Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The old primes vs fast zoom thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The old primes vs fast zoom thread

    Haya fellas,

    Latelly Iīve been thinking a lot about getting rid of my Canons 28mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 and getting a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 instead (it sounds like a very practival all purpose lens with the added benefit of marco, which I love). I know video people LOVE fast lenses but the Canon 6D is a real beast when it comes to high iso (Iīve shot ultra clean 6400 stills with it) and besides you need to have your actors practly still if you want to keep them in focus at f1.8. Plus I will keep my Canon 50mm f1.4 as my low light ace of spades anyway. I know it must sound like I have my mind made up but I would really like to hear the cons of having a fast zoom instead of the 28mm and the 85mm.
    www.rafael-lopes.com

    Laugh out loud right here:

    - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=129033

    and here

    - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=86474

    #2
    Isn't "fast zoom" an oxymoron?


    Comment


      #3
      Barrel and Pincushion distortion. Every zoom I have has it and my primes don't to the same degree. I shoot art for a few big artist and never really noticed until I had to straighten all my pictures. Also you can stop down. I'd never shoot at 1.8 for anything other than an arty shallow dof shot. I like my talent at 5.6!

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Jordan_S View Post
        Isn't "fast zoom" an oxymoron?
        Canon has a whole range of Cinema zooms that sit around f2.8.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by atarijedi View Post
          Canon has a whole range of Cinema zooms that sit around f2.8.
          2.8 is not fast.


          Comment


            #6
            thekreative and atarijedi, donīt pay attention to this guy. He is just "trolling" the thread.
            www.rafael-lopes.com

            Laugh out loud right here:

            - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=129033

            and here

            - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=86474

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by rawfa View Post
              I know it must sound like I have my mind made up but I would really like to hear the cons of having a fast zoom instead of the 28mm and the 85mm.
              Originally posted by rawfa View Post
              thekreative and atarijedi, donīt pay attention to this guy. He is just "trolling" the thread.
              Has it occured to you that you simply don't agree with me that 2.8 is slow? You must really have your mind made up on the zoom to volley an accusation like that.

              I have a Canon 6D. It does give clean images at high ISOs. It's even more awesome that I can put a $100 50mm f/1.4 Nikon on it and shoot in near darkness at ISO 3200.

              But do as you wish, or as you've already decided you'll do.

              edit: Furthermore, I am not anti-zoom. I own the 17-40 f/4, the 24-105 f/4 IS, and the 70-200 f.4 IS. I happen to think that spending a lot on a Canon 2.8 zoom or, in most cases, image-challenged third party 2.8 zooms that are Canon compatible, is wasteful. The money saved by buying an f/4 zoom for convenience can be used to acquire fast primes, of which I happen to own a 35mm, a 50mm, and a 135m.
              Last edited by Jordan_S; 06-11-2013, 09:32 AM.


              Comment


                #8
                Buddy, you come into the thread and you donīt offer one single substantiated or constructive comment and you hope to be taken seriously?
                www.rafael-lopes.com

                Laugh out loud right here:

                - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=129033

                and here

                - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=86474

                Comment


                  #9
                  I think it all comes down to your shooting needs or habits. With ISO levels, f1.8 and f2.8 are not miles apart, especially at 28mm where DOF does not show as much. As stated, both of these "affordable" primes fall apart at f1.8 compared to smaller aperatures. Primes do offer image advantages but they do not show up as much in video use as in photo use. So if you think a zoom would be better for your workflow in video then I say yes, go the zoom route after testing the Tamron to see if it is up to the task.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Thanks, Bassman2003.
                    The reason for switching to a fast zoom would be portability (1 lens instead of 2) and practical speed (depending what you are shooting you may just miss that crucial moment while changing lenses).
                    www.rafael-lopes.com

                    Laugh out loud right here:

                    - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=129033

                    and here

                    - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=86474

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by rawfa View Post
                      Buddy, you come into the thread and you donīt offer one single substantiated or constructive comment and you hope to be taken seriously?
                      This is the second time you've attacked me personally.

                      This is what happens when people ask a question to verify what they've already decided.

                      My logic is simple: An f/4 zoom gives you the same benefits as a 2.8 zoom except the big difference in cost, size, and weight. It allows you to keep or buy fast zooms, as opposed to replacing primes with a 2.8 zoom, in which case you'll wind up with one expensive, heavy, large lens that is not very fast.

                      If you fail to understand something, just ask. We'll help you get it.
                      Last edited by Jordan_S; 06-11-2013, 06:04 PM.


                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by TheDingo
                        Hopefully Olympus will port their 14-35mm f/2.0 and 35-100mm f/2.0 zooms to the m4/3 format when they finally release their Pro m4/3 body.
                        Post seems off topic, but to answer your question with another one, you can adapt 4/3 lenses to mft, unless you want better auto focus what benefits would a native mft have?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Jordan_S View Post
                          This is the second time you've attacked me personally. This is what happens when people ask a question to verify what they've already decided...
                          Jordan_S, I think you missed this one completely. F/2.8 is an incredibly fast zoom for modern APS-C and full frame cams. In S16 days f/2.3 - f/2.7 was super fast for zooms. F/2.0 would be nearly, if not impossible to do in a zoom for full frame.

                          On a side note I've done a ton of work with a 24mm f/1.4 II and a vintage 50mm f/1.4 and they are nearly worthless for moving images at those super fast apertures. For stills they have their uses out toward or at infinity focus, but for video they simply can't be used effectively, IMHO.

                          rawfa, I think you are on the right track and because most of us can't have it all, the fast zooms at f/2.8 are a fine choice for a much more versatile tool. I'm a pixel peeper from hell and have found the new IS primes to be truly outstanding. The new 24mm f/2.8 IS has an image that defies description, as sharp as any wide canon lens ever made and just incredibly appealing. I highly recommend that you take a serious look at some of those new primes with IS. On a steadycam, I don't think there could be a more incredible image. I'm dead serious.

                          Cheers,
                          Pete

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by c3hammer View Post
                            Jordan_S, I think you missed this one completely. F/2.8 is an incredibly fast zoom for modern APS-C and full frame cams. In S16 days f/2.3 - f/2.7 was super fast for zooms. F/2.0 would be nearly, if not impossible to do in a zoom for full frame.

                            On a side note I've done a ton of work with a 24mm f/1.4 II and a vintage 50mm f/1.4 and they are nearly worthless for moving images at those super fast apertures. For stills they have their uses out toward or at infinity focus, but for video they simply can't be used effectively, IMHO.
                            I agree that it's impossible to track focus shooting wide open with fast primes. But the sweet spot of most lenses is after stopping down two or three stops. So on fast primes, we're shooting at f/4 or 5.6 whereas f/8 on an f/4 zoom is going to be comparable in quality to f/8 on an f/2.8 zoom. This is the case if we compare Canon's 17-40 f/4 versus the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 24-70 f2.8 II to the 24-105 f/4 IS. And the cost difference is quite substantial. Selling fast primes in order to gain one stop advantage in a zoom that's heavier, bigger, and more expensive sure seems like a raw deal to me.

                            And just for the record, one should not expect "ultra clean" results shooting RAW stills at ISO 6400 on the 6D. The 6D performs admirably at 3200. If the OP doesn't believe me, he may wish to steer himself to DxO.


                            Comment


                              #15
                              Apart from specs (f/2.8 vs f/1.8), you have to look at actual images. From my experience, a good vintage zoom will be sharper, and will have A LOT BETTER BOKEH than a modern zoom.

                              See, here and here, my tests comparing Leitz primes from the 60s and 70s with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC (a well renowned zoom that shares the optical formula of the $6K RED zoom). It's an APS-C test, but it's useful anyway. The zoom is just as sharp at some focal lengths, but it is clearly softer at others, and bokeh just can't compare.
                              http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/bokehtests.html

                              Of course, the prime set is more expensive, maybe the canon 17-50 would have been a better point of reference, but I don't have that one.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X