Prime V Zoom

Paulw

Ok, after reading many posts about lenses etc, it seems that many people seem to prefer prime lenses over zoom.

I currently don't own any prime lenses. I have considered it, but I personally like having a bit of scope with a lens, so I have 3 zoom lenses to cover just about anything I need.

What's people's views on this issue?

Thanks.

peter1892

Paul, buy a Canon 50mm f/1.8 - if you only buy one prime this is the one you want. Cheap as chips but great image quality.

For me, not having a zoom lens forces me into thinking about composition, where I'm standing, what I'm looking at, etc. it's a different way of working & worth the effort.

Fajitas!

Primes are generally, sharper, wider and have better image quality, and often better AF than zooms. They're more expensive than zooms, and it can involve a lot of lens carrying and changing compared to zooms.

Zooms are more flexible.

I prefer primes, but still, the flexibility of the 24-70L and 70-200L is fantastic, and both are still great lenses...

helios

Agreed. I just got my 50mm 1.8 on yesterday, and I love it. I got it for €85 from a guy in Scotland, brand new.

311

It's handy to have a 50 1.8 ,in case it's dark.
Easier to be creative with 1.8 lens ,indoors without a flash.

ThOnda

Don't forget that you won't get any dust on your chip using one zoom lense compared to changing primes. I have zoom on one body and prime on the other. The primes are 50/2 mm or 28/2.4. Zoom is 28/70/4.

elven

It's entirely personal. There are so many things to consider...

As Fajitas said, primes can be sharper and generally faster too.

It depends how you shoot - I pick out lots of details, so I'm thinking of the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro. I can never be bothered with a tripod and usually shoot with shallow DoF so I wanted as fast a lens as possible for the least money - I couldn't get a zoom that covered that focal length with f2.8 for anything like my budget.

Once you start shooting for a while you can usually identify if you have a preferred focal length - but if it turns out that your favourite style/subject demands a wide range, you wouldn't want to be stuck with a prime in that case, and having to change lens to change focal length.

There's also the issue of size/weight - primes like the 50 f1.8 and f1.4 are nice and small and compact and pretty close to your natural view of the world, and that makes them ideal for going out with when you don't want a big bulky zoom. Especially good if you know it'll be low light. Id take that as a walkaround rather than a heavy 24-70mm type thing, and just be aware of the limitations when I'm eyeing up pictures.

I'm not entirely sure that because you're limited with a prime it makes you work harder for a shot and therefore improves your photography - however I do believe that if you work with one prime, like the fifty, you won't be distracted by all that zooming in and out that people tend to do, simply because you can, and can concentrate more on your composition. It can also get you out of a rut, if you normally shoot at a certain focal length, to change to something different for the day and limit yourself to that.

Finally, unless you're spending mega bucks on L glass, the larger range a lens covers, the less sharp it's inclined to be. A bit like those printer/scanner/fax machines that don't do any of those three functions very well...

Hmm, I wrote quite a lot there, but mostly because this is something I considered recently myself. You just have to consider what elements are most important to you, and your shooting style, and if you're prepared to make the concessions that come along with either option.

elven

ThOnda wrote:

Don't forget that you won't get any dust on your chip using one zoom lense compared to changing primes. I have zoom on one body and prime on the other. The primes are 50/2 mm or 28/2.4. Zoom is 28/70/4.

You might get a lot less, but you can't guarantee none... the zooming action can actually suck the dust into the workings of the lens itself. Not to any extent you'd really notice though I expect... and definitely less than if you had to change lens in a sandstorm

Paulw

Well folks, thanks for the views. Plenty for me to take in.

The current lenses I have -

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon EF 100-400m f/4.5-5.6 L IS

The 10-22 is new so I haven't used it much. The 24-70 is my main lens.

I've had a quick browse online. I see there are 3 Canon 50mm lenses. If money was no issue, which one would you recommend?

