Using a prime

pxl8 said:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=4

compares 300mm prime to zoom @ 300mm, both at f/11 - the prime is far superior!
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am a Nikon shooter, but the prime you have compared to looks like pro L glass, but the zoom looks like a consumer model...

Not a fair comparison, is it?

I'm pretty sure at F8-F11, comparing say a Nikon 50mm 1.8 with a pro 17-55/24-70 2.8, and you'd be pretty damn hard pressed to tell the difference.
 
Not a major difference imo, and when I compared the 50mm 1.2L against the 24-70 28 L...guess which is sharper ;)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=9

Anyway, IMO pixel peeping like this is pointless. But to really settle the argument, think about this. Wide angle photography. I'd like to see anyone argue that a prime ultra wide such as a fixed 10mm or 15mm can even compare to a 10-20mm zoom, when you're close to the subjects to emphasise the perspective distortion....here, where even a few inches can greatly affect perspective, I'd like to see people 'foot zoom' the composition whilst getting the desired perspective!
 
Cheng said:
Not a major difference imo, and when I compared the 50mm 1.2L against the 24-70 28 L...guess which is sharper ;)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=9

Anyway, IMO pixel peeping like this is pointless. But to really settle the argument, think about this. Wide angle photography. I'd like to see anyone argue that a prime ultra wide such as a fixed 10mm or 15mm can even compare to a 10-20mm zoom, when you're close to the subjects to emphasise the perspective distortion....here, where even a few inches can greatly affect perspective, I'd like to see people 'foot zoom' the composition whilst getting the desired perspective!
Click to expand...

Good point about the realities of foot zooming! (Which will of course be ignored by the blinkered primes lovers ;) )

Interesting link to TheDigitalPicture, and not for the first time a totally joke review, this time of the 50mm f/1.2 L. No way is that lens that bad. It's their lens testing procedure that is bad. Here is a criminally telling line from the text: "The relatively close proximity of the ISO 12233 resolution chart did not bring out the best in this lens." So why do they persist in using the damn stupid thing? That site must generate a lot of money from deluded pixel peepers :shake:
 
fastworldimages said:
I guess most sports photographers are blinkered then :LOL:
Click to expand...

If anybody made a decent mega zoom, say a 300-600mm f/4, that was sharp, no bigger than a similar prime, and cost a similar sum, then every sports pro in the world would use it. Without a shadow of a doubt.

(And don't say Sigma - see above criteria.)
 
HoppyUK said:
If anybody made a decent mega zoom, say a 300-600mm f/4, that was sharp, no bigger than a similar prime, and cost a similar sum, then every sports pro in the world would use it. Without a shadow of a doubt.

(And don't say Sigma - see above criteria.)
Click to expand...

:LOL:

If there was a 10-1000mm f/2 lens that was cheap, light, sharp, etc. then yes we'd all have one. What's your point because f/4 is useless for sports. Don't forget the Canon 200mm f/2L for indoor stuff.

Two things of note about zoom lenses.

a) When you find the zoom ring stops at one end or the other you forget you have legs which leads to...

b) most of your shots will be at one end or the other.
 
pxl8 said:
:LOL:

If there was a 10-1000mm f/2 lens that was cheap, light, sharp, etc. then yes we'd all have one. What's your point because f/4 is useless for sports. Don't forget the Canon 200mm f/2L for indoor stuff.

Two things of note about zoom lenses.

a) When you find the zoom ring stops at one end or the other you forget you have legs which leads to...

b) most of your shots will be at one end or the other.
Click to expand...

I saw a lot of 500/4s and 600/4s at Wimbledon. And none of the photographers could move a yard. Same as photographers on the football touch line. The action moves but the photographers are stuck and they have to switch lenses to change length. They would kill for a quality fast zoom, but only the Nikon 200-400 4 comes close.

Why is f/4 useless for sports? You don't need low f/numbers with good high ISO cameras like Canon 1D3 or Nikon D3, and most of the time they could do without the razor thin depth of field.

