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.
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.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff