Prime vs Zoom

[TheKrikkitWars]

Title says its all, I have a seemingly irrational preference for Primes over Zooms.

What do y'all reckon?

[hepburn]

each to their own :)

[pxl8]

I share your preference, much prefer to walk about to compose the shot than to zoom for some reason but when I can't move around a zoom comes to the rescue.

[adamadam]

Me too.
The shots from the prime seem different and make me happier, even if it is stopped down. I don't know what it is, if there is anything at all! :)

[OneTen]

I find I become really lazy when using a zoom and forget to explore different angles. Lack of discipline I guess but I stick to primes anyway. For my purposes there's really no issue over quality, most zooms would be fine, it's me where the deficiency lies.:bonk:

[fabs]

I have found myself using primes much more recently. If I am out on just a wander, I have started packing my camera in my Crumpler bag with just my 28mm, 50mm and 105mm primes. It really does make me think about my shots more and I'm sure the results are generally sharper.

[Canon Bob]

I've gone down the prime route and the zooms only get the occasional outing now. I just find it far more satisfying.

Bob

[fletch5]

I only have the 50mm prime and three zooms, all my lenses cover 50mm, but if i will be shooting a few shots from a set distance i try to use the 50mm

[CapnKick]

Composition aside, I think I get clearer results on prime for some reason. Maybe it's because my zooms are too low-quality.

[Chris L]

Title says its all, I have a seemingly irrational preference for Primes over Zooms.

What do y'all reckon?

Nowt irrational about it IMO.

I've tried both types of lens of various focal lengths and found I got lazy using a zoom and that I love the flexibility the wide apertures; and hence shallow DOF, primes can give for composition.

[dod]

zoom for me, more practical for the subjects I shoot most often

[hillwalkinggirl]

I prefer my prime lens. I try to have a day when I just take out one of them. One day I just take my 50mm, and another my 24mm. I think it makes you look at things more creatively. Just waiting to get my Sigma 105 macro now, for a diffrent days shooting.

[feeb]

havent had much of a chance to explore Primes too much, i have a 50mm f1.4 on the way though, so should be able to take some nice piccies with that

i am a people photographer though, so i really enjoy having a zoom i can use to capture those moments people dont neccessarily like to share!

Got the Prime for a wedding coming up so i am sure in low light conditions it will be a god send...

[Steve 7]

Pick the right zoom lenses, read the reviews, and you'll have a job telling the quality apart from a prime. Nikons 55-200 VR has brilliant quality and I don't aquire 'dust bunnies' by changing in the field for a different lens. Take the Canon 24-105mm also, amazing on a 5D and a very walkabout lens.

[simonkit]

I tried a couple of primes early on but I just find the zooms so much more flexible, allowing me to compose exactly as I like...

read threads before mentioning that primes "force" you to think more about composition but didn't really work for me, everyone to their own - it's the end results that count regardless of what you use :thumbs:

simon

[dougdarter]

Hi,

Given the improving quality of modern OE glass, and in a lot of cases, 3rd party glass, I believe that it has become almost impossible to tell the difference between either if the shot has been taken with the appropriate lens, is well exposed, and in sharp focus. Pixel peepers may disagree, but in the real world there isn't much discernible difference at all, if any.

However, once we start to discuss pro quality f2.8 - f4 super telephotos from Canon and Nikon, especially once you get past 300mm, then I personally believe that the prime will win every time. Fast telephotos need expensive glass, and it's this glass that will in most cases, if put under scrutiny, reveal that an f2.8 300mm prime will be superior to a f2.8 - f4 superzoom, etc, etc.

If correct technique has been used though, I still think that few could tell the difference.

It also takes an extremely good zoom to beat an 80mm prime for portrait or macro work, and I have yet to see a wide angle zoom that even starts to compare with a good wide angle prime.

[blinkerz]

I started out using zoom lens as they seemed the more practical route and indeed for certain situations/environments theres no substitute, but the same can be said for primes. I actually like foot zooming which makes me think more about the framing, in fact sometimes i would have soo much choice with a zoom i missed the shot.

There is very clear differences in the quality of the image such as the the contrast, sharpness, flare,bokeh etc. The fast zooms only being 2.8 are not very good for night time photography and cannot match the speed of a good 1.4 lens.

Overal i would say they compliment each other and a good set of zooms and primes will prepare you for any situation.

[Darryn]

When i bought my current setup, 24-70f2.8, 70-200f2.8IS and 300f2.8IS... i did loads of research and check 100s of reviews, the 1 thing that none seemed to mention was the fact that after id used the 300f2.8IS i would LOVE the restrictions using a prime(300f2.8IS) put on you, you need to think more about each shot, move around to get the framing how you want it, so much so that ive already sold the 70-200f2.8IS and ill be moving on the 24-70f2.8 soon enough, and replacing them with a couple of primes.

[malla1962]

I very rarely use a zoom.:thumbs:

[Steve 7]

It may be interesting to note that Andy Rouse (wildlife photographer), after swapping from Canon to Nikon and using Canon's big primes, almost immediately began to use Nikon's rather expensive 200-400mm zoom. He seems to see little difference in quality. Yes, that zoom is expensive, but no more so than the big primes.