But if you do want shallow DoF, then it has to be a prime. Really low f/number zooms are impossible. But I can't think of any other good reason for wanting a prime.
 
billybob99 said:
Hi all
I like a lot of others new to dslr photography have got used to using a zoom lens whether it be the kit lens it came with or as is quite possibly common a 70-200/300 upgrade, I then bought a 50mm prime and this caused me quite a lot of problems to start with, as before with the zooms if I wasn't stood in the correct place I could just zoom in or out, since using the prime I tend to put a lot more thought into where to stand for each shot and think generally it has improved my photography no end.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...


Those of us of a certain age had no option other than to use primes but its good that all these years on the skills required are still being learned
 
fastworldimages said:
I guess most sports photographers are blinkered then :LOL:
Click to expand...

Sports photographers aren't close, they're far away. Perspective changes a lot less the further away you are, relatively. Like to see how well ultra wide users get on using a prime compared to a zoom...

I'm not saying that either of them are better for one person over another, they can choose what they want, I couldn't care less. My point is, in theory unless you're carrying a bag of primes for every mm (and half mm!) of focal length, the 'perfect' picture will not be obtainable without a zoom.


Here's something that should hopefully help people make their mind up:

How should you be correctly taking a photo?
1. Find the correct perspective and angle. This involves using your feet to physically move yourself and your camera to the correct location. Nothing about this step changes from using a zoom than using a prime. It's THE SAME.

2. Frame the picture correctly - using focal length. Considerably easier to utilise the full resolution of your camera if you're using a zoom, otherwise you're having to crop via post proc. afterwards and lose resolution.

So there we go - for the composition arguers, I can't see how they have a valid argument (except for training really, and then again you could tape up the zoom ring). I bet you after a training, a prime user is even more potent with a zoom than a prime.

Compromise step 1, and you compromise the composition that you really want, the one that's 'in your head'. No ifs or buts.
Compromise step 2, and you compromise resolution. I fail to see how this is an advantage.

This is purely from a theoretical composition point of view...

Weight, DoF and possibly image quality (on cheaper zooms) will be the only other valid arguments for a prime. But really only DoF is the killer. Weight - one zoom vs many primes, zoom wins, unless you plan to carry only one or two primes. IQ - again, negligible with decent glass on both ends stopped down.
 
p1tse said:
if a nifty fifity was cheap enough i would love to try one and other primes, but my tamron 28-75 f2.8 isn't too bad
Click to expand...

i know what you mean however the sony 50mm f1.8 is out and its £100 cheaper however its DT only so you'll have to replace it if you go FF.

PerfectSpeed said:
It's the cheapest lens on the block, if you paid more than 70 quid for one you didn't search hard enough :thinking:
Click to expand...

perfectspeed, we are sony users and only had the 50mm f1.4 for £250 however the new 1.8 version is out but im waiting till the end of the year because i know it will go down to around £100.
 
HoppyUK said:
Why is f/4 useless for sports? You don't need low f/numbers with good high ISO cameras like Canon 1D3 or Nikon D3, and most of the time they could do without the razor thin depth of field.
Click to expand...

Are you trolling?
 
The only reason I went for my 85mm f1.4 Prime is because I wanted the shallow depth of field it gives. I have f2.8 from 14mm up to 200mm

14-27mm
24-70mm
70-200mm

Also the above Nikon zoom glass will closely match most primes and in some cases even be better and gives me more flexibly. I think using both zooms & primes is the best way to go instead of staying with one or the other. (y)
 
love my primes
gives me greater opportunity for a clarity or creativeness of shot
especially in low light
I love the versitility of zooms for walkabout lenses and general photography but if I had to sell my prime lenses I'd cry :p
on the flip side...I've worked with primes exclusively for a gig once where light was plentiful and was awkward. in a time-limited situation zooms give you that extra opportunity. horses for courses really.
 
pxl8 said:
Are you trolling?
Click to expand...

LOL Are you avoiding the question? ;)

It was you that said "f/4 is useless for sports" without any explanation or justification. A contentious statement, without any back up. That is trolling.

I said f/4 is fine for sports, you don't necessarily need f/2.8 (which is handy because the longest pimes are f/4) and explained why. That is not trolling.
 
I just love my nifty fifity since getting it, it's hardly of my camera..
 
HoppyUK said:
LOL Are you avoiding the question? ;)

It was you that said "f/4 is useless for sports" without any explanation or justification. A contentious statement, without any back up. That is trolling.

