Zooms or Primes?
Discussion
If you had to choose either zooms or primes, which would you go for?
When I first started out with a DSLR (originally a Canon 450D), I thought I'd aim for maybe 3 zooms to cover everything from ultra-wide to telephoto.
Then I got a 50mm f1.8. As it happens, I very rarely use that any more, as the focal length isn't often right for the sort of shots I take, but I then went for a 28mm f1.8 which is probably my most used lens. I also bought a 100mm f2.8 macro to go bug hunting with, but also find that I'm using that quite a lot as a "normal" lens, and not just as a macro lens.
On the other hand, I do get a reasonable amount of use out of my 70-300mm, but I suspect a big part of that is because I don't have any primes beyond 100mm as an alternative. I get a certain amount of use out of my Sigma 10-20mm zoom, but my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 hasn't been out of my bag in months.
There have been a few shots that I've not been able to get because I've been too close to the subject and unable to get any further back, but increasingly I find I'm drifting towards primes as my lenses of preference. Generally better IQ than a zoom, and usually lighter than a zoom with the same focal length (although obviously a bag full of primes isn't lighter than one or two zooms!) to my mind outweighs the cost of those occasional missed shots.
I'm now toying with the idea of saving up for a couple of telephoto primes - maybe a couple out of 200, 300 & 400 and possibly a 1.4x TC. I'm just wondering how much more I might miss, given the much bigger jumps in focal lengths, so would be interested to hear other people's experiences.
I've still got the 450D body, as well as a 7D, so can lug two around without having to change lenses. In terms of subjects, it's pretty diverse, but birds of prey, the occasional bit of motorsport and the odd airshow would probably get the bulk of the use. In fact, if I do go for something long, one of the first things I'd want to know is the best places to get photos of the red kites that swarm either side of the M40 going through the Chilterns.
When I first started out with a DSLR (originally a Canon 450D), I thought I'd aim for maybe 3 zooms to cover everything from ultra-wide to telephoto.
Then I got a 50mm f1.8. As it happens, I very rarely use that any more, as the focal length isn't often right for the sort of shots I take, but I then went for a 28mm f1.8 which is probably my most used lens. I also bought a 100mm f2.8 macro to go bug hunting with, but also find that I'm using that quite a lot as a "normal" lens, and not just as a macro lens.
On the other hand, I do get a reasonable amount of use out of my 70-300mm, but I suspect a big part of that is because I don't have any primes beyond 100mm as an alternative. I get a certain amount of use out of my Sigma 10-20mm zoom, but my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 hasn't been out of my bag in months.
There have been a few shots that I've not been able to get because I've been too close to the subject and unable to get any further back, but increasingly I find I'm drifting towards primes as my lenses of preference. Generally better IQ than a zoom, and usually lighter than a zoom with the same focal length (although obviously a bag full of primes isn't lighter than one or two zooms!) to my mind outweighs the cost of those occasional missed shots.
I'm now toying with the idea of saving up for a couple of telephoto primes - maybe a couple out of 200, 300 & 400 and possibly a 1.4x TC. I'm just wondering how much more I might miss, given the much bigger jumps in focal lengths, so would be interested to hear other people's experiences.
I've still got the 450D body, as well as a 7D, so can lug two around without having to change lenses. In terms of subjects, it's pretty diverse, but birds of prey, the occasional bit of motorsport and the odd airshow would probably get the bulk of the use. In fact, if I do go for something long, one of the first things I'd want to know is the best places to get photos of the red kites that swarm either side of the M40 going through the Chilterns.
There are a couple of very good zoom lenses out at the moment. Sigma 150-600mm sport and 120-300 sport are nice lenses, however they are not as fast or sharp as a prime and they don't take teleconvertors as well. I would say for Motorsport the 150-600 is probably the best buy right now, you have the flexibility to shoot from most positions on track, and tracking shots are easier at lower focal lengths so you have that choice.
For wildlife, the big lenses don't make as much of a difference as you might think.....a small object far away is still a small object far away.
I have a 600mm f4 + 1.4 TC and most people who look through the lens are surprised by just how small the magnification is. I still need to creep up to 10m away from a bird or mammal to really fill the frame. Also you need very high shutter speeds to catch birds in flight reliably. So for wildlife where you often crop, where you are often working in low light at dawn or dusk, and you need every stop of shutter speed, prime lenses are unquestionably better.
The 300F4 is + a 1.4 TC is outstanding value right now, and is 630mm equiv on a crop body.
The 500f4 is the biggest lens as you can handhold.
Surely this depends upon intended use?
I have an 18 - 140 mm zoom which is on the camera all of the time. I bought it because I missed several shots by having the wrong lens on the camera, and for sheer convenience of not carrying around different lenses.
But my photography is what I'd call general - landscape mainly but with the occasional occasion, object or portrait shoot.
The lens has been great for my needs as a hobbyist. So for me that zoom lens. If my livelihood depended upon it may be a few primes to go with all of the lighting I'd have to carry around too!
On a serious note I'm considering a single prime (50mm 1.8) for portrait shots, but that is all.
I have an 18 - 140 mm zoom which is on the camera all of the time. I bought it because I missed several shots by having the wrong lens on the camera, and for sheer convenience of not carrying around different lenses.
But my photography is what I'd call general - landscape mainly but with the occasional occasion, object or portrait shoot.
The lens has been great for my needs as a hobbyist. So for me that zoom lens. If my livelihood depended upon it may be a few primes to go with all of the lighting I'd have to carry around too!
On a serious note I'm considering a single prime (50mm 1.8) for portrait shots, but that is all.
steveatesh said:
Surely this depends upon intended use?
I have an 18 - 140 mm zoom which is on the camera all of the time. I bought it because I missed several shots by having the wrong lens on the camera, and for sheer convenience of not carrying around different lenses.
But my photography is what I'd call general - landscape mainly but with the occasional occasion, object or portrait shoot.
The lens has been great for my needs as a hobbyist. So for me that zoom lens. If my livelihood depended upon it may be a few primes to go with all of the lighting I'd have to carry around too!
On a serious note I'm considering a single prime (50mm 1.8) for portrait shots, but that is all.
In theory, maybe. In practice, I find I can get the large majority of the shots I want with a 28mm or a 100mm prime, and it's not too much of a pain to swap between the two. I have an 18 - 140 mm zoom which is on the camera all of the time. I bought it because I missed several shots by having the wrong lens on the camera, and for sheer convenience of not carrying around different lenses.
But my photography is what I'd call general - landscape mainly but with the occasional occasion, object or portrait shoot.
The lens has been great for my needs as a hobbyist. So for me that zoom lens. If my livelihood depended upon it may be a few primes to go with all of the lighting I'd have to carry around too!
On a serious note I'm considering a single prime (50mm 1.8) for portrait shots, but that is all.
For full on landscape stuff, I'll use the 10-20 zoom, but then nobody seems to make a 10mm prime that isn't a fisheye anyway.
My concern is more about whether I'd get sufficient returns for focal lengths of 200mm and upwards to offset the potential risk of missed shots.
Kermit power said:
steveatesh said:
Surely this depends upon intended use?
I have an 18 - 140 mm zoom which is on the camera all of the time. I bought it because I missed several shots by having the wrong lens on the camera, and for sheer convenience of not carrying around different lenses.
But my photography is what I'd call general - landscape mainly but with the occasional occasion, object or portrait shoot.
The lens has been great for my needs as a hobbyist. So for me that zoom lens. If my livelihood depended upon it may be a few primes to go with all of the lighting I'd have to carry around too!
On a serious note I'm considering a single prime (50mm 1.8) for portrait shots, but that is all.
In theory, maybe. In practice, I find I can get the large majority of the shots I want with a 28mm or a 100mm prime, and it's not too much of a pain to swap between the two. I have an 18 - 140 mm zoom which is on the camera all of the time. I bought it because I missed several shots by having the wrong lens on the camera, and for sheer convenience of not carrying around different lenses.
But my photography is what I'd call general - landscape mainly but with the occasional occasion, object or portrait shoot.
The lens has been great for my needs as a hobbyist. So for me that zoom lens. If my livelihood depended upon it may be a few primes to go with all of the lighting I'd have to carry around too!
On a serious note I'm considering a single prime (50mm 1.8) for portrait shots, but that is all.
