Prime vs Zoom
- Thread starter Angelcyk
- Start date
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
A zoom lens is made up of many more optical elements within the lens housing, in order for it to be able to perform it's zoom function.
In the past these extra elements were problematic. The image would not be as sharp, and other optical issues such as flares, contrast reduction, ghosting and etc were common. Zoom lenses also have slower minimum apertures. Primes had less glass elements which made them more sharp, less prone to light refracting (which reduces contrast) and could be opened up for faster apertures.
This can still hold true today when using inexpensive, old, or poor quality lenses. However, if you are using nice modern lenses made for professional use... you will see that lens technology has come a great distance since the old days. Just about any new motion picture zoom lens (Cooke, Panavision, Zeiss, Etc) can hold it's weight to a prime. Primes still reign supreme (in my opinion) but the difference is becoming so small, it's sometimes not worth mentioning.
Many DP's (still the minority though) use zooms at almost all times... so long as they don't give into the lazy temptation to simply zoom versus move the camera.
Today the only BIG advantages to prime lenses is size, weight, and speed. High quality, fast aperture, motion picture zoom lenses are HUGE. They weigh a ton and are easily 18" or longer. Steadi-cam, handheld, and other operators would not be very happy with you. Zoom lenses still can't match the speed of their fastest prime counterparts, although many zooms can reach very low apertures.
I think Primes are still sharper and etc... but then again, the zooms are very close and many DP's complain that all modern lenses are too sharp!
Edward Lachman ASC still uses his own personal set of Panchro Cookes from 40 years ago! They lack the special lens coatings and he doesn't feel the need to diffuse his lenses, unlike modern ones! You never know. Lens selection for a film shouldn't always be based on what is most sharp fast and clean. Sometimes you need a certain look for a certain film.
Last edited:
I have a couple of primes I use only because they can be opened up so wide. 50mm being the main one. It's a little nicer than my other glass, but practically I haven't noticed a real difference. I don't have anything past a 3x zoom, barely even that, so it might degrade more at the higher ranges.
Thanks for the detail post Ryan, I figure that there's always going to be differences in glass when choosing a lens. And although a zoom lens maybe more bulkier heavier yet at the same time wouldn't those cons' outweigh the fact that you have more options when deciding on what focal length to use? I'm not talking about being lazy and just zoom in for a close up but the fact that you have the flexibility of setting up for a shot and not spend time changing lenses to decide on a focal length.
There's been plenty of situations where I've had the camera set up on a dolly on tracks, and I see the edge of a flag scrunched up against a wall, and I wished I had something between a 20mm and a 24mm, or what have you to tighten up the frame a little.
Zooms can save time and bother, but personally my main reason for preferring prime lenses isn't the sharpness, but the speed and size. Fast zooms that don't breathe much are gigantic in 35mm and even for 2/3" HD those zooms (Panavisions for example) are very large and heavy.
Zooms can save time and bother, but personally my main reason for preferring prime lenses isn't the sharpness, but the speed and size. Fast zooms that don't breathe much are gigantic in 35mm and even for 2/3" HD those zooms (Panavisions for example) are very large and heavy.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Yes! Totally forgot about breathing! Many zooms (except exceptional quality makes) breathe badly! Yikes! Good point dadoboy!
All of us prime users sympathize with getting the shot set up and wishing to nudge in or out just a fraction. (If using 35mm adapter I cheat with the GG zoom level!)
...But another reason I don't like using zooms is because I don't WANT to have or be tempted to use misc. focal lengths 17mm- 100mm in my film. I want to use a limited and certain focal length range appropriate for the film.
So although the zoom offers a much more flexible range of focal lengths, I think films which purposefully choose to use a limited and specific amount of focal lengths add a subliminal lens motif to the film and the film becomes unified.
In the end, temptation to use misc. focal lengths on a zoom should be a will power exercise any DP should be able to win. I guess my real point is that I work with a small set of primes per scene. Usually I like to use either just wides or just telephoto depending on story and mood.
My assistants are very fast with switching to the lens I want because it's usually a matter between two or three different lenses. Since they are small and light primes, the case can be near by and be quickly exchanged. I gain my extra stops if needed, all while ensuring optimal sharpness.
But as mentioned earlier... MANY television dp's prefer zooms. Because TV is many times multiple camera shoots with faster schedules, and etc.
I guess it's your style.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Robert Surtees, ASC discussing lenses on the film "The Last Picture Show" (which is an AMAZING film in regards to the cinematography)
Holy Crap! I've seen Last Picture show a long time ago and that didn't sink in. I'll have to see it again. If a director said that to me, I would think he was nuts, but what do I know? I think Ozu used like a 40mm or 50mm lens all the time on some of his pics.
It gives new meaning to the term "living on the dolly".
It gives new meaning to the term "living on the dolly".
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Hahaha, I think you already know that is an impossible question. Lol.
Like I said, some movies shoot with really wide lenses (Last Picture Show, Sleepy Hollow as my previous examples...) then again, when I was working for Panavision and Transformers II would return their camera package, they were shooting on the most ridiculous 400mm or 1200+mm lenses... things that looked like a small tank barrel.
Obviously different films/scenes will have different creative choices of lens range. I shot a drama that is post right now, using only 24mm and 35mm (on dolly or sticks) when inside the characters apartment, because it was a comfortable and safe place... but on exteriors, I only used 85mm and 105mm, and 200mm (handheld), because it was a harsh, crowded, and tough world. As I was using 5 lenses total, I only allowed myself to use two or three at a time depending on the scene.
If you are talking in general, I would refer to Cooke S4, Zeiss Ultra Speeds, or the Primo series of lenses. They will differ from each other but cater to the creme-de-la-creme of cinematographers.
Take Zeiss Ultra Speeds for Example... there are many different ones! The cinematographer is free to pick his palatte.
8mm
10mm
12mm
14mm
16mm
20mm
24mm
28mm
32mm
40mm
50mm
65mm
85mm
100mm
135mm
180mm
(Also keep in mind that the difference in Angle of View is not linear... the difference between a 24mm and a 35mm may well be much greater then the difference between a 200mm and 300mm lens. As you get higher and higher, the difference needs to be greater for a substantial change in FoV. Notice how their lenses jump by 2mm to start and end up jumping by 35mm or 40mm.)
Thanks for the feedback and this thread was actually the tipping point I needed to buy a 14mm 2.8 nikon prime lens. But later I found out that I could've got the exact same lens except it was Tamron for $900 cheaper than the Nikon. I know buying something in a brand name would mean more dollars but in this case is it worth $900?
djkarn105
Well-known member
I wouldn't say exact same. I've not used that Tamron but I'd be willing to bet you that the extra $900 you spent on the Nikon bought you a lot less edge distortion and Chromatic Aberration than the Tamron has.