Zoom v Primes: what would you do?

julian_fraser

julian_fraser

Messages
215
Name
Julian
Edit My Images
No
Evening all...I don't know if it's just cos I'm bored but I was entertaining the thought today of swapping my 24-70mm in for a couple more primes to go along with my existing 50mm f/1.8 (an excellent lens to stick on just to take the camera out and about with)...I'd love an 85mm and would get something like a 28mm f/2.8 and/or 35mm f/2 at the other end to balance out the range..

I'll say now that the more I think about it the sillier it sounds...for example, the last wedding I did I didn't take the 24-70mm off all day!! It's also handy for studio portraits as I'm always moving around, closing in, moving back etc and the zoom helps enormously. In fact - I've pretty much answered my own question haven't I :wacky:

My own personal circs apart, I'd still be interested in peoples thoughts though - maybe the experiences of people that have both set-ups?

cheers
julian
 
I like primes but I'm fast realising that they aren't the holy grail they may seem at first. The quality is good, the speed is good - clearly they have a use, (low light, shallow depth of field etc.) but I think it's handy to have some zooms for when it just isn't convenient to be faffing about changing lenses all the time. I'd rather take a zoom and get the shot than have it go right by me while I'm swapping a prime on and off the camera - and yes, that has happened to me before :bonk:

I have three primes at the moment; a 30, a fast 50, and a 135. I'm planning on purchasing a 70-200, because I'd like more range either side of the 135. Otherwise, I'd have to purchase two more primes. Three primes covering the same range as one zoom is a big faff, no matter how good the quality is.

In practise, good zooms shouldn't have that much of an IQ difference from good primes either. On the other hand, I have not yet come across a 'crap' prime yet - two of the ones I own (the 30 and 135) came out of a charity shop for a few quid each. They produce very nice, sharp, usable (printable too) pictures. The zoom that I got from the same charity shop however, is so horrible I don't even use it.

There's no question that you will get a spectacular image from most primes but sometimes it is not worth the inconvenience of having a fixed focal length. Sometimes, you just can't foot-zoom...
 
I went from zooms to mainly primes, and it was good for me, the only exception is at the wide end, where I use a zoom (17-40 F4L), mainly because it's nearly always used on a tripod, it's easier to tweak the focal length by a mm or so with a zoom, with a wide prime, I found I was forever moving the tripod around.

From 50mm up to 200mm I only use primes, and have adjusted my shooting to accomodate.

One of my best moves was to go from 70-200mm to a 200mm prime, the lens is lighter, more compact, so far easier as a walkabout, IQ is superior to an equivalent zoom, and around half the price.

It took me a while to get used to primes, but I'm glad I did.
 
I rarely use my Tamron 28-75, use the 70-200 when I need reach or my 50mm for everything else. Sharp, light and its the 1.4 so good in low light. I have been thinking about getting an 85mm or even the 105 or 135 DC lenses as most of my stuff is portrait. That said I am impressed with the 24-70 Nikon.
 
guess it depends on what and how one shoots (i don't own any primes by the way, unless you count the fisheye and lensbaby).

if i'm running about at weddings where things are happening all the time and i can't possibly be everywhere, then zooms are best. three lenses would cover everything from 16mm to 320mm film equivalent.

if i could settle in a scenic spot and take my time, i wouldn't mind having some select fast glass which are smaller and weigh much less than the zooms.
 
I moved to almost all primes 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 with the 70-200, if I had some money I'd change that for a 135L and 200/2.8 (and 1.4tc). It's my long term plan along with a second 5dII or maybe 5d classic (but it doesn't share batteries)
 
for me i love primes, small and simple. when i use a focal length i feel im getting the best out of it using a prime but when i use a zoom all it is is compromise. my aim is to get a 50mm f1.4, tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, and a 28mm f2.8 which should sort me out for time being along with a sony 70-300mm G SSM for long shots.
 
