Primes vs zoom?
Discussion
I've been a big fan of zooms up till now, but having used my XPAN which only has 3 primes available for it, and also having recently used several of my primes on my 1Ds which I've really enjoyed, I've started to question whether it's worth going for more zooms, and instead going for some more primes instead...
I've got a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 on order, but for slightly less money I could get the following instead:
24mm f1.4
135mm f2
200mm f2.8
Seeing as I've already got 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.8, I'm now thinking that I should go with the 3 primes instead of the two zooms as these would cover the same range with better quality and larger apertures (plus I've got the 1.4 and 2 x converters for any inbetween sizes).
Any thoughts from anyone who's got any of these lenses? Is it worth taking a bit of hit on weight (extra 850ish grams for the 6 primes vs the 2 zooms) and space for the extra quality and speed?
Also, any comments on the argument that the quality of a good prime is much better than a good zoom? Some people insist it is, but others say this is based on arguments from 20-30 years ago and there's nothing in it these days...
I've got a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 on order, but for slightly less money I could get the following instead:
24mm f1.4
135mm f2
200mm f2.8
Seeing as I've already got 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.8, I'm now thinking that I should go with the 3 primes instead of the two zooms as these would cover the same range with better quality and larger apertures (plus I've got the 1.4 and 2 x converters for any inbetween sizes).
Any thoughts from anyone who's got any of these lenses? Is it worth taking a bit of hit on weight (extra 850ish grams for the 6 primes vs the 2 zooms) and space for the extra quality and speed?
Also, any comments on the argument that the quality of a good prime is much better than a good zoom? Some people insist it is, but others say this is based on arguments from 20-30 years ago and there's nothing in it these days...
In my opinion it is totally down to the kind of work you are doing. I would love to have a nice selection of fast, 'L' primes but for practicality's sake zooms are more convenient.
Don't get me wrong, I have a 50/1.8 and an 85/1.8 and they are superb, I use them a lot. Didn't realize how much I didn't need zooms until I slapped the primes on and started using my legs.
In my opinion the primes are always sharper, though it has been said that some the the L zooms get close to prime quality in terms of sharpness.
However, most of what I do is mobile people work (kids, parties, weddings etc.) and sometimes I cannot just step back a few paces as I would have to with a prime, and by the time I switched to a wider prime the moment will be long gone. If on the other hand I am going to do some specific static shots or organised portraits then I will always use a prime when I can. My 17-85 lives on my 20D as it gives me the flexibility to cope with most situations... (and the 24-70, though nice isn't wide enough for indoor use on a 1.6x cropped camera).
If I had a 1Ds, I would have the 24-70 on as my standard lens, no doubt. To compliment it with the 70-200/2.8 would be a nice combination. I have the 70-300 DO for doing long stuff, and the 100-400 for special events.
Don't get me wrong, I have a 50/1.8 and an 85/1.8 and they are superb, I use them a lot. Didn't realize how much I didn't need zooms until I slapped the primes on and started using my legs.
In my opinion the primes are always sharper, though it has been said that some the the L zooms get close to prime quality in terms of sharpness.
However, most of what I do is mobile people work (kids, parties, weddings etc.) and sometimes I cannot just step back a few paces as I would have to with a prime, and by the time I switched to a wider prime the moment will be long gone. If on the other hand I am going to do some specific static shots or organised portraits then I will always use a prime when I can. My 17-85 lives on my 20D as it gives me the flexibility to cope with most situations... (and the 24-70, though nice isn't wide enough for indoor use on a 1.6x cropped camera).
If I had a 1Ds, I would have the 24-70 on as my standard lens, no doubt. To compliment it with the 70-200/2.8 would be a nice combination. I have the 70-300 DO for doing long stuff, and the 100-400 for special events.
In theory I guess primes have to be higher quality as they can be optimised for just one focal length.
