Prime lens vs. Zoom lens

C

connersz

Messages
1,468
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
No
I have an idea but I'm not 100% sure on the main differences between the lenses. I mean I know that ones fixed and the other you can zoom but say you have a lens that is 10-55mm and you buy a 50mm prime lens. Then the first lens covers this anyway so how is the fixed lens of benefit?

Hope that makes sense.
 
Generally the quality of fixed primes produces sharper photos with less CA and vignetting etc. But some short range zooms are also of exceptional quality as well.
Gotta do your homework on the lens of choice.
 
The fixed lens is generally of better quality (gives higher image quality) as it doesn't have to include the complexity and additional pieces of glass for the zooming.

It is also possible to get much larger apertures as again they do not have the complexity of the zoom lens.

So basically a better quality image with much better low light performance and lower depth of field for the same price as a top level zoom.
 
A prime is normally smaller and lighter than a zoom.

It's also normally has better image quality and is sharper than a zoom

You also can shoot at f 1.4/1.8/2.8 which is great to isolate subject or shoot in low light.

I love my 24-70 as an all rounder but much happier with primes.
 
You can get zooms that are very small and light, don't cost a lot, and some can be sharper than primes, but the one thing no zoom can do is run down to very low f/numbers like f/1.4.
 
treeman said:
Agree with Steve, years ago the difference in quality was considerable, though now I think you'd be hard pressed to see much difference. Probably varies from lens to lens.
Click to expand...

Only if you're prepared to spend serious £ on a zoom.

I've not used a zoom yet, including L zooms, that can compete with the iq of the 35mm f/2 or the 85mm f/1.8 Canons. And that's before we go into L prime territory...
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
You can get zooms that are very small and light, don't cost a lot, and some can be sharper than primes, but the one thing no zoom can do is run down to very low f/numbers like f/1.4.
Click to expand...

Really ?? Like what ??
 
I was interested in those too, let's have some examples.

Something like a Tamron 17-50 is small, light and cheap for the quality however it is still twice the price and size and more than twice the weight of my 35 1.8. And while the IQ is good it is still not quite as good as my cheap Sony 35 1.8 (have owned both)
 
cambsno said:
Really ?? Like what ??
Click to expand...

I mean zooms in general, not a specific lens. It's just that the one unique trick that primes can do is very low f/numbers.
 
very low f numbers that no one uses as the DOF is too shallow.......
 
Gr8Shot said:
very low f numbers that no one uses as the DOF is too shallow.......
Click to expand...

Of course they use them. DoF isn't just based on aperture, focal length and distance to subject/background also come into play. Don't just assume that anything wider than f2.8 is going to have paper thin DoF, I often shoot at f2 with the 50mm and, if the subject is far enough away, the Dof is plenty for what I need.
 
Last edited:
connersz said:
but say you have a lens that is 10-55mm and you buy a 50mm prime lens. Then the first lens covers this anyway so how is the fixed lens of benefit?

.
Click to expand...


Generally, the 50mm prime will open a lot wider than your zoom. It's a separate entity really.
 
Picture one is partially OOF, proably artisitic intent but i think it loos poor and under exposed.
2 fair enough DOF is greater at that distance
3 nice example of DOF albeit boring.
 
Gr8Shot said:
Picture one is partially OOF, proably artisitic intent but i think it loos poor and under exposed.
2 fair enough DOF is greater at that distance
3 nice example of DOF albeit boring.
Click to expand...

It's nice to have the option with wide aperture primes sometimes though. Granted there are better examples from better photographers, but for example


D800 samyang test shots by Sir SR, on Flickr


Sleeping with the fishes! by Sir SR, on Flickr


Sunday Morning Lazing! by Sir SR, on Flickr


help me by Sir SR, on Flickr

Although not as versatile as zooms I'm not sure about the blanket "nobody uses them because of the DOF"

S
 
Gr8Shot said:
Picture one is partially OOF, proably artisitic intent but i think it loos poor and under exposed.
2 fair enough DOF is greater at that distance
3 nice example of DOF albeit boring.
Click to expand...

I thought it was rather good :thumbs:
 
Sir SR said:
It's nice to have the option with wide aperture primes sometimes though. Granted there are better examples from better photographers, but for example

Although not as versatile as zooms I'm not sure about the blanket "nobody uses them because of the DOF"

S
Click to expand...
F2.8 zoom here I think that would give shallow enought DOF
HoppyUK said:
I thought it was rather good :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Opinions vary - thats photography
 
fabs said:
Of course they use them. DoF isn't just based on aperture, focal length and distance to subject/background also come into play.
Click to expand...

In fact, FL and subject distance have 2x the effect on DOF compared to aperture. A wide aperture is nice when you need/want it. But it's also possible to get "the same" appearance by using a longer lens at a smaller aperture w/ more actual DOF...

It is a fallacy that you can "zoom with your feet." It just doesn't work that way...
 
Last edited:
Gr8Shot said:
very low f numbers that no one uses as the DOF is too shallow.......
Click to expand...

It's not very often I read a post on here that's just 'wrong', but you've managed it, so well done for that.
What's more, you appear to know it's wrong. I'm baffled:thinking:
 
Phil V said:
It's not very often I read a post on here that's just 'wrong', but you've managed it, so well done for that.
What's more, you appear to know it's wrong. I'm baffled:thinking:
Click to expand...

Well Phil I was getting quite miffed when everyone was just implying in my mind f-stop is the only consideration when buying a lens, when there is so much more
 
Last edited:
Most zooms trade flexibility for absolute image quality. Primes typically have much simpler construction. My 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom cost almost ten times the price of my 50mm prime and both deliver similar image quality at 50mm f/2.8. The thing is though that the zoom replaces not just the 50mm but a whole bunch of other prime lenses as well.
 
munkee said:
Most zooms trade flexibility for absolute image quality. Primes typically have much simpler construction. My 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom cost almost ten times the price of my 50mm prime and both deliver similar image quality at 50mm f/2.8. The thing is though that the zoom replaces not just the 50mm but a whole bunch of other prime lenses as well.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that the zoom also weighs 10 as much...;)

FWIW, I own a few primes for specific purposes, but i only use one regularly (the 400 f/2.8).
 
fabs said:
Really? Can't say that anyone here has said that?
Click to expand...

OK maybe not well put AGAIN. But some were implying that primes are the only option when I believe there are some zooms out there that there is little to no difference in IQ to a prime as they can produce excellent images, and just because it has one focal lenfpgth doesn't mean it will be better.
 
sk66 said:
You forgot to mention that the zoom also weighs 10 as much...;)

FWIW, I own a few primes for specific purposes, but i only use one regularly (the 400 f/2.8).
Click to expand...

Fair point. It's certainly no lightweight.
 
Gr8Shot said:
OK maybe not well put AGAIN. But some were implying that primes are the only option when I believe there are some zooms out there that there is little to no difference in IQ to a prime as they can produce excellent images, and just because it has one focal lenfpgth doesn't mean it will be better.
Click to expand...

No-one was implying that. Yes, some zooms can produce images where IQ differences are minor. However, those zooms are bigger, heavier and a lot more expensive. Having more elements and having those elements moving around to accommodate the differing focal lengths is alway going to be more difficult and expensive exercise than a fixed length, basic physics at play.

If you are happy with a set focal length you can get very high IQ, light weight and relative cheap price compared to a zoom that gives similar IQ and that is the advantage of primes. That is not even factoring in the larger apertures.
The disadvantage is pretty obvious, they are fixed focal length!
 
Them being fixed focal length isn't a disadvantage. Neither are top end primes either much lighter or cheaper then the equivalent zooms.

IMHO the big advantage of primes is they force you to make less or a compromise with your photographs. They force you to move to get the composition right and make you think a little more about how you frame your photo, rather then just being the compromise zooms produce
 
boyfalldown said:
Them being fixed focal length isn't a disadvantage.
Click to expand...

:thinking:

Neither are top end primes either much lighter or cheaper then the equivalent zooms.
Click to expand...

Primes are considerably lighter and cheaper, even with their big aperture advantage.

IMHO the big advantage of primes is they force you to make less or a compromise with your photographs.
Click to expand...

Just the opposite.

They force you to move to get the composition right and make you think a little more about how you frame your photo, rather then just being the compromise zooms produce
Click to expand...

Not at all - primes make you compromise either framing or perspective, unless you have one to hand for every focal length. Optimum composition is a combination of viewpoint for perspective, and then focal length for framing.
 
HoppyUK said:
:thinking:



Primes are considerably lighter and cheaper, even with their big aperture advantage.
Click to expand...

should we compare say a high end 24-70 f/2.8 zoom to a high end 24 f/1.4 prime.

The Nikon zoom is £1,239 from WEX and weighs 900g

The prime is £1,489 from the same place, and weights 620g. Certainly not cheaper and not alot lighter.

Comparing like (as like as you can get) for like is often the same story

HoppyUK said:
Just the opposite.



Not at all - primes make you compromise either framing or perspective, unless you have one to hand for every focal length. Optimum composition is a combination of viewpoint for perspective, and then focal length for framing.
Click to expand...

I did say its an opinion. But again just IMHO, zooms lead to a far greater compromise then a prime, purely because they allow you to think I'll stand and frame for here and this will do.
 
boyfalldown said:
should we compare say a high end 24-70 f/2.8 zoom to a high end 24 f/1.4 prime.

The Nikon zoom is £1,239 from WEX and weighs 900g

The prime is £1,489 from the same place, and weights 620g. Certainly not cheaper and not alot lighter.

Comparing like (as like as you can get) for like is often the same story
Click to expand...

620g not a lot lighter than 900g, it is 2/3 the weight! Plus you don't need to spend the same to get the same IQ, which is the point.
 
its not a lot lighter - less then 300g and also £250 more expensive the point of which is its neither considerably lighter or cheaper.
 
Last edited:
But what would a 24-70mm f1.4 cost and weight, your comparing apples and pears.

The equivalent Nikon 24mm f2.8 is 205g and £245
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top