From zooms to primes

amtaylor

amtaylor

Messages
1,782
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
After adoring my 100mm IS macro and 300mm IS I am wondering about going primes all the way. My other lens is a 24-105 but I'm thinking perhaps about getting a 24 1.4 and a 50 1.2. The only thing that bothers me is that I had the 50 1.4 and didn't really get on with it. But I love the colour/contrast and of course sharpness of an L prime. I have a ff body and a crop which would be useful. Was thinking of getting another body too at some point so having to swap lenses wouldn't be an issue really. Thoughts?
 
amtaylor said:
...I am wondering about going primes all the way.

...I had the 50 1.4 and didn't really get on with it.
Click to expand...

:thinking:

Unless you use primes at low f/numbers all the time, you're kidding yourself that they are any better than a good zoom. But of course if that suits your style, they're wonderful.

My advice would be, don't sell the 24-105L, and buy the primes one at a time ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
:thinking:

Unless you use primes at low f/numbers all the time, you're kidding yourself that they are any better than a good zoom. But of course if that suits your style, they're wonderful.

My advice would be, don't sell the 24-105L, and buy the primes one at a time ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry but I disgree, zooms are a compromise, they're versatile but any advantages stop right there. Comparing a 2.8 pro zoom, at £1200, and a £100 50mm 1.8 aren't what I'm referring to...try a 200mm F2 vs 70-200mm at 200mm...a 35mm f1.4 or 50mm 1.2 vs 17-55mm 2.8...any aperture wider than F4 and you will see a difference in image quality (thats without even bringing distortion into the equation), sad, and expensive, but true....

You don't need to "use primes at low f/numbers all the time" to justify buying into prime lenses. It's an Apple vs Pc, Nikon vs Canon, BMW vs Merc type debate, will never end....
 
Get the primes :D

But pick the order to the ones you want/need to fill the gaps. as you have the 24-105 any primes that fall in that range you'd like you can test what you would see using that zoom lens.

If you can, borrow a lens or meet up with someone who has it so you can compare the zoom vs prime at different f#s in the same situation before shelling out money :D



The 5D is Full frame isn't it?
You may like to check out the 85mm f1.4 Samyang (some people on here have it) but it depends what you prefer shooting, and your 100 is probably a bit close to it focal length wise.

Alternatively you could perhaps look at the older canon lenses or m42 adapters and try to pick up a bargain? Worth an experiment?
 
Last edited:
Mahoneyd187 said:
Sorry but I disgree, zooms are a compromise, they're versatile but any advantages stop right there. Comparing a 2.8 pro zoom, at £1200, and a £100 50mm 1.8 aren't what I'm referring to...try a 200mm F2 vs 70-200mm at 200mm...a 35mm f1.4 or 50mm 1.2 vs 17-55mm 2.8...any aperture wider than F4 and you will see a difference in image quality (thats without even bringing distortion into the equation), sad, and expensive, but true....

You don't need to "use primes at low f/numbers all the time" to justify buying into prime lenses. It's an Apple vs Pc, Nikon vs Canon, BMW vs Merc type debate, will never end....
Click to expand...

^^ This.

There are plenty of situations where I couldn't really care less about light gathering, shallow depth of field or image quality particularly, I just prefer the experience of shooting with primes. Of course there's going to be situations where a prime is less versatile and you physically can't get close enough or far away enough, but generally having a prime on the front of your body just makes the experience so much more fun, even before reviewing and printing the images.

Of course, on my budget there's no way primes would ever be outperformed by zooms or matched, so that's another factor for me, but even if IQ was pretty much the same and apertures likewise, the experience of using a prime is something I don't find so much with a zoom lens.
 
HoppyUK said:
:thinking:

Unless you use primes at low f/numbers all the time, you're kidding yourself that they are any better than a good zoom.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. The biggest advantages of primes are IMVHO the fast aperture, macro ability and also the more compact size but there's also no denying (again, IMVHO) that a good prime beats a good zoom for image quality.

I've tried a good prime against an L zoom and... no contest, not even a hint of disagreement from the L owner. Granted you have to pixel peep and that's something that I'd normally argue against but look for which gives the better image and I'd be surprised if there are many good zooms that beat good primes.
 
Ksanti said:
^^ This.

There are plenty of situations where I couldn't really care less about light gathering, shallow depth of field or image quality particularly, I just prefer the experience of shooting with primes. Of course there's going to be situations where a prime is less versatile and you physically can't get close enough or far away enough, but generally having a prime on the front of your body just makes the experience so much more fun, even before reviewing and printing the images.

Of course, on my budget there's no way primes would ever be outperformed by zooms or matched, so that's another factor for me, but even if IQ was pretty much the same and apertures likewise, the experience of using a prime is something I don't find so much with a zoom lens.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting view on the use of primes and the shooting experience. It is at the core of some teachings I've read where the learners talk about comp for people starting out. They suggest moving n closer and getting further away rather rely in zoom to create your comp. I have both and only want a prime on the camera for specific situations I'm going in to where I know a head of time one length is all I need. Zooms are just to convenient and at times absolutely required. Even if I had every prime I'd be frustrated changing them all the time.... in the field..... I think they each have areas of excellence and neither is single best answer but if you could only have one, it'd be a zoom.
 
However as I always carry 2 bodies and considering a 3rd does that not change the equation somewhat as I can decide on 2 or 3 lengths before hand, which is probably enough for the majority of situations. What do you think?
 
Hard decision as to how to buy I used to have a bunch of zooms and used them for years then I got the prime bug sold all my zooms and bought a bunch of primes after a few years I sold some of the primes and started buying zooms again LOL

there is no doubt that primes are sharper and give better Bokeh and have wide apertures that no zoom lens can live with at low light which is very important
to a lot of togs
where the zooms win big time is the focal range they offer and a lot less lens changing etc
I now have a pretty good balance of primes and zooms so I would suggest having a camera bag with both.
I think my zooms are pretty damned sharp - and that my primes are blisteringly sharp but the difference is not very big at all the primes certainly give more images that jump off the page at you but its a close call
as an example about the ease of use versatility etc I have a canon 200mm F1.8 prime which without doubt the sharpest lens I have ever owned
but 90% of the time I take my 70-200mm f2.8IS out to shoot with... but I guess thats just me being lazy
so use both and have a happy medium
my 2p
Chris
 
Last edited:
Do nothing.

Tape your 24-105 to 24mm for a week, then 35mm, then 50, then 85. Find out what FL you prefer.

I'm a huge prime fan and shoot 90% of my weddings with primes now, but you have to be sure you can live without the versality of zooms.
 
HoppyUK said:
:thinking:

Unless you use primes at low f/numbers all the time, you're kidding yourself that they are any better than a good zoom. But of course if that suits your style, they're wonderful.

My advice would be, don't sell the 24-105L, and buy the primes one at a time ;)
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Hoppy on this one:

I can use my 17-55mm at 50mm and say, f/4, and use the 50mm f/1.8 at f/4 also and seriously, there's no difference in IQ other than the particular differences in contrast these lens sport. Both looks can be matched by either in software.

Okay, that's a very generalised view of things but even if I went out and bought the more expensive 50mm f/1.4, the zoom is always going to be a much better option for all-round shooting because of the quality of the optics paired-up with a versatile zoom range; to get the same range in primes would be massively costly plus it would see you walking round with one shoulder a foot lower than the other ;)

I have a mix of both; the 17-55 and 70-200 are key lenses because they are lightweight options to having primes that cover those focal lengths. Where my primes excel is areas where the zooms can't offer me anything - macro work, fisheye, or extreme (14mm) wideangle where very close focussing (down to a few inches) is required.

Primes are without doubt the kings of shallow DoF because their design allows for wide apertures, but as Hoppy states, when used at the same apertures, you'd have to be peeping pixels to the enth degree to really see any difference, a difference that would probably be negated when you output through a standard photo quality printer.
 
Last edited:
But comparing a £100 prime to a £700 zoom is different to comparing to a prime that's a grand. Most good pictures I've seen with 50 1.2 the 35 1.4 and 24 1.4 have a quality to them that doesnt seem to happen on zooms.
 
I agree. I've had great quality zooms and primes and I prefer primes.
 
amtaylor said:
But comparing a £100 prime to a £700 zoom is different to comparing to a prime that's a grand. Most good pictures I've seen with 50 1.2 the 35 1.4 and 24 1.4 have a quality to them that doesnt seem to happen on zooms.
Click to expand...

....and that's why I said it was a generalised view. You're never going to get an equal comparison - price is not a sole point to compare on unless you're working within a budget and the lenses you're comparing are like-for-like.

BTW, those images with the lenses you've pointed to above, are you referring to their use of DoF by virtue of their maximum aperture? If so, then of course that's something a zoom can't compete with. However, I hazard a guess that if they were shot at, say f/4, you'd see negligible differences if they were shot on a 17-55 or similar pro-spec glass.... :)
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
..but as Hoppy states, when used at the same apertures, you'd have to be peeping pixels to the enth degree to really see any difference, a difference that would probably be negated when you output through a standard photo quality printer.
Click to expand...