I said f/4 is fine for sports, you don't necessarily need f/2.8 (which is handy because the longest pimes are f/4) and explained why. That is not trolling.
Click to expand...

Not avoiding the question, I thought the answer was pretty obvious and you already touched on it by saying up the ISO instead.

Shooting field sports under floodlights
Shooting a 10k in february in the pouring rain
Shooting anything indoors

f/4 and high iso are not the answer, f/2.8 or better (indoors) and high ISO is something to fall back on.

A random example from Kipax:

http://matchpics.fotopic.net/p56592569.html

300mm, f/2.8, 1/320s, ISO 2500

and 1/320s is on the low side, there's some motion blur on the ball and foot.

So are you seriously saying that sports shooters are ok with f/4 because they can up the ISO? :wacky:
 
pxl8 said:
Not avoiding the question, I thought the answer was pretty obvious and you already touched on it by saying up the ISO instead.

Shooting field sports under floodlights
Shooting a 10k in february in the pouring rain
Shooting anything indoors

f/4 and high iso are not the answer, f/2.8 or better (indoors) and high ISO is something to fall back on.

A random example from Kipax:

http://matchpics.fotopic.net/p56592569.html

300mm, f/2.8, 1/320s, ISO 2500

and 1/320s is on the low side, there's some motion blur on the ball and foot.

So are you seriously saying that sports shooters are ok with f/4 because they can up the ISO? :wacky:
Click to expand...


I don't get what you say as all the canon lens above 400mm are F4 & above yet I'm sure I've seen most sports togs using big L lens above 400mm. :thinking:
 
pxl8 said:
Not avoiding the question, I thought the answer was pretty obvious and you already touched on it by saying up the ISO instead.

Shooting field sports under floodlights
Shooting a 10k in february in the pouring rain
Shooting anything indoors

f/4 and high iso are not the answer, f/2.8 or better (indoors) and high ISO is something to fall back on.

A random example from Kipax:

http://matchpics.fotopic.net/p56592569.html

300mm, f/2.8, 1/320s, ISO 2500

and 1/320s is on the low side, there's some motion blur on the ball and foot.

So are you seriously saying that sports shooters are ok with f/4 because they can up the ISO? :wacky:
Click to expand...

Yes, that's at the heart of it I guess. I think higher ISO is a genuine alternative to lower f/numbers, which is the only thing that primes can do and zooms cannot. Though not a complete solution of course and it's not something I feel any great need to disagree about. It's just a point of view, but this is where it comes from.

Today we have that choice, though it's an option only realised in the last couple of years or so. We are not shooting Tri-X and pushed Ektachrome at ISO400 any more. The latest pro spec Nikons and Canons are quite capable of giving better quality than that at ISO1600 and often much higher. That is at least two stops benefit compared to one stop between f/2.8 and f/4, which is the distinction you seem to be making. And every new generation of sensors pushes that higher.

There is also the depth of field benefit of higher f/numbers and I find it hard to believe that sports photographers would choose something like a 200mm f/2 in preference to f/4 if they had a free choice. Sure, it's not that simple and there is no such thing as a genuine free choice, always a mixture of compromises but that's my belief, in general.

To be honest, I think that the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is not a clincher either way. If it was between f/1.4 and f/4, then that's different - that's a very big change both in terms of exposure and depth of field, and it's a game that zooms just can't play and never will.

Which leaves me with primes for shallow depth of field, but compromised options on composition (ie perspective), and zooms as the better all round choice given that very shallow DoF is not often either required or even desirable. I'm talking in general here, noy sport specifically.

Edit: looking at Kipax' picture on the link, the critical factor there is 1/320sec shutter speed, even at ISO2500 and f/2.8. He's on the limit everywhere so of course another stop of aperture is vital. But that is an extreme example, it is not an everyday situation for many of us. And it's hardly a "random" example is it; I could go on flikr now and choose another hundred random examples to prove exactly the opposite.
 
i think that the manufactuers should make some kits that could be for example;

sony a200 with 18-70mm kit lens
sony a200 with 18-70mm and 75-300mm
sony a200 with 50mm f1.8

this way we will have a choice because stores like jessops charge £100 for the cruddy kit lens whereas this way you can get the option to buy the 50mm f1.8 instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top