cheating?

--
Doug
http://pbase.com/dougj

Doug J said:

Have you never run out of foot zoom range?

Click to expand...

Not really. I don't "see" well in the telephoto range anyway; I don't think I've ever gotten a picture past 100 mm that I really like. Foot zoom works great at focal lengths shorter than that.

Doug J said:

To hold an EF 70-200
2.8L IS and have the ability to compose the shot without tripping
over tables or falling into the gutter is, is, is, simply an
experience every photog must enjoy. At least once.

Click to expand...

I haven't used that specific lens, but I have used lenses like it. It was fun to start with, but I ran out of creative mileage fast.

Doug J said:

With a fixed
f2.8 the complications of SS v. aperture v. DOF, etc. are bygones,
thus permitting the button pusher to focus on the image (and EC,
fill flash, CF storage, WB, etc.). I love zooms, but I also shoot
primes, is this cheating?

Click to expand...

Of course not. People see and do stuff differently; zooms work better for some, primes for others. If you have a strong vision, I've no doubt the zoom's added freedom can help you achieve it.

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

paul wrote:
[snip]

paul180756 said:

paul180756 said:

How so? Apart from depth of field, 62.5 mm on the crop factor is
identical to 100 mm on full-frame.

Click to expand...

Exactly but depth of field it isn't the same what perspecive.
Compare: 50/1.4 and 100/2 - you can get the same depth of field
when you take 50mm and go near subject, but the perspectives will
be diffrent.

Click to expand...

Yes, if your format is the same. But if you take the 50 mm image and crop it so that it matches the 100 mm image, the perspective will be identical.

[snip]

paul180756 said:

paul180756 said:

Again, what exactly is the difference that's bothering you?
Whatever your perception is, for purposes of perspective, 70 mm
is equivalent to 112 mm on film.

Click to expand...

Take EOS 650 with 100mm lens and 10D with 70mm (112mm) and look
through both - You see huge difference.

Click to expand...

That's only because of the different viewfinder magnification. Snap the two pictures and look at them, and you will only see 12 mm of difference.

paul180756 said:

I can see that 70mm is only cut and it hasn't perpective of tele
like 100mm.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're wrong about this. For perspective, changing your focal length is exactly the same as cropping. Don't worry, you're in good company -- this is a very common misconception.

Petteri
--
[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]