You said that there's no difference and then you said that you'd have to pixel peep to see any difference. Aren't most photography related choices like this? There's plenty of people here shooting with L lenses that wouldn't be able to reliably and consistently tell the difference between an L and a quality EF-S or third party lens and yet they buy the L.

I believe it's a little more clear cut with zooms v primes and couple the (possibly small) IQ advantage that primes have with a wider aperture and the possible size and weight advantages too and the argument for primes becomes two, three or fourfold. Having said all that I doubt I'd buy a non macro prime slower than f2.8.
 
Woof Woof - I said there was no difference in IQ between my two lenses, only differences in contrast that TBH, I don't worry about. ;)
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
.......Aren't most photography related choices like this?....
Click to expand...

I don't usually worry about IQ and pixel peeping when buying flashes :lol::lol::lol:

woof woof said:
....There's plenty of people here shooting with L lenses that wouldn't be able to reliably and consistently tell the difference between an L and a quality EF-S or third party lens and yet they buy the L...
Click to expand...

But I'd hazard a guess that the people buying the L lenses are, in many cases, doing so to get something they can't get on a regular consumer lens, such as faster apertures or weathersealing.

woof woof said:
.......I believe it's a little more clear cut with zooms v primes and couple the (possibly small) IQ advantage that primes have with a wider aperture and the possible size and weight advantages too and the argument for primes becomes two, three or fourfold. Having said all that I doubt I'd buy a non macro prime slower than f2.8.
Click to expand...

Of course there are massive advantages with some primes - take my Sigma 14mm as a good example; the close focussing is unparralled by any zoom I've used and I bet even the mighty 14-24 would struggle to match it in that respect.
 
Last edited:
Sure f4 for the 17-55mm and 50mm 1.8 (not a fair comparison anyway, pro lens vs hobbyist)...both shot at 50mm and F4 there is a reasonably favourable comparison in IQ, but both shot at F2.8, even the £90 odd 50mm f1.8 is much sharper than the + £1000 pro zoom. Let alone 1.8-2.8 ;)
 
amtaylor said:
But comparing a £100 prime to a £700 zoom is different to comparing to a prime that's a grand. Most good pictures I've seen with 50 1.2 the 35 1.4 and 24 1.4 have a quality to them that doesnt seem to happen on zooms.
Click to expand...

Equally, there are people comparing £5k primes to zooms, like the 200mm f/2. Of course they're better, heck they should be. I also have zooms are are very definately better than some primes, and the last quality prime I used in anger, Canon 35L 1.4, was unimpressive in many ways - plenty of CA, purple fringing, and vignetting. None of which my 24-105L has to the same extent, but then that lens doesn't do f/1.4 very well which is why I loved using the prime.

I think primes are a lot about state of mind. They are lovely things to use and to own, the viewfinder image is bright and pops in and out of focus beautifully. Just fitting a prime installs a different picture-taking mindset, makes you think creatively, and that can hardly be a bad thing. But it's not essential for good photography and most of the time, for most people, unless you use the low f/number capability the end result looks identical to a zoom image. If it didn't, there's no way I'd be using zooms, or anyone else I imagine.

I'll say another thing about zooms - you can compose better with them. Choose your subject, find the best angle, move forward/back to get the right perspective, and then zoom for the best framing. You can't do that with primes, even if you have a bag full, and the time to use them.

I used nothing but primes for over 20 years - been there and done that :D
 
I went from zooms to primes, and now back on zooms. I occasionally miss the low DOF capabilities of the primes, but missed the flexibility of the zooms a lot more when I was without them.
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Sure f4 for the 17-55mm and 50mm 1.8 (not a fair comparison anyway, pro lens vs hobbyist)...both shot at 50mm and F4 there is a reasonably favourable comparison in IQ, but both shot at F2.8, even the £90 odd 50mm f1.8 is much sharper than the + £1000 pro zoom. Let alone 1.8-2.8 ;)
Click to expand...

Totally agree, but the actual technical similarities of an aperture are surely a more favourable way of comparing two lenses than looking at price and price alone? We are after all talking about primes Vs zooms and like I've said, price cannot be the the sole point of comparison, can it? I suppose that's the crux of how we see lens buying - is IQ our sole priority or are there other factors that swing it....?

As I've pointed out, that's just my opinion between two lenses I use day-in, day-out in my job. I don't own any of the faster primes so as stated, I can't comment in that respect. All would say is that the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is a lens that is only 'hobbyist' in terms of its accessible price but in all other aspects, fits the 'pro' criteria pretty well..... :)
 
Primes are a pain at times and if you're out with 2 lenses you'll always have the wrong lens on the camera.

However, I love mine and wouldn't go back to using a zoom. OK, maybe I'd consider the 70-200 II.
 
specialman said:
Woof Woof - I said there was no difference in IQ between my two lenses, only differences in contrast that TBH, I don't worry about. ;)
Click to expand...

My point was that some chase these small differences.

For example some claim that L series zooms give better image quality than third party (or even non L Canon) zooms but it's possibly only the contrast differences that you mention. I personally believe that the difference between the best primes and the best zooms is more obvious than the difference between the best L zooms and the best non L zooms.
 
specialman said:
Totally agree, but the actual technical similarities of an aperture are surely a more favourable way of comparing two lenses than looking at price and price alone? We are after all talking about primes Vs zooms and like I've said, price cannot be the the sole point of comparison, can it? I suppose that's the crux of how we see lens buying - is IQ our sole priority or are there other factors that swing it....?

As I've pointed out, that's just my opinion between two lenses I use day-in, day-out in my job. I don't own any of the faster primes so as stated, I can't comment in that respect. All would say is that the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is a lens that is only 'hobbyist' in terms of its accessible price but in all other aspects, fits the 'pro' criteria pretty well..... :)
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to disagree with everything you say or anything dude,lol,but I would express severe doubts that the 50mm 1.8 is "pro" criteria in any sense...it's cheap, the build is crap, the glass is old, the focus is screw drive rather than the newer afs blah blah blah. The 50mm 1.4 would be a better comparison surely?
 
HoppyUK said:
:thinking:
Unless you use primes at low f/numbers all the time, you're kidding yourself that they are any better than a good zoom
Click to expand...

HoppyUK said:
Equally, there are people comparing £5k primes to zooms, like the 200mm f/2. Of course they're better, heck they should be. ...
Click to expand...

You made a blanket statement that primes arent any better than a good zoom. Best prime...versus best zoom = no competition...Prime all day every day

A 200 f2 VR I is available for a touch over £3000 new, and the VR II is just over £4000 :thumbs:

Zooms excel for versatility, but thats it
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
You made a blanket statement that primes arent any better than a good zoom. Best prime...versus best zoom = no competition...Prime all day every day

A 200 f2 VR I is available for a touch over £3000 new, and the VR II is just over £4000 :thumbs:

Zooms excel for versatility, but thats it
Click to expand...

I see you like blanket statements too: "Zooms excel for versatility, but thats it" ;)
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
I'm not trying to disagree with everything you say or anything dude,lol,but I would express severe doubts that the 50mm 1.8 is "pro" criteria in any sense...it's cheap, the build is crap, the glass is old, the focus is screw drive rather than the newer afs blah blah blah. The 50mm 1.4 would be a better comparison surely?
Click to expand...

I suppose the problem is that Nikon has taken its time releasing a new version so the AF-D version has been, for the last few years, a leftover from the pre-AF-S days when it would have been commonly seen on something like an F4 or F5. The f/1.4 is, I agree, a better comparison in terms of it fitting the 'modern' pro-spec criteria (and for many people, the price fits the comparison better, although i don't totally agree on comparing value), but seeing as I don't own one that's why I didn't make reference to it.:lol:
 
Last edited:
I guess then like most things in photography the answer is down to personal preference. I think I'm going to keep my 24-105 and get a prime or 2 as I can afford. Thanks everyone for comments.
 
HoppyUK said:
:thinking:

Unless you use primes at low f/numbers all the time, you're kidding yourself that they are any better than a good zoom. But of course if that suits your style, they're wonderful.

My advice would be, don't sell the 24-105L, and buy the primes one at a time ;)
Click to expand...

I agree. I'd get primes in addition to 24-105mm.

I could see myself living with primes, but I would need a full set: 17mm TS, 24/1.4 (or 2.8TS), 35/1.4, 50/1.4 (got, and optically it is OK), 85/1.8 (got excellent), 100mm macro (got, IS upgrade pending) and 300/400mm IS. I would also need a bigger bag and a helper.
 
amtaylor said:
I guess then like most things in photography the answer is down to personal preference. I think I'm going to keep my 24-105 and get a prime or 2 as I can afford. Thanks everyone for comments.
Click to expand...

Good plan - best of both worlds and allows you be a bit more discerning as to what you feel will complement your shooting, instead of buying an all-prime set-up to cover focal lengths that might only get a small bit of realworld action :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top