Advantages/disadvantages of using one zoom lens instead of primes for entire shoot
- Thread starter iamWZA
- Start date
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Zooms are typically slower than the comparable prime, or more expensive for faster... Zooms tend to be softer than the equivalent prime. As with anything, money can fix a number of such issues... well can make the problems mostly negligible...
On the operational side, is easier to inadvertently 'change the FoV' from one setup to another, or for a needed reshoot. And perhaps most people don't really worry about 'was it 25 or 26mm', if there's a 25 tick mark, or if it was 40mm if there is no tick mark for 40mm between 25 and 50...
David W. Jones
Veteran
Depends on the individual lens in question. Some primes as well as zooms are very nice, yet others are lacking. I happen to own both zooms and primes, and use accordingly for the job at hand. For all those zoom haters out there, I should point out that a number of recent movies have been shot with the Optimo 24-290mm zoom.
I like to use a zoom as an infinitely variable prime. With good constant speed parfocal cine quality zooms this is a viable option and the standard focal lengths you would typically get with a set of primes are well marked so you can get repeatable results. But such lenses are not cheap and for larger than 16mm formats get pretty bulky and heavy if they have decent range and speed.
If I was shooting any of the 35mm formats with still camera lenses I would stick with primes for the most part. Still zooms leave a lot to be desired. But for 16mm sized formats a single wide range fast zoom is often all that is needed. If you can find some episodes of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman, that entire series was shot on S16 Arris with Angenieux 11.5-138 T2.4 zooms, most of it with just one camera.
For run and gun doc work or event work where moving or pausing to change a lens can mean missed opportunities, a small format easier to focus by eye, s16mm or 2/3" video range ideally, and a zoom are to me a superior choice over 35mm anything.
If I was shooting any of the 35mm formats with still camera lenses I would stick with primes for the most part. Still zooms leave a lot to be desired. But for 16mm sized formats a single wide range fast zoom is often all that is needed. If you can find some episodes of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman, that entire series was shot on S16 Arris with Angenieux 11.5-138 T2.4 zooms, most of it with just one camera.
For run and gun doc work or event work where moving or pausing to change a lens can mean missed opportunities, a small format easier to focus by eye, s16mm or 2/3" video range ideally, and a zoom are to me a superior choice over 35mm anything.
Last edited:
I'd probably pick the primes in that case.
ZazaCast
Major Contributor
I agree...BUT... depends on what you're shooting. I use the above when shooting narratives, but, as a one-man-band, in a run & gun situation, I just used a single Nikon 18-105mm and it worked out well for me. (on the AF100)
Which camera? Full frame, crop?
Both the Zeiss & the 24-70? Or maybe 2 of the Zeiss (dropping YOUR least used focal length) and the 24-70?
The 24-70 is a very good quality zoom. For still photography, I used it about 80% of the time, out of a set of 11 lenses - 7 L, 4 non-L.
Or wait for the 24-70 II? It looks like it will be a great lens, but it will retail at $2,300.
Good luck!
Michael
Both the Zeiss & the 24-70? Or maybe 2 of the Zeiss (dropping YOUR least used focal length) and the 24-70?
The 24-70 is a very good quality zoom. For still photography, I used it about 80% of the time, out of a set of 11 lenses - 7 L, 4 non-L.
Or wait for the 24-70 II? It looks like it will be a great lens, but it will retail at $2,300.
Good luck!
Michael
LiamR
Well-known member
Oh, without a doubt, it's all about SITUATION, I had an FS100, shooting sport events, and it wasn't working well, so I sold it and bought a dedicated ENG style camera (HPX250), enabling me to get more 'in the moment' shots and not miss anything, which was happening on more than one occasion with the FS100 due to lens restrictions.
People choose camera's these days as if they're a fashion accessory, morons.
jghenderson
Well-known member
As everyone else has said, it's really a matter of money. Prime lenses are sharper and faster than an equivalently priced zoom. There are some fantastic zooms out there though, if you have the money. The Angenieux Optimo 15-40 is perhaps the hottest lens in the world right now, but is upwards of $40,000 by itself.
legrevedotcom
Veteran
I have to agree... the 24-70 is a decent still photography lens and ok video zoom, but it is soft... maybe even a bit too soft imo. For the low range I'd stick with those primes.
For the longer end, even though the 70-200 II is a zoom as well, I find it sharp enough to perform properly to my taste.
Unfortunately Canon thought their new 24-70 is worth way more than I would ever pay for it, so I'm have yet to test it to see if it's sharper.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Im not sure how the 24-70 looks ok on 22mp (5k) stills cameras and is soft with highly compressed 1080 video
The only thing going for (these) primes (versus this zoom) is better focus travel, IMO, but that could be enough to swing it in favour of the primes
As said before.. all about SITUATION
S
The only thing going for (these) primes (versus this zoom) is better focus travel, IMO, but that could be enough to swing it in favour of the primes
As said before.. all about SITUATION
S
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Zooms have more optical elements inside of them, thus even when made out of the same glass, with the same lens coatings, by the same factory, they will optically be less superior that a prime of equivalent build. This however does not mean they are noticably different to painstaking degrees. This is just a statement of physics. Because they have more elements, zooms will also tend to be slower in speed, heavier in weight and larger in size.
Again, technology is doing wonders in this arena. Perpendicular light reflects between 4-5% from every air-glass surface. If a zoom lens has 22 elements, that adds up. Today, there are lens coatings that reduce every air-glass surface reflection of perpendicular light to less than a fraction of a percentage. We see the quality of the zoom lens image not as impeding as we did in the past when compared to primes.
It is not easy to design a lens that not only covers a wide range of focal lengths, keep it fast, keep it small, keep it light, and have it work optimally at all lengths. Thus the very wide end of a zoom lens tends to have more distortion in perspective than a prime of equivalent quality. This is not a rule however, but typically you'll find a very wide prime lens will have a more accurate perspective rendition than a matching wide focal length part of a big zoom lens.
Example: When I tested Cooke Panchro/i's, Cooke S4's, and the Cooke S4 CXX/i zoom, I found the zoom, at 18mm, had a discernible amount of lens distortion over that of the primes. This lens of course is a 15-40mm T/2 S35mm cinema zoom! It is impressive as is, but if you take a wider focal length and put it head to head with a prime, who's sole purpose in life is to master just that one focal length, the zoom will lose.
The advantages of a zoom are obvious...
- The ability to zoom within a shot
- Can be faster (shooting speed) in most applications
- Can allow for 'more' focal lengths
Regarding zoom quality being worse than primes (in older lenses):
If anyone watched the Wes Anderson film 'Moonrise Kingdom', you'll see what I am talking about. I have a great eye for lenses, and at least twice in the film a shot has come on screen that is considerably softer than typically on screen. I immediately said, in my head, "ZOOM!"... behold after a beat, the camera zoom would zoom in a classic wes anderson way. Point is, I could see the softer quality of the zoom they were using to the primes they were using and could predict when a zoom was about to happen because I could tell it was a zoom lens we were looking through.
They used vintage lenses, where these issues were much larger, I can't watch a film today and pick out the Angie Optimo versus the Cooke S4's or Master Primes. Color timing and lens technology has made that a very difficult task.
Again, technology is doing wonders in this arena. Perpendicular light reflects between 4-5% from every air-glass surface. If a zoom lens has 22 elements, that adds up. Today, there are lens coatings that reduce every air-glass surface reflection of perpendicular light to less than a fraction of a percentage. We see the quality of the zoom lens image not as impeding as we did in the past when compared to primes.
It is not easy to design a lens that not only covers a wide range of focal lengths, keep it fast, keep it small, keep it light, and have it work optimally at all lengths. Thus the very wide end of a zoom lens tends to have more distortion in perspective than a prime of equivalent quality. This is not a rule however, but typically you'll find a very wide prime lens will have a more accurate perspective rendition than a matching wide focal length part of a big zoom lens.
Example: When I tested Cooke Panchro/i's, Cooke S4's, and the Cooke S4 CXX/i zoom, I found the zoom, at 18mm, had a discernible amount of lens distortion over that of the primes. This lens of course is a 15-40mm T/2 S35mm cinema zoom! It is impressive as is, but if you take a wider focal length and put it head to head with a prime, who's sole purpose in life is to master just that one focal length, the zoom will lose.
The advantages of a zoom are obvious...
- The ability to zoom within a shot
- Can be faster (shooting speed) in most applications
- Can allow for 'more' focal lengths
Regarding zoom quality being worse than primes (in older lenses):
If anyone watched the Wes Anderson film 'Moonrise Kingdom', you'll see what I am talking about. I have a great eye for lenses, and at least twice in the film a shot has come on screen that is considerably softer than typically on screen. I immediately said, in my head, "ZOOM!"... behold after a beat, the camera zoom would zoom in a classic wes anderson way. Point is, I could see the softer quality of the zoom they were using to the primes they were using and could predict when a zoom was about to happen because I could tell it was a zoom lens we were looking through.
They used vintage lenses, where these issues were much larger, I can't watch a film today and pick out the Angie Optimo versus the Cooke S4's or Master Primes. Color timing and lens technology has made that a very difficult task.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I dream of Cookes
..but when you add the muzz of sub 50mbs 1080 its all lost (apart from CA and distortion and bit of contrast)
I shoot regularly with a 24-105 professional stills and they are sharpish at 22 mp- its my goto lens on the 5d
And Id rate the 24-105 as 'crappy'
Primes probably have an extra stop and better focus movement, in exchance for the 'inconvenience'
That alone often makes them worth it..
S
..but when you add the muzz of sub 50mbs 1080 its all lost (apart from CA and distortion and bit of contrast)
I shoot regularly with a 24-105 professional stills and they are sharpish at 22 mp- its my goto lens on the 5d
And Id rate the 24-105 as 'crappy'
Primes probably have an extra stop and better focus movement, in exchance for the 'inconvenience'
That alone often makes them worth it..
S
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Yes, yes. Photography zooms are not the same. They give up aspects of lens design to master their shape and size we are familiar with today. There is a reason why cinema zooms continue to weight between 6-12lbs while photography zooms continue to come in under that size.
A very necessary set of reasons, imo.
When you say focus movement do you mean the barrel rotation? I don't know if that is a zoom or prime thing, but rather just a design thing. The focus marks on an Angie 24-290 is a very well laid out smorgasbord of witness marks.... lots of degrees of rotation but just as important as the degrees of rotation is the girth of the barrel. If a zoom lens only has 200* of rotation versus a prime that has 300*, you would assume the focus puller has more real estate to pull with on the prime. However if the prime is a small lens the size of a CP.2, and the zoom is the size of a 18-100 Cooke.... You can see how the focus throw can be longer on a larger girthed lens with less degrees of rotation.
FYI: The Cp.2 is 300*, and the 18-100 Cooke is likely more than the number I gave in the example. I used it as a reference because of it's typical old school zoom lens size.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The OP is considering a renting canon 24-70 - that has 60deg of rotation or so, and no stops,
cine zooms are different game
S
cine zooms are different game
S
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
^ This was the original question, and spurred some excellent discussion upon which I was building.
Yes, he/she later narrowed the question be revealing the specific lenses he/she was considering. However, I think the thread is a more healthy, useful, and educational thread when not limited to a specific model, brand, or type of lens. I thought the original post was very thought provoking and a wonderful question.
However, if this thread is simply about one specific DSLR zoom lens, and not a question about technique or an otherwise more thought provoking context, I'd be happy to send this thread to the hardware section or even to some troll filled DSLR section.
I'd say let's not let this one particular member's lens options narrow a possibly wonderful discussion. Let the conversation flow and he/she can apply that knowledge to the particular situation they have, and not have it be the other way around.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
..or help him rent the right tool for his job
Ill clarify - I love cine zooms, and everything you say about them is true, pros and cons over primes
In terms of the wider discussion , Im a zoom fan, given a large budget Id probably shoot most of the daytime with a cine zoom because you get a slicker on set experience with reduced lens changes
(again matched cine primes cut a lot of the faff of dinking with still lenses of multiple diameters and lengths that gum up the camera process in terms of lens changes)
Id use primes at night, on steadicams, handheld and the like to save mass, and maybe for the odd wide architectural shot where I was seeking minimal distortion..
Broadening the discussion further, I am an oddball in thinking that camera position is critical and dont see the need not to pick your camera position and then zoom to the framing you want, I know others would find this strange but IMO camera location is the critical psychological choice in cinematography - "why are we looking at this from here?" for example I dont get tele shots that are not motivated - if there is a sniper in a bush then put the camera at his POV and use a tele, but dont randomly pick a tele and pull the camera back from the subject
Realistic staging is also interesting - you can see a lot of cheating distant (from each other) people for a CU and that messes with my head - even in the end sequence of saving private ryan the tanks take too long to cover a short distance because the perspectives are cheated, if they went miles back with a tele it would have worked better, it breaks the wall to me..
S
Ill clarify - I love cine zooms, and everything you say about them is true, pros and cons over primes
In terms of the wider discussion , Im a zoom fan, given a large budget Id probably shoot most of the daytime with a cine zoom because you get a slicker on set experience with reduced lens changes
(again matched cine primes cut a lot of the faff of dinking with still lenses of multiple diameters and lengths that gum up the camera process in terms of lens changes)
Id use primes at night, on steadicams, handheld and the like to save mass, and maybe for the odd wide architectural shot where I was seeking minimal distortion..
Broadening the discussion further, I am an oddball in thinking that camera position is critical and dont see the need not to pick your camera position and then zoom to the framing you want, I know others would find this strange but IMO camera location is the critical psychological choice in cinematography - "why are we looking at this from here?" for example I dont get tele shots that are not motivated - if there is a sniper in a bush then put the camera at his POV and use a tele, but dont randomly pick a tele and pull the camera back from the subject
Realistic staging is also interesting - you can see a lot of cheating distant (from each other) people for a CU and that messes with my head - even in the end sequence of saving private ryan the tanks take too long to cover a short distance because the perspectives are cheated, if they went miles back with a tele it would have worked better, it breaks the wall to me..
S
Last edited: