jamesmallonuk
Well-known member
From peoples personal experience Are primes a MUCH better option than Zooms for professional looking work? Or is the difference negligible.
Prime VS Zoom
- Thread starter jamesmallonuk
- Start date
Michael Olsen
Veteran
In my opinion, your question is too broad. There are too many types of "professional work" for a single answer to apply. And there are too many types of "better".
In general, primes will offer better overall image quality (in terms of contrast, color rendition, falloff, artifacts, etc.) and faster lenses than zooms. They are usually smaller and lighter as well.
Zooms, as we all know, zoom. A prime will never do that. Because of this, they are more flexible in terms of framing and composition, allowing one lens to be used for a variety of shots without taking the time to change lenses. And while a single zoom lens may be heavier than a single prime lens, one would need to use multiple primes to accomplish similar composition. This may negate the benefits of size and weight, and may even turn them in favor of the zooms.
Could you give us a for instance?
In general, primes will offer better overall image quality (in terms of contrast, color rendition, falloff, artifacts, etc.) and faster lenses than zooms. They are usually smaller and lighter as well.
Zooms, as we all know, zoom. A prime will never do that. Because of this, they are more flexible in terms of framing and composition, allowing one lens to be used for a variety of shots without taking the time to change lenses. And while a single zoom lens may be heavier than a single prime lens, one would need to use multiple primes to accomplish similar composition. This may negate the benefits of size and weight, and may even turn them in favor of the zooms.
Could you give us a for instance?
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I think 'on set' you will be perceived as unprofessional if you are fiddling with your lenses the whole time and not shooting
corporate sets I mean - not full drama
Therefore I like zooms
But IMO most lenses dont look good wide open because they are soft and that puts you in a corner
most zooms are 2.8 or 4 which forces you to shoot at 4 or 5.6 - which doesnt look too cinematic on the 7d
With the 5d zooms work perfectly - because the FF chip looks great in the 4/5.6 region, but with the 7d where one often wants to shoot at 2 or 2.8 you are forced into using primes because the zooms dont exist or at least dont exist in the stills camera lens market
You probably need both !
With my 7d I use Tokina 16-50 (which looks a bit dodgy but is very practical) 50 1.4 - which looks amazing for the price and 70-200F4L which looks OK for the money and amazing practicality
With my 5d I can virtually shoot everything with the 24-105 F4L zoom lens
S
corporate sets I mean - not full drama
Therefore I like zooms
But IMO most lenses dont look good wide open because they are soft and that puts you in a corner
most zooms are 2.8 or 4 which forces you to shoot at 4 or 5.6 - which doesnt look too cinematic on the 7d
With the 5d zooms work perfectly - because the FF chip looks great in the 4/5.6 region, but with the 7d where one often wants to shoot at 2 or 2.8 you are forced into using primes because the zooms dont exist or at least dont exist in the stills camera lens market
You probably need both !
With my 7d I use Tokina 16-50 (which looks a bit dodgy but is very practical) 50 1.4 - which looks amazing for the price and 70-200F4L which looks OK for the money and amazing practicality
With my 5d I can virtually shoot everything with the 24-105 F4L zoom lens
S
Jester2138
Well-known member
I would think pretty much any half-way decent lens would be more than sharp enough for 1920 x 1080 when they're designed for full-res (~18 mp) stills?
Barry_Green
Moderator
You would be correct; I've been testing that extensively and your guess is right.
...to add to that perspective...
I just bought a 28-105 Sigma lens. It's reviews aren't great....but I was thinking the same thing: "...the resolution isn't NEARLY as crtical for video"
...it's GREAT...I love it and look forward to getting the 17-35mm Sigma...also poorly reviewed....but I'm sure it will be just fine too.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
My testing method for lenses are soft wide has been..
zoom in on image on the cam and stop down - you can very clearly see CA and softness and flare fully open even with the zeiss 35 prime - it then dissapears as the ap is closed
Admitedy this is on the screen in zoom mode and not by analysis of the recorded image which is not recording the resolution shown on a monitor in zoom mode
If it is the case that this softness is below the the recorded resolution then I would vote even heavier for using any old zoom and banking the savings in time and money in terms of avoiding primes
S
zoom in on image on the cam and stop down - you can very clearly see CA and softness and flare fully open even with the zeiss 35 prime - it then dissapears as the ap is closed
Admitedy this is on the screen in zoom mode and not by analysis of the recorded image which is not recording the resolution shown on a monitor in zoom mode
If it is the case that this softness is below the the recorded resolution then I would vote even heavier for using any old zoom and banking the savings in time and money in terms of avoiding primes
S
this is the very reason why testing alt glass can deliver pleasurable surprises such as resurrecting old manual primes and adapting obsolete mounts to produce images with different character.
i like old FDs for video despite the image degradation in photo mode and the yellowed tint from radioactive Takumars really shines when shooting in winter lowlight
i like old FDs for video despite the image degradation in photo mode and the yellowed tint from radioactive Takumars really shines when shooting in winter lowlight
Barry_Green
Moderator
Oh, this most definitely happens. My ZF 50/1.4 looks horrid at wide open. But the DSLR processing in the 7D and GH1 makes pretty much all of that go away when recording video.
Yep, and that's the great equalizer -- the recorded video is nowhere near the sharpness of what the chip can see. I mean, think about it -- you've got a 20-megapixel sensor, and you're recording a 2-megapixel frame, you could say that the video mode is only recording 10% of what the chip can see. When you throw out 90% of the signal, the critical sharpness isn't all that critical anymore.
Flare and flat contrast you'll still see, and those will need to be corrected in post. But actual resolved detail doesn't need to be very high at all. If you think about it in terms of line-pairs per millimeter, an HD lens usually needs to resolve around 80lp/mm. For a chip the size of a 7D, you need less than half that, maybe 1/3 as much, for HD res (and the 7D doesn't even do HD res, it does about 1440 lines). So if your lens can squeak out maybe 30lp/mm, that's more than enough to feed the 7D or 5D everything it can handle.
But again, I'm only talking about resolved detail. Better lenses handle flare and deliver superior contrast, and those are things that the chip will see regardless of resolution.