General What are the advantages that primes have over a zoom lens?

J

joossiej

Member
I'm looking at a lot of lenses at the moment and soon I'll finally buy my T2i.
The lens I'm looking to purchase right after I dealt with audio and lighting (I'm starting from scratch) is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (maybe IS).

I already got 2 vintage lenses, a (not so good) 70-230 f/4 Unitax and a 50mm 1.8 Olympus OM.

With the kit lens I'll have a good set of lenses to start with and then later to upgrade to better quality lenses.


But my question is: What are the advantages from e.g. a Canon 28mm 2.8 prime to a 17-50 2.8 Tamron?

They both have a max aperture of 2.8 and the Tamron is obviously a more versatile zoom.

So isn't it just better to buy vintage primes to get a vintage look and just to stick with a basic 2.8 zoom lens?

Thanks in advance, I'm new here and the content is just amazing! A lot of great posts, learnt a lot and great DIY threats!
 
Not every prime lens is better than every zoom lens, but prime lenses TEND to be faster (for a given focal length) and can frequently have better edge to edge sharpness, less distortion and less chromatic aberration. Again, this is all on a spectrum. As a group, not all primes are better than all zooms, but they can generally be counted on to be better in the areas mentioned above. This is not to mention weight/size advantages.

It's important to decide what kind of shooting you'd like to do, choose a focal length/s appropriate to that style, and then research the appropriate lens candidates from there. There is quite a bit of variation. You may also wish to consider that you may change cameras in the next few years and whether you'd like the lenses you buy now to work on those as well.
 
Generally speaking- sharper, faster. Downside of course is you can't quickly change focal lengths but then again you learn to suss that stuff out with experience.

Noah
 
Well I'm just sticking with my "old" plan.
First getting the camera, then just getting to know it by just shooting stuff and editing it together.
Then first getting lighting and sound and after that getting a 17-50 2.8 it suits me better then primes i think.
 
That's the way to go -- just get started. You'll quickly sort out what you prefer. Shoot with the 17-50 until it starts to limit you in some way. When you feel you're being limited, that's the time to worry about picking up some primes and trying them out.

Some people love primes. Some love the convenience of a zoom, and are willing to sacrifice a little sharpness or a little f-stop (or a lot of money!) for the convenience of not having to change lenses so much. There is no one right-or-wrong answer, there's just different ways of working, and people who prefer one over the other.
 
In the beginning I'll even start shooting with the kit lens (I'm only 16 years old so I don't have a lot of money).
The only real problem for me is to get (good) actors.
But also me directing the whole thing.
 
That Tamron is my main lens. I love it. Then I have some old Pentax primes, but the Tamron suits my shooting style and is used most of the time.
 
I have also used that tamron

the focus ring is fine, the only problem I have with it is that it comes with the usual short throw of a modern autofocus lens (maybe 30º to 40º?)

also, apart from what other people have said, bokeh is usually nicer on a cheap prime than on a cheap zoom (a few zooms can have very nice bokeh too, but they are usually more expensive models)

plus
* tamron 17-50 --> amazing lens
* tamron 17-50 VC --> awfully unsharp, you'd probably be better off with the kit lens

sharpness tests on my "one dollar resolution chart", including results from the non-VC tamron and some vintage primes:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html
 
Thanks for your reply,

I'll get a second hand 60D body soon instead a t2i.
So first I only got a faulty adapter to use 2 lenses with, so first I need to buy a new one.
And then I'll get the 17-50 Tamron,
so you're way better off getting the non-VC ?
 
joossiej said:
Thanks for your reply,

I'll get a second hand 60D body soon instead a t2i.
So first I only got a faulty adapter to use 2 lenses with, so first I need to buy a new one.
And then I'll get the 17-50 Tamron,
so you're way better off getting the non-VC ?
Click to expand...

Well, no, thats a bit of misinformation. While the VC may or may not be less sharp (I've generally heard that the two are equal, its possible that norman just got a faulty lens) but that only makes a difference in photos. 1080p is such a low resolution that nearly ANY lens will give the exact same performance in sharpness, plenty of people have done comparisons between expensive zeiss lenses and old kit lenses and its nearly impossible to tell the difference in sharpness between the two. So if you can spare the money, I highly recommend the VC version, it's on my camera for about 80% of what I shoot.
 
randomname said:
Well, no, thats a bit of misinformation. While the VC may or may not be less sharp (I've generally heard that the two are equal, its possible that norman just got a faulty lens) but that only makes a difference in photos. 1080p is such a low resolution that nearly ANY lens will give the exact same performance in sharpness, plenty of people have done comparisons between expensive zeiss lenses and old kit lenses and its nearly impossible to tell the difference in sharpness between the two. So if you can spare the money, I highly recommend the VC version, it's on my camera for about 80% of what I shoot.
Click to expand...

I definitely don't aggree

with my t2i recording 1080p video, I can see the difference between a sharp lens and a very sharp lens, and the difference between a sharp lens and a soft one is absolutely huge
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...s-matter-for-video&highlight=sharpness+matter
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsv.html

as for the tamron 17-50 VC or non-VC:
I have only used the non-VC variant (and it's great), but I've seen some tests on the web and the VC is seemed horribly soft
 
ALL i can say is consumer cams like the TM700 that only cost as much as what many class a medium priced lens must have pretty good lenses to get their video performance, physco[sorry norman]i had to get that one in if you see a huge difference recording video with your t2i with different lenses your eyes are different to mine because i dont with my 550d
 
it's much easier to build a good lens for a smaller sensor, I've tested it and found that the lens on my $150 casio point and shoot is actually sharper than any of my full-frame glass; it only has to feed an ultra-tiny sensor, that's why it can be sharp and dirt-cheap

(I'd have to give lots of detail about how I made that casio vs full frame comparison before you can take my word at face value, the message is that it would deliver the sharpest image you can get to the central part of a full frame sensor... and nothing to the rest of that sensor)

plus, here is the 17-50 VC vs. nonVC test I was referring to:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
 
Well due to budget reasons I'm probably going with the non-VC version.

If I ever needed VC I could still use my kit lens which has built in IS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top