However for me, the flexibility of zooms is more important. Not only for quick accurate framing, but you don't lose time constantly swapping lenses, with associated wear on the mount and risk of getting dust on the sensor.
However for me, the flexibility of zooms is more important. Not only for quick accurate framing, but you don't lose time constantly swapping lenses, with associated wear on the mount and risk of getting dust on the sensor.
ATBE I would go for primes the whole time, but unfortunately ATANE. I love my 50mm but when you are working in a small time frame then there just isn't time to be swapping lenses all the time, as well as the risk (certainty) of getting dust on the sensor.
From everything I have personally experienced I would say that primes are definately sharper than equivalent zooms, but there isn't a whole lot in it if the zoom is a decent quality one. Maybe with your camera the small difference will be amplified and you will be much better off with the primes. I will eb interested to ehar what you find out. Why don't you do some camparison tests?
From everything I have personally experienced I would say that primes are definately sharper than equivalent zooms, but there isn't a whole lot in it if the zoom is a decent quality one. Maybe with your camera the small difference will be amplified and you will be much better off with the primes. I will eb interested to ehar what you find out. Why don't you do some camparison tests?
Hmm - been doing a bit of research, and some thinking and have decided to stick with the two zooms.
The quality of the two Canon zooms is very good from everything I've read, and not much less than the primes - in fact, slightly better in some cases. Then another very good point is the dust problem when changing lenses which I hadn't really considered... The final point is that usually primes are faster than zooms, but in the case of the 135 and 200 primes, the 70-200 actually beats them with it's image stabilisation.
The quality of the two Canon zooms is very good from everything I've read, and not much less than the primes - in fact, slightly better in some cases. Then another very good point is the dust problem when changing lenses which I hadn't really considered... The final point is that usually primes are faster than zooms, but in the case of the 135 and 200 primes, the 70-200 actually beats them with it's image stabilisation.
www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/big-sur.shtml
Here is a nice item about shooting Landscapes with only prime - and some comments re the comparison of prime and zoom at the end.
Nice shots as well.
And about half way through an interesting pointer for Photoshop processing ideas.
Here is a nice item about shooting Landscapes with only prime - and some comments re the comparison of prime and zoom at the end.
Nice shots as well.
And about half way through an interesting pointer for Photoshop processing ideas.
1 minute to fit and line up an ND grad filter, or an hour stuck in front of my PC driving Photoshop... I know what I'd prefer 
GetCarter said:I'm sure you could if you cut it out very carefully with a pair of scissors
can't do this with a filter though 
I was just referring to the article on LL which was referring just to using it instead of ND filters - I can see his point, but in most cases surely it would be quicker to do manually "in the field".
While I think PS is great, and love seeing what it can do, I still try to get the photos as good as it can be before it even goes near my PC. Maybe I'm just old fashioned though...
longq said:
And about half way through an interesting pointer for Photoshop processing ideas.
Interesting that he uses the double-image compositing technique that I'd roughly figured out myself; but ironically I'm now looking at using RAW, exposing for the highlights and bringing the shadows up with curves. I wonder which is better?
simpo two said:
I wonder which is better?
Both!
I mean, it's horses (or wild woolly cattle) for courses isn't it?
If you can only cram in so many tones on a digi, much like a slide film, what you're doing with blending techniques is giving yourself DOUBLE the zones to play with.
(I should point out that while I think Ansel Adams' output is brilliant, I haven't the feintest and I don't want to know about the zone system so I'm talking like a proper amateur who knows nothing... which I am ...)
So if your scene has got zones 1-8 but your sensor only sees 4 steps, it stands to reason that you need two hits at it to cover the lot.
But like you, I would tend to see compressed highlights or, preferably, shadows and look for impact in the image because (in spite) of this problem. At least I would until a few weeks ago. Now I can see just how limitless the possibilities are once you have a digital image!
(Edited because I'm so amateur...)
>> Edited by beano500 on Friday 18th March 11:29
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff