Primes vs Zooms

A

andrew00

Well-known member
Hey,

Thought I'd start a topic on people's thoughts about using prime lenses vs zoom lenses, and what it is they end up carrying around with them.

My two cents - last night I was filming a gig and started using my 24-70mm f2.8 zoom, which is a lovely lens. However, as I was ill, I ended up switching to my Nikon 50mm f1.4, set at f2.8, as it was lighter and my arms were tiring.

I found the prime image, after having come directly from the zoom, substantially nicer to look it, it just had a much creamier look it it. Now, both were at f2.8 so sharpness and detail should be the same at that f stop so I think a direct comparison is fair. So much so that I'm thinking of picking up the 28mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8 to make a 3 prime set vs the 24-70 zoom.
 
Now let's look at this "superior image quality" claim. In what ways is the image quality superior? There must be objective criteria to determine the superiority.

Off of the top of my head, the three basic ones are color, contrast, and sharpness. What else? We all know that zooms will almost always be less sharp than primes. Does that matter for down-scaled HD video? Do zooms generally have inferior color and contrast as well? In what other ways is the IQ inferior?
 
Color, contrast, sharpness... Lenses also impart different bokeh to the elements that are out of focus. Lenses can also tinge an image. Vignette an image, and impart other organic qualities to an image.

The fundamental camera moves are built around primes. The zoom can let you avoid changing lenses so frequently, so they are time savers, but there are drawbacks. Inexpensive one breathe, some aren't as sharp. Most are not as fast as their prime counterparts.

A good seletion of fast primes would be my choice every time if I am not being rushed.
 
ydgmdlu said:
Now let's look at this "superior image quality" claim. In what ways is the image quality superior? There must be objective criteria to determine the superiority.

Off of the top of my head, the three basic ones are color, contrast, and sharpness. What else? We all know that zooms will almost always be less sharp than primes. Does that matter for down-scaled HD video? Do zooms generally have inferior color and contrast as well? In what other ways is the IQ inferior?
Click to expand...


I agree. I think the image difference between a prime and a zoom is nominal at best. I think a few years back when we didn't have the surplus of post-production suites that are available today it might have made a slight difference but nowadays its a matter of seconds to adjust the color reproduction of an image or the sharpness, etc.

The true advantage of primes is there speed and mobility. They are smaller (generally) and handle much better in lower light scenarios (unless you have a really awful lens, heh.)
 
You can run at lower ISOs too. I'm spoiled by my 50mm 1.4 to the extent that my 2.8 zoom just isn't fast enough for me. And the rich, creamy bokeh that 50mm makes is to die for.
 
For my projects and style of shooting, primes are just too much hassle. I use one when I need an extra couple of stops, but beyond that all I use are zooms.

What I've found is that the differences between budget (i.e. Canon 50mm 1.8) and high-end (Canon 50mm 1.2) primes is significant, but not nearly as significant as the differences between budget and high-end zooms. (When I say "differences" I define that as image quality wide-open, overall edge to edge sharpness, bokeh quality and contrast.)

So, when I buy zooms, I bite the bullet and get the absolute best quality I can afford. I use them more often, so it makes sense. When looking for primes, I look more towards mid-range choices (i.e. Canon 50mm 1.4).
 
It really will depend on what zoom you're talking about.

Off the top of my head: Nikon 14-24/2.8, 17-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 are all incredible zooms throughout the range, meaning that on either end or in-between they're serious contenders for primes.

However, Mid-to-low range Zooms versus say a set of Contax Zeiss or Zeiss ZF primes? No contest. Does it matter for "scaled-down" video? Yes. If it didn't, then it would be okay to use a crap 400.00 zoom, and I can definitely say that I will NOT be doing that for any video work that's remotely serious.

Again, as I stated in another thread, it only takes dropping a decent prime on the camera and using the 10x zoom function, then looking at the same frame at the same stop through a zoom at the same focal length to see the difference.
 
Like everyone else here has said, good modern constant aperture zooms are optically almost as good as equivalent primes. The good ones are almost all around $1500-$2000.
To add to the list of what to look for in image quality:
-edge to edge sharpness.
-chromatic aberration.

Despite the IQ of modern zooms, I would still rather use a set of Zeiss ZF primes or Nikon ais primes. Look at the focus scales of these zooms, a lot of them go from 7 ft straght to infinity, really short throws for useful dramatic focus pulling. If the 24-70mm f2.8 nikon had 3ft, 5ft, 7ft, 10ft, 15ft, 20 and 30ft, and some real estate to put grease pencil marks I would buy it in a second - what a deal that would be!
 
I think most lenses will be slightly sharper if the iris isn't fully open. For example the 50mm 1.4 will be much sharper at 2.8 than at 1.4. I don't mean that the depth of field will be less shallow, rather the actual picture will be sharper in detail. Since you had the 24-70 wide open, I think that may be why the other lens performed better when slightly closed down. I don't really have any proof to back this up, but it's just something I've noticed through taking pictures.
 
My preference is for the sharpest lenses possible with the possiblity of dumming them down (softening them) because the aliasing only appears in certain very specific kinds of environments with repeated fine patterns or the occasional stepping on something architectural. The majority of the time I don't need a Caprock filter and then I think it would be regrettable to have a lower quality lens. These cameras really shine when given the opportunity to work towards their strengths as DOF Adapter Killers - in terms of sharpness, perceived detail (real or artificially enhanced by the camera itself) and narrow depth of field.
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
However, Mid-to-low range Zooms versus say a set of Contax Zeiss or Zeiss ZF primes? No contest. Does it matter for "scaled-down" video? Yes. If it didn't, then it would be okay to use a crap 400.00 zoom, and I can definitely say that I will NOT be doing that for any video work that's remotely serious.
Click to expand...
But - have you tested this? My tests so far are showing *no* difference between the stock lens and the top-of-the-line prime lenses. None. Yes, in stills mode, the primes beat the living snot out of the stock zoom, but when you swap over to 1080p mode, all that sharpness advantage just disappears completely.*

I'd be quite interested in seeing you test this out, to see how you fare.

Again, as I stated in another thread, it only takes dropping a decent prime on the camera and using the 10x zoom function, then looking at the same frame at the same stop through a zoom at the same focal length to see the difference.
Click to expand...
For stills, yes. But that isn't a fair comparison for what gets recorded in video mode. In the 10x magnification you're looking at an 18-megapixel image, but it's gonna get downconverted to 2 megapixels, so 85% of what you're seeing is going to be discarded anyway.

If you're shooting stills as well as video, by all means get the best lens you possibly can. But if you're spending a lot of dough to get better imagery from your 1080p DSLR... I'd really like to see you reject the "conventional wisdom" and just try it. You might be really, really surprised.

(*of course the more wide-open aperture is another benefit, obviously. But I'm seeing more of a difference due to vintage coatings than to anything else. My ZFs can go completely soft and bloomy when wide open, but the recorded video doesn't care! They're still resolving more than the video mode can handle).
 
There is the persistent problem that the entrance of HD on DSLR's has caused, and you can blame the manufacturers for it.
They promote their hybrids as HD video cameras and DSLR's. They're not. They are DSLR cameras that can shoot HD. Great at stills, lots of accessories. At shooting HD, fewer options, and limited to a relative few choices in shooting.

If you want to shoot excellent stills, get a 1Ds Mark III.
If you want to shoot HD, get a (*insert brand here*) HD camcorder.

HD on DSLR's ?
Genius marketing hype.
 
andrew00 said:
Hey,

Thought I'd start a topic on people's thoughts about using prime lenses vs zoom lenses, and what it is they end up carrying around with them.

My two cents - last night I was filming a gig and started using my 24-70mm f2.8 zoom, which is a lovely lens. However, as I was ill, I ended up switching to my Nikon 50mm f1.4, set at f2.8, as it was lighter and my arms were tiring.

I found the prime image, after having come directly from the zoom, substantially nicer to look it, it just had a much creamier look it it. Now, both were at f2.8 so sharpness and detail should be the same at that f stop so I think a direct comparison is fair. So much so that I'm thinking of picking up the 28mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8 to make a 3 prime set vs the 24-70 zoom.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to address the original question & original poster and say yes do it go for it buy some primes, but not for the reason you are stating.

The most wonderful thing I have found about shooting with primes is that it has changed the way I compose a shot. I love the fact that I have to be creative within a set of limitations and when you limit yourself to one focal length then all sorts of wonderful things happen.

Learning to shoot at 50mm was fun, then learning to shoot at 28mm, then 35mm then 24mm. Then 75mm. Each focal length brings about its own character and influence to my composition style. I hope for you the experience is the same.

Its funny because now I am considering buying a midrange zoom - but not to use as a zoom, I need it as a variable prime. Especially for the focal lengths between 35mm and 50mm which is where I want to explore next. Good luck to you Andrew00 on your cinematic travels !
 
Barry_Green said:
But - have you tested this? My tests so far are showing *no* difference between the stock lens and the top-of-the-line prime lenses. None. Yes, in stills mode, the primes beat the living snot out of the stock zoom, but when you swap over to 1080p mode, all that sharpness advantage just disappears completely.*
Click to expand...

I have a crap 17-35/2.8~4 Tamron Zoom. No Charts, but same subject (skin and bookss) there was NO WAY IN HELL I would EVER consider using that crappy 17-35 for anything important versus A) 17-35/2.8 Nikon, 28/2.8 Ziess Cy, 35/2.8 Zeiss CY. Recording the same image, same settings (Sharpness and Contrast Dialed down to nothing, Neutral), and punching in on the image in any NLE shows it. I can see it on the LCD without looking.

All dealing with video. I don't think what you're seeing on the video screen represents the raw image or anything close to it. A) It's cropped B) it's aliased to hell. I think what you're seeing on that screen is exactly what you're getting for video.

Not talking stills, because I WOULD use the Tamron 17-35/2.8~4 and HAVE used it on stills plenty.
 
Last edited:
Generally primes do have a better quality and easier to carry with you. Some zooms are real monsters! Another thing to say is that no zoom (apart form the 14-1400 Panasonic lens) works fine on DSLR+vidoe cameras...
 
I don't mind it when I'm shooting 21MP stills of friends and family and I don't want to jam anything else in my pocket. It doesn't look bad for that purpose. It's too crap for video in my eyes.

I know that your tests are saying soft is better etc, I don't see that. I clearly see a better image coming from the zeiss primes over what I've used. The one
lens that baffles me is the Takumar, it's sharper wide open than the zeiss 50s but falls behind by F2.0.

Which reminds me... I want a set of takumars...
 
I've got some Takumars, I think I have the 17, 24, 28, and 150. Make an offer, I'll ship 'em on over.

So here's the question then -- can you put up a shot, same aperture same focal length same settings same everything, etc., from the lousy Tamron and the quality ZF? I want to see how different they look on video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top