For full on landscape stuff, I'll use the 10-20 zoom, but then nobody seems to make a 10mm prime that isn't a fisheye anyway.
My concern is more about whether I'd get sufficient returns for focal lengths of 200mm and upwards to offset the potential risk of missed shots.
Usually the closer you are and the more detail you can capture, the more interesting the picture is, so there almost no such thing as a missed shot.
Even with cars, you can focus on one wheel, the moment it hits the curb, the flex of the chassis, the sparks from the undertray, and have an interesting picture.
The 300f4 I mentioned earlier has one of closest focus distances and most magnification of any telephoto lens, prime or zoom, so you don't miss shots even when you get very very close.
If I had to choose I'd go for zooms because the situations I shoot require a lot of different focal lengths whilst working on the hoof. Even then I use two bodies.
I use a D700 (FX) and D7000 (DX), combined with an 18-35mm and 80-200mm FX glass. Swapping those round between the bodies gives me an effective range of 18-280mm, albeit with a gap between ~50mm (wide lens on the crop body) and 80mm (long lens on the FX body).
I use a D700 (FX) and D7000 (DX), combined with an 18-35mm and 80-200mm FX glass. Swapping those round between the bodies gives me an effective range of 18-280mm, albeit with a gap between ~50mm (wide lens on the crop body) and 80mm (long lens on the FX body).
Mr Will said:
Primes for pleasure shooting, Zooms for work. I shot a wedding once using three primes and even as the second shooter it was a nightmare.
I'm of the same view; quality if you spend enough is very good indeed and they allow instant framing and some control of perspective. If you need <f2.8 or are in a studio with the luxury of time and control then primes become more of an option IMHO.Primes. But I'm happy to miss shots to get better clarity and dreamy fast lenses. At the moment I have an EOS-M (22mm) and M9 (50mm) to cover all my needs. But I don't like telephoto much and perhaps in this case maybe 1 prime (at your favourite length e.g. 135mm f/2) and 1 zoom would be better - going one way or another doesn't make sense to me.
Mr Will said:
Primes for pleasure shooting, Zooms for work. I shot a wedding once using three primes and even as the second shooter it was a nightmare. Went and bought a 24-105L straight after.
Hmm I second shot a wedding with a 50/1.4 , and (only during the ceremony) a 70-200. That was a 13 hour day and 10min with the zoom.Simpo Two said:
RobDickinson said:
Hmm I second shot a wedding with a 50/1.4 , and (only during the ceremony) a 70-200. That was a 13 hour day and 10min with the zoom.
Yeah, second shooter 
TBH if I was a primary shooter I would have a 24-70 and 70-200.
RobDickinson said:
Mr Will said:
Primes for pleasure shooting, Zooms for work. I shot a wedding once using three primes and even as the second shooter it was a nightmare. Went and bought a 24-105L straight after.
Hmm I second shot a wedding with a 50/1.4 , and (only during the ceremony) a 70-200. That was a 13 hour day and 10min with the zoom.I've changed over the years, just on the other side of an up down 20+ year wave so might end up getting back to where I was! Starting with zooms, especially for telephoto ranges, then primes on large format and currently mostly manual focus primes, though the 16-18-21mm Elmar is a zoom - just doesn't have frame lines in the rangefinder for all settings.
But, I'm coming to the realisation that I am 'missing shots' (Donington yesterday was tricky lumping around and swapping between 90mm, a 180mm and a 600mm mirror lens so I went back to a 35-70mm zoom for much of the day) and that I'm getting fed up having to carry and, especially, swap lenses so often stick to one and just take what that can do. When the second body comes that will be easier, but for now my go to lens seems to be becoming a newly purchased, if old, and cheap Leica R35-70mm. Small range, max aperture of f3.5, but so, so sharp.
But, I'm coming to the realisation that I am 'missing shots' (Donington yesterday was tricky lumping around and swapping between 90mm, a 180mm and a 600mm mirror lens so I went back to a 35-70mm zoom for much of the day) and that I'm getting fed up having to carry and, especially, swap lenses so often stick to one and just take what that can do. When the second body comes that will be easier, but for now my go to lens seems to be becoming a newly purchased, if old, and cheap Leica R35-70mm. Small range, max aperture of f3.5, but so, so sharp.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff