Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 4 5 end

Archive 2007 · Why prime over zoom?

Michael Lambert
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Why prime over zoom?

Pardon my ignorance as I just do not know any better. Why would someone chose a prime lens over a zoom?

I currently have the 30D and my lens are the kit lens a sigma 28-70 2.8 DX and a Canon 70-200 2.8L , Would the image quality be better if I had a say a prime lens at 35mm instead of using my 28-70?

Also why would one chose to have a 300mm f4.0L when you can have the 70-200 2.8L with a 1.4X converter?

Sorry if this is just common knowledge.

Jul 16, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Sailaire
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Why prime over zoom?

Sharper, lighter, less expensive.

Jul 16, 2007 at 11:21 AM

Russ Isabella
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Why prime over zoom?

Michael,

My understanding is that prime lenses are simpler in their construction, and this is one reason why they provide higher image quality. I would say that yes, definitely, the Canon 35mm f/1.4 lens could give you images of higher quality than your 28-70 DX, and the Canon 85mm f/1.2 lens could give you images of higher quality than your 70-200. Not every time and at least some of this will depend on your skills as a photographer, but these prime lenses (along with the 135L, 300 f/2.8 IS, 200/1.8) are special.

If 300mm is a prime focal length, I'm going to buy a 300 prime (though I'd opt for the 2.8, which many who start with the 300/f4 end up moving to). If I need the zoom and 300 is only an occasional need, then I'd go the route of the zoom plus extender. Also, though I don't have personal experience to back this up, it seems the common opinion is that the Canon 70-200 doesn't take to extenders very well. (Also, while you can equate the 70-200 plus extender with the 300 f/4 lens, it can't match the 300 f/2.8, which is a very popular prime at that focal length.)

Specific shooting needs are an important element to the answers to your second question. I think your first question is mostly a matter of lens construction.

Jul 16, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Don Clary
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Why prime over zoom?

Less distortion, less flare, faster aperture, less depth of field when desired, better edge sharpness, better balance on the camera from less bulk, attracts less undesired attention in candid shots.

Also better chance of getting a good copy with 5-7 lens elements vs 14-16 elements in a zoom. I have owned and tested 44 prime lenses and have never had a "bad copy".

Edited by Don Clary on Jul 16, 2007 at 04:34 PM GMT

Jul 16, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Brooke Clyde
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Why prime over zoom?

It's all about trade offs, though you don't give up nearly as much today to get a zoom as you did in the past. A zoom obviously gives you flexibility. In many situations, that far outweighs any marginal downside. OTOH, if you don't require that flexibility (all else being equal), the prime will be (as Sailaire said) sharper, lighter, cheaper. It will also be faster.

In particular, I have personal experience with the 70-200 + TC vs. 300/4. I shoot lots of sports and chose the 300/4 hands down. For field sports the lack of a zoom under 300mm isn't a big deal, and the IQ of the 300 is noticably better. Now, if I were only posting at 400x600 on the web, I might go for the combo, because the difference in IQ wouldn't be a big deal. Though the 300 is still lighter ...

Jul 16, 2007 at 11:34 AM

khiromu
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Why prime over zoom?

I use primes because primes are lighter and smaller than f2.8 zooms when attached to the camera. But many times, I want to (not have to) have more than two primes to cover one zoom, therefore total weight may be heavier than one zoom... But to me, the weight of my bag does not matter, usually...

Plus, as I am not a professional, I can miss some shots by having wrong focal length prime on my camera. If I am getting paid, I would probably use zooms so that I can manage to get shot whenever I have to...

Jul 16, 2007 at 11:59 AM

mh2000
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Why prime over zoom?

smaller and faster. the best zooms are only f2.8. many inexpensive primes (don't have to be L's) can beat or at least hold their own against the most expensive L-zooms. f2 and wider is a big deal.

Jul 16, 2007 at 12:13 PM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Why prime over zoom?

Primes are definitely sharper and more contrasty than the zooms. You probably won't notice all that much if you print 8x12 or smaller, though.

I find that Canon f/2.8 zooms are generally "good enough" for my purposes, but there are times when f/2.8 is simply too low . . if you don't use flash (and I rarely do).

Jul 16, 2007 at 12:14 PM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Why prime over zoom?

Don Clary wrote:
I have owned and tested 44 prime lenses and have never had a "bad copy".

I've had a bad copy of the 24/1.4 . . . . granted, it was a refurb.

Jul 16, 2007 at 12:15 PM

danmitchell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Why prime over zoom?

When it comes to lenses, all things involve tradeoffs and matching the trade-offs to your own personal style of photography.

Primes can have larger apertures at lower cost, size, and weight. Primes can better minimize certain distortions more commonly seen in zooms.

Zooms are often virtually as good as primes you might choose instead. Zooms provide flexibility in framing and composition without needing to change lenses. In situations where a single focal length won't do, zooms let you work faster.

Investigate very carefully before buying into the "primes are sharper" mantra. In some cases they are and in some they are not. In some cases where they are measurably sharper, they are not _noticeably_ sharper, at least not until you make very large prints and inspect them very carefully.

While there is a point of view that says you should start with a prime and learn it well before getting other lenses, there is another point of view that says that working with a zoom lets you learn more, faster about composition and framing.

Both have their places, and in the end the choice can be one of "which tool is best for the job" and/or a matter of personal preference.

Jul 16, 2007 at 12:25 PM

Stuart Bell
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Why prime over zoom?

I swapped the excellent 80-200L for the 200L and the 100/2. The zoom was very heavy for carrying around all day; the 200L is much lighter and easier to hand-hold. Relevant to later zooms is the issue that the 200L, being black, is much more discreet. The 100/2 looks like a standard lens, so is again subtle. All 3 lenses are very sharp, so that isn't a major issue for me,

Stuart

Jul 16, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Daniel K
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Why prime over zoom?

A lot of good points were brought up here and I would like to add in that I prefer primes for the fact that it offers me a bit more of a challenge when trying to find my composure. I tend to get lazy with zooms but keep a few in my kit for when I really need the flexability.

But when I have time to compose (portraits, modeling, scenic, etc...) I always use my primes. Only when I'm constrained by space and time (pun! hah) will I use my few zooms. (or when I feel I dont need to put in EXTRA work, like basic events I cover at work.)

All in all, find what works for you!

Happy shooting!

Jul 16, 2007 at 01:41 PM

tmr_wa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Why prime over zoom?

Sailaire wrote:
Sharper, lighter, less expensive.

I completely agree; this just about sums it up for me.

Also, I really liked using prime lenses with my Contax G (35mm film cameras), and various other rangefinders, so it became kind of natural for me to "avoid" zooms.

I should add that for certain types of photography, I certainly recognize the value of a good zoom.

--tom

Jul 16, 2007 at 02:00 PM

mh2000
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Why prime over zoom?

>>Zooms provide flexibility in framing...

Really, unless you just have to "get the shot" a zoom should never be used for "framing." You should first think of perspective and then choose the right focal length and frame the shot yourself using that (be it a prime or zoom you are using).

Jul 16, 2007 at 02:04 PM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Why prime over zoom?

For me, it's about speed and image quality at large apertures. I have more primes than zooms, but I probably use my zooms a bit more. That said, if I'm shooting low light, my primes see major action. My 28 f/1.8 is my standard family / friends low-light even lens. Great for intimate shots of a huge variety, and it does great from f/1.8-f/2.5, where I don't have the speed with my 17-50. My 50 f/1.4 is better for lower light, and my 135 f/2 is outstanding for further reach (or for just general portraiture...the IQ is simply unsurpassed.)

Jul 16, 2007 at 02:15 PM

EOS20
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Why prime over zoom?

Primes are purpose built for there focal length so they are sharper, and in most cases have a simpler design which means better picture quality, and sharper images compared to zoom lenses which have a more complicated design, and have to cover a series of focal lengths between its focal range.
Primes also usually have faster apertures then zoom lenses, and Prime lenses are usually smaller too.

Zooms on the other hand means you don't have to carry around a whole bag of lenses to cover a certain focal range which you shoot, You can compose and frame your shots without having to move around from your shooting spot (Well you don't have to move around as much) and you don't have to swap lenses around all the time. Trade off with zooms is a softer image (Compared to primes) and smaller apertures, Or a big lens (But not in all cases) or a lens with a limited zoom range with faster zooms (24-70, 16-35, 17-40, 24-105 f/4 IS etc).

Jul 16, 2007 at 02:25 PM

cineski
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Why prime over zoom?

It's interesting to me when I read reviews on prime lenses that have barrel distortion, like the 24 TSE or 50 1.2. To me, this just shouldn't be, a good prime should be completely rectilinear. The 85L is, though, but I personally don't like 85mm. I really wish Canon would make a completely rectilinear 70mm 1.2L, as I favor this focal length for human faces, among other things.

Jul 16, 2007 at 02:55 PM

Seth Tower
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Why prime over zoom?

Sharper, faster, lighter (in some cases). Did I mention sharper. Oh yeah, they're sharper too.

Jul 16, 2007 at 02:58 PM

claudermilk
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Why prime over zoom?

Heh, two pages in and it's the last post that takes my point: primes are purpose-built for their focal length from beginning to end. There are many compromises in a zoom that do not have to be made. Thus, in general the primes outperform the zooms. Again, the caveat that these days the compromises are much less than before. The famed 70-200 lineup rivals prime performance.

In addition to the smaller size for a focal length (usually) and lower price (again, usually), there is one aspect of primes you will not get in zooms: the really fast lenses. Zooms get to f2.8 and that's it, primes are still inexpensive at f1.8, pricey by f1.2, and silly at f1.0 or beyond--but they have the advantage of even having the option to get that fast.

As for choosing one over the other, in overlapping ranges it depends on your shooting style & situation. If the 135/2L fits your needs, it can outperform the 70-200/2.8's for example. Where else can you get a critically-sharp, very fast lens for under $100 than the nifty-fifty?

Jul 16, 2007 at 03:01 PM

danmitchell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Why prime over zoom?

mh2000 wrote:
>>Zooms provide flexibility in framing...

Really, unless you just have to "get the shot" a zoom should never be used for "framing." You should first think of perspective and then choose the right focal length and frame the shot yourself using that (be it a prime or zoom you are using).

I really have to disagree with this as a general statement. Two points:

What the zoom gives me is the ability to quickly switch to the most appropriate focal length for the composition - not just the frame boundaries, but also the focal length that provides the "right" relationships between foreground and background and so forth. It gives me precisely what you describe ("think of perspective and then choose the right focal length") for multiple possible approaches in a single lens. In this regard, there is no difference between switching between, say, 28mm and 35mm primes for this purpose and moving my zoom lens between 28mm and 35mm. Of course, if the "right focal length" is paramount, the zoom gives me more ability to fine tune this aspect of the composition than would primes.

Secondly, there are indeed situations in which "zooming to frame" makes complete sense. Many of these involve situations where you must shoot from a fixed position and you don't have the luxury of moving closer to/further from the subject - some examples: some types of mountain photography, photographing from airplanes/boats, certain sports situations.

As I said in my earlier post, there are tradeoffs in choosing to use primes or use zooms. In some cases zooms make the most sense, in others primes can be the best choice. I use both.

Dan

Jul 16, 2007 at 03:24 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.