Zooms v.s. Primes
- Thread starter Jon Chema
- Start date
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Primes are optically faster, lighter, usually sharper, cheaper. Zooms are more convenient. If I am in a hurry, I'll use zooms. I'm rarely in a hurry.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Impossible theoretically.
There are modern zooms better than many older or less quality built primes and etc, yes... But top of the line zooms are not optically better than top of the line primes. Fact. However who can see the difference? Perhaps a seasoned eye with a large print. But, regardless of if we can perceive it, the more pieces of glass light must pass through, the less optically superior it will be... and zooms have many more elements than primes. Professional and top of the line primes will most likely always be faster in light gathering ability, a bit sharper, and perhaps more contrasty. It's physics, as far as I am concerned.
But that is if you WANT all of that. I like old zooms because of their lower contrast ability. Hell, when I use nice contrasty zooms I always put some sort of black-frost filter or likewise in front to give it that quality.
egproductions
Veteran
Those are great lenses (I own the 24-70) and the two combined are all you need for shooting events. That being said, there no comparison between the sharpness you get out of the 24-70 and a $80 50 f1.8. The 50 will beat the 24-70 all day long. If I can, I shoot prime (even for video) and if I need to be able to change my focal length with little time in between then I will shoot with a zoom. Many photographers have two bodies so that they don't even have to switch lenses..stick a wide zoom on one and a telephoto zoom on the other and you can stop worrying about technical minutiae and start taking better photos.
Different tools for different jobs. Best primes will always be faster and better than best zooms. Best zooms can be better than not-so-good primes. More lens elements = worse contrast (zooms). More moving parts, bigger tolerances = worse sharpness (wide-angle zooms). Non-ideal optical construction for a given focal length = image distortions (zooms again...).
But: often convenience wins = zoom is good. And a zoom like Canon 70-200 f2.8 is a great lens by any measure (longer focal lengths, bigger mechanical tolerances).
But: often convenience wins = zoom is good. And a zoom like Canon 70-200 f2.8 is a great lens by any measure (longer focal lengths, bigger mechanical tolerances).
BryantStanton
Well-known member
Part of it, I believe, is also just a matter of preference. I like the convenience of zooms, but I find they do make me a bit lazy. I can simply adjust the zoom from where I'm already standing, and never change my angle. Sometimes you can miss out on some really great stuff. Some of my best and most creative photography was when I only owned my 50mm 1.4. I was forced to move about and problem solve a bit more, and my images benefited greatly.
That said, I also enjoy the general simplicity of a prime. There's less thinking involved and you just shoot. With zooms I feel like I sometimes am a bit more overwhelmed with possibilities.
That said, I also enjoy the general simplicity of a prime. There's less thinking involved and you just shoot. With zooms I feel like I sometimes am a bit more overwhelmed with possibilities.
Kolor-Pikker
Well-known member
It also helps when the prime is of a comfortable focal length. What I'm talking about is like 85mm on full-frame for example, there are some combinations that just "feel right" and there is rarely a time when you think that you might miss something due to having the wrong framing.
Although the best zooms today come very close to primes in pure lp/mm resolving power (such as the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II), zoom lenses rarely have apertures wider than f/2.8, tend to have more distortion at the extreme ends and tend to be bigger and heavier. Additionally, if you intend to shoot video on your SLR, you will really want an aperture as wide as 1.4 on at least one of your lenses.
This why I own a 70-200 f/4 IS, 85 f/1.2, and wouldn't mind adding a 135mm after trying one out at a friend's place, they all overlap in FL and stopped down to the same aperture it'd be hard to tell them apart, but all have their own uses.
Although the best zooms today come very close to primes in pure lp/mm resolving power (such as the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II), zoom lenses rarely have apertures wider than f/2.8, tend to have more distortion at the extreme ends and tend to be bigger and heavier. Additionally, if you intend to shoot video on your SLR, you will really want an aperture as wide as 1.4 on at least one of your lenses.
This why I own a 70-200 f/4 IS, 85 f/1.2, and wouldn't mind adding a 135mm after trying one out at a friend's place, they all overlap in FL and stopped down to the same aperture it'd be hard to tell them apart, but all have their own uses.
