Prime lens vs. Zoom lens

[HoppyUK]

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



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.

There are only a few examples around of zooms and primes where you can compare both focal length and aperture, but in those instances the primes are always smaller, lighter and cheaper.

I don't hold with the theory that primes somehow force you to make better compositions or make you do certain things. The truth is that zooms allow you control both perspective and framing better than primes, and anyone that needs forcing to do anything compositionally has got more of a problem than just the lens.

 

[boyfalldown]

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

No I'm not at all. I'm comparing the top end Nikon zoom (in the focal range) with the top end Nikon prime in the same focal range.

An outdated and superseeded lens is not a good comparison. BTW the cheapest UK price for that is £329, and from WEX (if you're going to tell me I'm comparing apples and pears) its £369.

 

[ernesto]

its not a lot lighter - less then 300g and also £250 more expensive the point of which is its neither considerably lighter or cheaper.

In that specific example it is not cheaper but it is clearly a lot lighter. My complete camera and lens is only twice the weight of that 300g difference.

You do know what 300g is don't you?

 

[boyfalldown]

In that specific example it is not cheaper but it is clearly a lot lighter. My complete camera and lens is only twice the weight of that 300g difference.

You do know what 300g is don't you?

yes thanks, and whilst we're being patronising arses 900 -620 is 280 :bang:. Why not pack it in though and manage a sensible discussion instead?

You setup may only weigh 600g but mine weighs quite alot more and 280g is not a lot of weight

 

[boyfalldown]

There are only a few examples around of zooms and primes where you can compare both focal length and aperture, but in those instances the primes are always smaller, lighter and cheaper.

Thats the reason I compared position in the range (ie top end to top end instead) I think that more realistic

I don't hold with the theory that primes somehow force you to make better compositions or make you do certain things. The truth is that zooms allow you control both perspective and framing better than primes, and anyone that needs forcing to do anything compositionally has got more of a problem than just the lens.

Its a theory - it works for me. I did say its an opinion though which means I know others may disagree

 

[odd jim]

All getting along nicely again I see

 

[sk66]

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

I can agree that a prime can force you to think more...but only if you don't tend to think about your shots anyways. And if that's the case, one wouldn't necessarily start "thinking more," they *could* just take even crappier pictures.

When considering cost/weight you can find exceptions in any direction, but *most* aren't looking at primes with high price tags because the high cost *negates* a large part of their *benefit." They become expensive "specialty tools." ("Specialty tools" is what primes really are.)

As I said earlier, you can't really "zoom with your feet." It just doesn't work that way. By changing working distance for composition you affect several other things...primarily DOF and perspective. That means by changing distance you also have to change aperture; perhaps away from "ideal." And you can't do anything about the new perspective.

For any given "desired image" there is only one focal length/working distance/aperture that is "ideal." The best we can do is get as close to those settings as possible.

 

[boyfalldown]

You'll note I never said anything about foot zooming. I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't get why people tell me I can't compare pro (or high level) zooms with pro (or high level primes). The lower level primes everyone keeps suggesting I compare instead don't:

1. Have internal focus motors.(in the nikkors case)
2. Aren't weather sealed.
3. Aren't built to the same standards, metal body etc)

All of which don't effect optics but do effect cost and weight, so I've only made the best comparison I can. Why do people keep telling me I'm wrong then?

The rest is my opinion and as said works for me.

 

[munkee]

You'll note I never said anything about foot zooming. I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't get why people tell me I can't compare pro (or high level) zooms with pro (or high level primes). The lower level primes everyone keeps suggesting I compare instead don't:

1. Have internal focus motors.(in the nikkors case)
2. Aren't weather sealed.
3. Aren't built to the same standards, metal body etc)

All of which don't effect optics but do effect cost and weight, so I've only made the best comparison I can. Why do people keep telling me I'm wrong then?

The rest is my opinion and as said works for me.

For what it's worth I think it's a perfectly reasonable comparison to make.

 

[ernesto]

yes thanks, and whilst we're being patronising arses 900 -620 is 280 :bang:. Why not pack it in though and manage a sensible discussion instead?

You setup may only weigh 600g but mine weighs quite alot more and 280g is not a lot of weight

280g is 280g and it doesn't matter how much you say it isn't much, it clearly is a good amount of weight and that is a particularly heavy prime you have chosen. My prime weighs 170g and costs £150 so show me a zoom of equal IQ for same price, weight and size.

 

[cambsno]

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

Exactly. Most of the time I find my pics with a prime to be better than those with a zoom as I do need to think about the shot more.

 

[sk66]

I don't get why people tell me I can't compare pro (or high level) zooms with pro (or high level primes). The lower level primes everyone keeps suggesting I compare instead don't:

I didn't say you *can't,* I said most won't. I think it's more "realistic" to compare the high level primes to the high level zooms but then most of the "advantages" disappear. If you want a top level specialty tool (fast prime) of the same quality(build, IQ wide open, etc) as a top level versatile tool (zoom) it makes sense. IMO, the only real advantage here is low light capability...you consider it to be "thoughtfulness." FWIW, I do own a few top level primes for specific purposes and I don't own any of the "nifty/thrifty" lenses. If you stack up enough of the top level primes to equal a top level zooms flexibility you will have more expense and more weight.

But most consider IQ and cost first. And an inexpensive prime can get you the same IQ as a top level zoom (at the same aperture) for a lot less money, and they weigh less. So in this category we get lower cost/lower weight/equal IQ/better low light capability (with reduced IQ) as advantages...makes much more "sense."

Some would add shallow DOF/"bokeh" as another advantage of primes, but that is rather oversimplified and misleading IMO.

 

[boyfalldown]

280g is 280g and it doesn't matter how much you say it isn't much, it clearly is a good amount of weight and that is a particularly heavy prime you have chosen. My prime weighs 170g and costs £150 so show me a zoom of equal IQ for same price, weight and size.

Its only a big deal if you have weak girly arms. The point rather was that primes aren't often substantially cheaper or lighter then equivalent zooms. The key word is equivilant.

You tell me it's a particularly heavy prime, but the 35 f/1.4 and the 85 f/1.4 come on at 600g each as well, so it's far from unusual for a fast prime

 

[ernesto]

The point rather was that primes aren't often substantially cheaper or lighter then equivalent zooms. The key word is equivilant.

And the equivalent zoom IQ wise for my 170g £150 35 1.8 is?

You can't argue with hard facts I'm afraid - primes are lighter and smaller than equivalent quality zooms which they obviously would be as they have less glass, smaller focal lengths etc,. Not sure why you are even trying to argue this one?

And FYI - saying things like weak girly arms is all a bit playground and not helping your cause...

 

[boyfalldown]

And the equivalent zoom IQ wise for my 170g £150 35 1.8 is?

You can't argue with hard facts I'm afraid - primes are lighter and smaller than equivalent quality zooms which they obviously would be as they have less glass, smaller focal lengths etc,. Not sure why you are even trying to argue this one?

And FYI - saying things like weak girly arms is all a bit playground and not helping your cause...

No I agree with you there, you can't argue with them. And as you say there are exceptions, but the reality remains that the smallest and cheapest lens in the Nikon range is a zoom, and the heaviest and most expensive is a prime. (I think its true for canon, but don't know the range as well)

I simply said that saying primes are much cheaper and lighter then the equivalent zoom is a fallacy which it clearly is. And gave example after example.

There are some outdated (though still very good primes) which are lighter & cheaper, but generally a prime is not much lighter (if at all) and certainly not a lot cheaper then an equivalent zoom.

FYI - you started things with you're somewhat patronising comments about 'knowing what 300 grams is'. I suggested stopping being foolish at that point, something beyond you. I notice you're still massaging your figures in your favour too.

 

[odd jim]

No I agree with you there, you can't argue with them. And as you say there are exceptions, but the reality remains that the smallest and cheapest lens in the Nikon range is a zoom, and the heaviest and most expensive is a prime. (I think its true for canon, but don't know the range as well)

I simply said that saying primes are much cheaper and lighter then the equivalent zoom is a fallacy which it clearly is. And gave example after example.

There are some outdated (though still very good primes) which are lighter & cheaper, but generally a prime is not much lighter (if at all) and certainly not a lot cheaper then an equivalent zoom.

FYI - you started things with you're somewhat patronising comments about 'knowing what 300 grams is'. I suggested stopping being foolish at that point, something beyond you. I notice you're still massaging your figures in your favour too.

Nope, the lightest lens in the Canon line up is a prime - the 50mm f/1.8 II at 130g. The heaviest Canon lens is a prime - the EF 1200mm f/5.6 at 16,000g. But that's a rather exclusive lens. The only equivalent zoom I know of would be the old Nikon 1200-1700 f/5.6-8 which weighs in at 16,000g also, so I'd say the neither wins here.

However, the fact of the matter is, there is no equivalent zoom, you could pick any zoom that had the focal range of the prime, so you could argue the Canon 18-200mm is the equivalent of the 85mm f/1.8 as that covers 85mm. As does the 70-200mm f/4. Out of those, which would you choose? Or you could have the 28-235, 28-105, 28-135, 28-200, 70-300, 55-250, I cold go on. They all cover the 85mm range. So what actually is the "equivalent" zoom to the 85mm f/1.8 or 1.4?

The 'equivalent' zoom can be anything you want it to be, from rubbish to sublime.

 

[fracster]

Some like to use primes, some like to use zooms, some like to use both, does it really matter?

Not really.

 

[Phall82]

Some like to use primes, some like to use zooms, some like to use both, does it really matter?

Not really.

I agree. I use both and the results from my primes are better quality images but the zoom is better if you want flexibility.

My primes are cheaper, lighter, faster and better image quality than my zoom but I use my zoom if I'm off out walking for the day and need/want 18-200mm range.

I don't have the money to buy a realistic equivalent zoom to the prime image quality so I compromise with my setup and use primes when I want 'top quality'. I also must have girly arms because I wouldn't want to carry around a 24-70 or a 70-200 f2.8 all day.

 

[ernesto]

I simply said that saying primes are much cheaper and lighter then the equivalent zoom is a fallacy which it clearly is. And gave example after example.

No, it is not a fallacy. For equvalent IQ a prime is cheaper, lighter and smaller. Your examples are skewed to try and prove your and as odd jim says, you have a massive range of lens to choose from to fit your argument.

Go at it the other way, pick a small, cheap and light prime with excellent IQ and then find a zoom that is same price, size and weight.

Again, give me a zoom that matches my Sony 35 1.8 for IQ. (£150, 170g and small)

FYI - my dad is much bigger than yours.

 

[fracster]

FFS, agree to disagree and move on.

 

[ernesto]

FFS, agree to disagree and move on.

Done

 

[boyfalldown]

It is - you'll note I always have stayed away from IQ, and made my points sole on price and weight.

Just to give an example any FX zoom (with that focal range) will give better IQ on any of my bodies then a 35 1.8, just by virtue of it not vignetting and losing the edges. Its very subjective which is why I've tried to compare like with like - ie high end prime to high end zoom.

Anyway its a different way of looking at it - thats all

FYI - Maybe, but my Dad will run over your Dad's feet in his wheelchair and the scoot off quick (assuming its down hill)

 

[ernesto]

It is - you'll note I always have stayed away from IQ, and made my points sole on price and weight.

Ah, that is probably the cause of the debate then. For me high IQ for a cheap price is what primes excel at.

I am a cheapskate (or more honestly my photography skills don't warrant anything better) so paying £150 for a lens that gives brilliant results is a great for me.