Primes or Zooms?

Andy · January 25, 2006

Owen wrote:

Originally Posted by Owen
It excites me that you are getting rid of primes to go back to a zoom.

I am looking at the 70-200 f/2.8, too.

**** MOD EDIT ****
Posts pulled from flea market thread, where I sold a couple primes, my 200 f/2.8L and my 135 f/2L

NOT ALL my primes! I have still, Canon 15 fisheye, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 100mm macro. And my CZ 21 f/2.8.

Switching from the 135L and the 200L to the 70-200L f/2.8 IS for me, makes sense. I do a lot of travel, and this just makes my life easier. I also have the 24-105L, so in a pinch, to travel lightweight, I can go with two lenses if I needed to. I like that.

Primes will alwas have a place for me. Still, my most used lenses are my 50 f/1.4 and my 35 f/1.4L. And I use my 85 f/1.8 all the time for portrait shoots. The CZ21 and the 15 fish, are specialty lenses, less used, but not less loved.

What's your poison? Primes or Zooms? Why? :ear

Andy · January 25, 2006

rutt wrote:

One you said you never tried is the 24-70 f/2.8L. That's really a sweet lens. And talk about covering the reange! Take that and the 70-200 f/2.8L with you and you have everything you need except for the dimmest available light and long tele. espicially on a 5D where 24mm is actually tolarably wide. These two were designed to compliment each other in the PJ's bag.

Good points, Rutt. And the 24-70 is certainly a very fine lens. But now, I've got the 24-105, and some overlap, which is good. I'd rather use the 24-105 @ 70 or 80 than the 70-200 at 70 or 80

wxwax · January 25, 2006

I travel with the zooms. But I find I reach for the primes when I'm at home. They have impeccable quality, individually they are lighter, and they're all faster.

And I like being forced to compose with my feet.

Of the zooms, I use the 16-35 the most. I use the 24-70 the least, even though it was my first purchase. I like the 70-200 but it sure is a heavy chunker, and it draws a lot of attention to itself.

I guess my favorite prime is also wide. But they're all good.

Harryb · January 25, 2006

What's your poison? Primes or Zooms? Why?

I love primes. The image quality just can't be beat. I currently have the 50mm 1.8, the 60mm 2.8 micro, the 85mm 1.4, the Sigma 105 2.8 macro, the 300mm f4, and the 500mm F4.

Each one is a joy to use.

Unfortunately there are times when you can't be lugging all that glass around and the flexibility of a zoom can't be beat.

For the best pics I try to go with my primes but there are times when the flexibility of a zoom enables you to get a pic that you would miss if you were trying to change from one prime to another prime.

aporia · January 25, 2006

I'm thinking of expanding to the 70-200L f/2.8 IS on the long end and the 16-35L for wide -- particularly for flexibility and travel simplicity. However, I also have been considering a 135L while I wait for funds in the interim. If I had noticed your sale of the 135L earlier this afternoon, I would have bagged the 70-200 for a later date and bought the 135 on the spot.

Still, it's probably better for me to hold out for the 70-200. I have the incredible 50 f/1.4 which stays on my camera most of the time. Add the 85 f/1.8 and I'll be cash poor but all set for lenses for a while. :sweet

Thanks for the new thread. It helps to clarify the long journey for the perfect set of lenses -- at least until the next journey begins.

4labs · January 25, 2006

Harryb wrote:

I love primes. The image quality just can't be beat. I currently have the 50mm 1.8, the 60mm 2.8 micro, the 85mm 1.4, the Sigma 105 2.8 macro, the 300mm f4, and the 500mm F4.

Each one is a joy to use.

Unfortunately there are times when you can't be lugging all that glass around and the flexibility of a zoom can't be beat.

For the best pics I try to go with my primes but there are times when the flexibility of a zoom enables you to get a pic that you would miss if you were trying to change from one prime to another prime.

Have you used the 85 .4 with the D2x yet? You won't want to take it off...

mercphoto · January 25, 2006

Andy wrote:

What's your poison? Primes or Zooms? Why?

My two best lenses, by far, are my 50/1.4 and my 300/2.8. The 300 just astonishes me and I plan to use it a lot this year. But the 70-200/2.8 also gets a lot of use and is very flexible. I just added a 24-70/2.8 and really like it. It got use at a wedding.

For travel I take a 28-135 and a flash.

rutt · January 25, 2006

Andy wrote:

Good points, Rutt. And the 24-70 is certainly a very fine lens. But now, I've got the 24-105, and some overlap, which is good. I'd rather use the 24-105 @ 70 or 80 than the 70-200 at 70 or 80

Not me. Give me those f stops and that shallow DOF and nice bokah!

With the 5D there is enough resolution to crop and compensate if you need to. You can't get back the f stop in post. It is sometimes possible to get the shallow dof and bokah in post, but it's a ton of work, something I've only been willing to do a couple of times. And you know I have a lot of patience for post processing work.

Anyway, I'm surprised that you'd go all the way from primes to that 24-105 without even trying the 24-70.

I love my primes and they can do things these lenses can't. But as I said these particular two lenses were carefully designed to be all a PJ on assignment really needs.

Andy · January 25, 2006

rutt wrote:

Not me. Give me those f stops and that shallow DOF and nice bokah!

With the 5D there is enough resolution to crop and compensate if you need to. You can't get back the f stop in post. It is sometimes possible to get the shallow dof and bokah in post, but it's a ton of work, something I've only been willing to do a couple of times. And you know I have a lot of patience for post processing work.

Anyway, I'm surprised that you'd go all the way from primes to that 24-105 without even trying the 24-70.

I love my primes and they can do things these lenses can't. But as I said these particular two lenses were carefully designed to be all a PJ on assignment really needs.

With the 24-105, it's not about the bokeh for me. When I want bokeh, I'm shooting really wide open on my primes. I bought the 24-105L the week it came out. I dig it. IS is a wonderful thing - the lens has many uses.

rutt · January 25, 2006

Andy wrote:

With the 24-105, it's not about the bokeh for me. When I want bokeh, I'm shooting really wide open on my primes. I bought the 24-105L the week it came out. I dig it. IS is a wonderful thing - the lens has many uses.

I'm sure you are right. If you have to travel with just ONE lens, maybe that's the one. But if you are going to take two? You don't have to leave all the bokeh at home. You don't have to leave all the available light capability at home. I know I sound like a broken record, so I this is the last time I'll say it, but the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 are a complete kit for the traveling photographer. I suppose you can say the same about the 24-105 alone. But once you are taking two lenses with you, taking that instead of the 24-70 just gives you overlap and less capability.

Look, I haven't tried that 24-105L and probably I'd love it for a lot of the things I like to do (skiiing comes to mind.) But for travel and street photography, I begrudge every f stop I leave at home. The best shots are in that sweet light, not at high noon. And I love narrow DOF, something I also love about much of your best work. At this point, I guess I'd rather travel with a prime in the range (say 50mm 1.4 on 5D) and the 24-200 than not have a fast medium range lens.

But, of course, to each his own.

gluwater · January 26, 2006

Well I'm not as experienced as you guys are but here are my opinions of the lenses I own. I have no set plan to do it but the majority of the lenses I actively use are Primes.

Primes:
50mm f/1.4
100mm f/2.8 Macro
300mm f/4 IS
400mm f/5.6
For the majority of my shooting I use my 50mm cause I absolutely love it. 100mm mainly for macro but I also occasionally use it for "people" shots and it is very sharp but I would like the 135 f/2 and only use the 100 for Macro. The 300IS is great even with a 1.4TC on it and I like handholding it for BIF because of the IS. I just got the 400mm and so far I love it but I think I will have to keep it on a tri-pod unless I really have a lot of light.

Zooms:
10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 "kit"
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
70-200mm f/2.8 IS
I love the 10-22 for wide shots and haven't seen a prime I would replace it with that I can afford. I never use the 18-55mm anymore but for a first lens I am glad I got it. I honestly haven't used the 28-135 since I got the 50mm but it is a pretty good lens. I know the 50mm does not replace the 28-135 as far as reach is concerned but I can live with that. I love the 70-200mm but don't have use for it that often, but when I do use it I am glad I bought it and will probably never sell it.

I am comparing apples to oranges here because as far as quality is concerned my primes are much higher quality than my zoomes, well all but the 70-200, that lens rocks. I would love a 16-35 f/2.8 and a 24-70 f/2.8 even though they do overlap. I would like the 16-35 for landscapes and in close quarters indoors. I would like the 24-70 for the longer end of it for pictures with friends and at family parties and stuff like that. Basically what it comes down to for me is the fact that I hate using flash so if I can get away without using it because I have a fast prime (I would love the 35 f/1.4 but that is way over my head) than I am happy. I also think I am crazy because I carry all my gear around with me just in case I want to use a lens not currently on my camera but 90% of the time I keep one lens on. Carrying all that gear is also getting me in shape for Zion/Bryce, and no I will not be anyones sherpa. I think I am just rambling now so I will stop, hopefully some of this made sense.

Anson · January 26, 2006

thank you everyone
as this thread is absolutely Invaluable...as choosing the right glass is Sowwwwwwww confusing...this thread has saved me, a TON of time!

gus · January 26, 2006

I mostly only shoot with my 3 primes.

Shoot to the length & light given...not the subject...that will sort itself out. You have to move to shoot & get your bloody eyes talking to your brain or else your a snapshot-shooter.

Thats just my take.

gluwater · January 26, 2006

Humungus wrote:

You have to move to shoot & get your bloody eyes talking to your brain

I like that Gus, short and to the point.

Red Bull · January 26, 2006

Gus, you make a very good point. Never thought of it that way.

marlof · January 26, 2006

As an Olympus user, I live in zoomland. 90% of my shooting is done with the 14-54, giving me a 28-108 FOV in 35mm terms. Next to the 14-54 I use a 50-200 (100-400 FOV), and a 50 macro (100 FOV). I like the fact that with the 14-54 and the 50-200 I can have a 28-400 range in pretty nice lenses that are not too big, ideal for travelling.

But lately I've been running around also with just the 50 attached to my my E-1. The prime is smaller and sharper, and is tons of fun to use. I've experienced that just using the lens that currently is attached to your camera forces you to really think about what you're shooting. You don't stand in one position, use the zoom to make the best of that position, but you're forced to actively look for the best position. I like that. I'd love to have a 14 f2.8 (or f2) prime, since that's my favorite focal length. A lens like that it's not here (yet) though for Four Thirds.

So in the end I just put my zoom in 14 mode, and force myself to not use the zoom at all. It kinda works, but I'm still rooting for nice fast 14 and 25 primes for the FT mount.

BigAl · January 26, 2006

Humungus wrote:

I mostly only shoot with my 3 primes.

Shoot to the length & light given...not the subject...that will sort itself out. You have to move to shoot & get your bloody eyes talking to your brain or else your a snapshot-shooter.

Thats just my take.

Unfortunately, not all situations allow you to use your feet. In many African game parks, you aren't allowed to leave your vehicle (or take your vehicle off the road). The bigma (or something like it) is *very* convenient in situations like this, especially when you don't have time to change lenses.

Thusie · January 26, 2006

Way to new to be wading into this, but will anyway:D It certainly takes time to figure out your personal style and what works best. That will be , over time, subject to change I'm sure. Couple things I've learned, and the one probably puts me on the insane list, I'm not fond of the 50 1.8

Yes I've gotten good shots with it outside, but I got it mostly for inside and it is too long. The Sigma 30 f1.4 will suit better me thinks.

I thought about the 100-400 L and figured out when I'm shooting long, it's long, so the 400 f5.6 is on the list.

The EF-S 60 f2.8 macro is wonderful and suits much better that the 50 outside.

For now the 70-200 f4 is on the camera 70% of the time (with the 1.4TC) and used wide open, practice, practice. Need to justify to the Whosit (Don) that the 400L=10 conifers is a sacrafice he should make. Just being a wonderful wife won't cut it.

17-40L Like it! It seems, for me anyway, there is a real learning curve with that lens and I'm still on the low left side of that curve.

So for now it looks like it will be 2 zooms and 2 primes with none being used to their full potential for years

robscomputer · January 26, 2006

After selling my 70-200, I'm now looking to buy a prime telephoto, the 300mm f/4. It's cheaper and lighter than a zoom yet gives slighty sharper pictures. Normally I also shoot with a 17-40, but when it's enough space I'll use the 50mm which gives great shallow DOF. In the future I would like to have mostly primes since they are lighter and usually cheaper.

Rob

Nikolai · January 26, 2006

Zooms, period.
It's not that I'm anti-primes, not at all. But way more often than not I keep finding myself in a situation when I physically cannot move to the point I'd like to shoot from (across a hwy, or a ravine, or a private property; or back into a concrete wall), or change the lens in time to get the shot.
Out my very small glass collection EF-S 17-85 IS is currently living on 20D most of the times. If I'm shooting a concert (not from the front row:-) or a football game I'm switching to EF 28-135 IS, since it gives me a bit more kick. I'm saving for 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and I'm sure I'll have a lot of fun with it.
I find zooms better suiting my shooting habits. I like to frame the shot in camera as I want it to be. Of course, I can do it later, too (and I often do, especially with action shots, where time constraints sometimes ask for wider shots just to make sure you got the whole action and not just half of it). And with zooms I can do it in a matter of second.

As rutt said, to each his own, edem das seine..

Cheers

gus · January 26, 2006

Guys you all missed my point or i didnt explain it correctly more likely.

I would rather shoot like this than this ...remember its just an opinion & not becoming law. Give me part of a photo over a whole photo anyday.

BigAl i only wished i had my 400 when i was in africa. I missed sooo much with stuff on the roadside going to town & back.

SteveLongPhoto · January 27, 2006

I like primes. I agree with Humungous, when I use a prime I have to take what the lens and scene give me. It forces me to seek out a composition that works. When I use a zoom I can force a composition to what I have in mind rather than what I see when I look through the lens. It's a subtle difference, but one that I think, lets me work with fewer preconceptions.

Primes stimulate my vision and imagination.

gus · January 27, 2006

SteveLongPhoto wrote:

I like primes. I agree with Humungous, when I use a prime I have to take what the lens and scene give me. It forces me to seek out a composition that works. When I use a zoom I can force a composition to what I have in mind rather than what I see when I look through the lens. It's a subtle difference, but one that I think, lets me work with fewer preconceptions.

Primes stimulate my vision and imagination.

Thats what i wanted to say

CMaster · January 27, 2006

Probably about two months ago I would've been on the zoom boat. But once I started playing around with my 50mm back in the beginning of December, it hasn't been off the body since. I've actually become a lover of primes and I'm looking at either the 20mm or 28mm for a little wider action.

The zooms do have their place, because sometimes the photographer can't get there from here and needs the reach/flexibility that a zoom allows. But like others have already said, the primes force you to shuffle your feet and not just twist your wrist. I really love looking at a subject then considering the composition and what actions I'll need to take to get it right. It has opened a whole other world for me.

Just my $.02

John Mueller · January 31, 2006

All my lenses are prime but for the 24-70 and Im thinking of selling it.
I may get a 16-35 for landscape.
To me the primes seem much sharper.
When I go to shoot,Ill have one lens on camera and wont change in the field.
This challenges me which I dont mind.
My legs become my zoom:D

DanielB · January 31, 2006

asked me this about 3 weeks ago and i would have said zooms.

but since i got my 50mm it hasn't been off the camera. i'll be picking up the 85 1.8 and the 135 eventually.

i have a new love.

rutt · January 31, 2006

It really isn't an either or thing. Both have their uses. Suppose you have to shoot a baseball game. Some shots just need the reach of a tele and some shots will be a lot closer. Sometimes you'll want to show as much of the scene as possible. What you gonna do, change lenses all the time? You've barely got time to turn and zoom, let alone change lenses.

Shay shoots weddings with a zoom, at least Andy says so. I think that's because he wants both group shots and portraits and doesn't want to be dragging along too many bodies. And since he's a working pro, he doesn't want to miss the shots.

It'a a blast to put that 50 on the camera and go for a jaunt. I agree with 'Gus. But zooms are just too useful to ignore, especially if the emphasis is on getting shots that work instead of getting a shot which might be a personal best.

Andy · January 31, 2006

rutt wrote:

It really isn't an either or thing.

I have both in my bag, and both are used for different purposes.

Matthew Saville · January 31, 2006

I think primes and bokeh are overrated. Shooting with an 85mm f/1.8 is no fun because you always have to keep your DOF in check, and if you don't focus exactly on the subject's eyes the image is trash... I can't imagine shooting with an f/1.4 lens, good grief...

Having said that, I have yet to see a zoom lens that can do 1:1 macro... I will be eternally addicted to my Sigma 150mm macro, and I know that I could put every other macro lens from 50-200mm to very good use if I owned them. So, if they made a zoom I would buy it, but that's just not possible...

The 150mm also makes a fantastic portrait lens!

Getting these shots with a 150mm is an absolute breeze. With an 85mm however it would take a lot more effort...

But for landscape / nature photography, nothing beats the 12-24 DX, 24-85 G, and 80-400 VR. Three lenses, 18-600mm seamless FOV with only 5mm overlap, at just under 5 lbs...

-Matt-

Mongrel · January 31, 2006

Matthew...
I'm not sure I'm following you here

:

"Shooting with an 85mm f/1.8 is no fun because you always have to keep your DOF in check, and if you don't focus exactly on the subject's eyes the image is trash... I can't imagine shooting with an f/1.4 lens, good grief..."

or here:

"Getting these shots with a 150mm is an absolute breeze. With an 85mm however it would take a lot more effort..."

You don't *have* to shoot the 85 f/1.8 at f/1.8

. Just stop it down a bit

And, although they are GREAT portraits you posted, I don't see how or why that would take "a lot more effort" with the 85? In my experience, it would be *easier* to get shots like that with the 85 because I wouldn't have to stand so far away to get that framing. Have I missed something here?

I have the 135L, the 200L, and the 85 f/1.8. I *love*

them all, but for versatility on my 20D the 85 usually gets the nod.

Maybe I missed something in your post, or I'm not getting something though....

Curious....

Mongrel

Seymore · February 1, 2006

Prefer my primes... But, zooms have their place.
Currently have a 105/2.5 MF AI lens on my D100... and it's been there for almost a week now. Just rediscovering that range on a digi. Opens the eye, makes you think and you select your target more carefully.

The MF range of primes I play with these days... 50/1.4, 55/2.8 Micro, 105/2.5, 135/2.8. Nikon don't quite make um like these any more. For that matter, they are discontinuing some of them.

The 105/2.5 wide open in low light...

And, a 100% crop...

Long live the F-mount!!!

Primes or Zooms?

Comments