I use both - I have fast primes for low light 35 - 50 - 85 but 85% - 90% of my work is done with the 24-70mm and 80-200mm on two bodies. Primes are a non starter in fast moving situations - as is shooting with one body. IQ from these zooms is fantastic - but then I don't shoot test charts! Didn't buy them in a charity shop either. :)
 
I moved to primes some time ago and I just love them. The optical performance is a lot better, especially when using large apertures, they produce a beautiful bokeh and they are a lot of fun to use.
You also think more about the framing when you're using primes.
 
jimlizard said:
I moved to primes some time ago and I just love them. The optical performance is a lot better, especially when using large apertures, they produce a beautiful bokeh and they are a lot of fun to use.
You also think more about the framing when you're using primes.
Click to expand...

My 1.4 primes are better at 1.4 than my 24-70 f/2.8 :) but at the same apertures there's not much/anything in it! Thinking about framing an be done with a zoom too - and a lot faster. Does it all matter anyway - it's the result that counts - how you achieve it is personal and what suits the circumstances.
 
I use both - zooms for general use and primes for more specialised things. The 50mm f/1.8 for very low light, a 90mm macro for macro and an 8mm fisheye for fisheye shots. I have a couple of others (180mm f/2.8 and a 500mm f/8 mirror) but they rarely see the light of day.

Modern zooms come pretty damn close to primes in terms of IQ, especially when printing to a max size of A3. You might see a small difference when pixel peeping but in the real world, you'll be hard pushed. For convenience, you can't beat zooms. How many primes would be needed to cover 12mm to 500 with no massive gaps? I have no objection to foot zooming hwen it's possible but it sometimes isn't an option!
 
I've avoided zooms for a long time, not for any quality issues but because I become lazy. For some reason I stand in one place with a zoom and just alter the focal length, I don't explore other vantage points and angles. I have a couple of zooms at the moment and I'm trying to address my own shortcomings.

I love going out with just one prime lens and looking for shots to fit that angle of view. I find it a lot of fun 'seeing' in that focal length and very rewarding. I'm not worried about not having every focal length covered and missing shots. I rarely go out with more than two lenses anyway just to keep the weight down.
 
OneTen said:
I've avoided zooms for a long time, not for any quality issues but because I become lazy. For some reason I stand in one place with a zoom and just alter the focal length, I don't explore other vantage points and angles. I have a couple of zooms at the moment and I'm trying to address my own shortcomings.

I love going out with just one prime lens and looking for shots to fit that angle of view. I find it a lot of fun 'seeing' in that focal length and very rewarding. I'm not worried about not having every focal length covered and missing shots. I rarely go out with more than two lenses anyway just to keep the weight down.
Click to expand...

I can relate to this post 100%. Dropping my 70 to 200 last week (and damaging it) has forced me to use my 85 prime in the studio. What a breath of fresh air!!!! I'm now thinking more as I shoot, cropping properly, and not getting lazy with the zoom....

G.
 
I love my prime lens but i have my other lenses to get the full range. 18-70mm kit. 50mm prime, 70-300 telephoto :)
 
This is a real quandary for me as I love primes and have quite a few manual focus ones with focal ranges in 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4 55mm f1.8, 58mm f2, 85mm f2 and 135mm f3.5. this covers just about all i want from focal range. I am collecting a Canon 40D early next week and feel I need at least one AF lens but do i go for a zoom or prime???

For the zoom I'm looking at the Sigma 17-70 OM HSM and the Tokina 17-50 f2.8 VC. These will cover most of the focal length that I like and I can use the other manual lenses if I want to go further.

Thing is I was looking at image examples from the 24mm f1.4L and the 28mm f1.8 and both these lenses looked like they covered most of the range that I take images of, or at least it seems to judging by the image examples. They are great for wide angle shots and still do a good job of getting in close with superb results.

So what do I do????? I really don't know :|

Both zooms have reported problems but the primes seem to be very reliable build quality wise. humph!:D
 
The 24-70 2.8 is actually amazing. The perfect walk around lens. You can't get significantly faster lenses for sensible money except the 50mm 1.4. Everything else is only 2.0 or 2.8 ...
 
From what i have seen on the net the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 OM HSM looks to be a damn fine lens and my dad has recently bought one and he loves his.

The trouble is we are going on holiday together in July and we both have a Canon 40D and will have (if i get one) Siggy 17-70's he he. If mine back focuses i could always swap his for mine when he's not looking! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top