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

And before people comment - money IS an issue, but I can dream, and my SSIA has just matured.

City-Exile

elven wrote:

... the zooming action can actually suck the dust into the workings of the lens itself.

You think too much!

Ideally, you'd have a body with your favourite prime and a body with a good zoom.
A short prime, with a wide aperture, is unbeatable though!

City-Exile

Paulw wrote:

I've had a quick browse online. I see there are 3 Canon 50mm lenses. If money was no issue, which one would you recommend?

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

The f/1.2, simply because it's a superior lens!
By the way, blowing your SSIA on a lens is highly recommended!

311

The 1.2 is very heavy and would probably need a tripod ,fajitas had a 1.4 a while back and it looked like a lovely lens.

City-Exile

_Brian_ wrote:

The 1.2 is very heavy and would probably need a tripod...

I wouldn't say very heavy now, but it is significantly heavier than the plastic, f/1.8
A tripod is good though, if you're using it indoors, without a flash.

Prenderb

I think a prime lens, 50mm especially (cos I own it!) really helps you to focus (pun intended) on your composition and how your position affects framing and perspective, rather than relying on the zoom of a lens... that's just my second smallest euro coin denomination. It forces you (me? ) to think harder about the picture you're looking for....

Biro

The 1.2 is an L-series lens, so it should be superior quality to the other two, but also a heftier price tag. I have used the 1.8 and own the 1.4. I'm happy with my choice of 1.4 over the 1.8, it does give a better pic, and the USM is nice - quiet and quick. However, I'm still not sure if it's worth the extra few bob. It's nearly three times the price of the 1.8. If you don't see yourself using it that much, go for the 1.8. I really can't comment on the 1.2 though.

Stephen

For the money the 1.8 is hard to beat. Even if you're not sure about going with primes, it'll only run you about a hundred quid, so no great loss

I love my Nikon 50mm f1.8!

311

Talking of primes ,I've never heard anyone mention this lens for the canon
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_15_28_fish/

Seems like a really nice lens ,2.8 wide angle:)

mathias

Mmmm... fisheyes , Id love to play around with one , but the prices are hideously expensive for what is essentially a one trick type of lens , cant see myself using one on a regular basis , ...

Ive recently built up my kit for digital and have stuck mostly to L type zooms ,

17 -40 , 70 - 200 , 100mm/2.8 macro , and the 50mm/1.8 prime , I cant complain about any of these lenses , they are all excellent , I have been recommended four primes , 14mm/2.8 , TS-e 24mm/3.5 35mm /1.4, 85mm/1.2 but the prices , well , they are out of my league at the moment.

These were recommended to me by someone who pretty much takes the same kind of shots as me , namely landscapes and buildings , He shoots mostly primes himself , keeps a 17-40L for a carry around.
The 16-35 /2.8 would be nice but so expensive , Im outside when Im shooting anyway so it wouldnt really benefit me ! ( I calm myself with that mantra ! )

For me at the moment , the zooms are fine , especially the L class , they are a reasonable price and the quality is excellent , when I have the money I'll consider some primes. ( Just shelled out for the 17-40L , so it will be a while! )

Fajitas!

Read the reviews on FredMiranda.com about the 50mm's.

The AF seems a bit slow on the 1.2

I have the 1.4 and it's a fantastic workhorse of a lens for gigs.

FreeAnd..

I have the 15mm 2.8 fisheye and its a cracking lens, i was debating selling it to fund the purchase of another lens but couldnt part with it...it is unbelieveably wide, can get some interesting effects and if desired the distortion can be corrected in PTLens...

the sharpness, contrast and colours though are all top notch..

As for primes vs zooms, i guess it all depends what you are shooting, if you have time to be slow, change lenses etc then primes are the way to go...as said they are usually faster and sharper but that comes at the price of the fixed focal lenght...A mix of both is probably the way to go..

City-Exile

Fajitas! wrote:

Read the reviews on FredMiranda.com about the 50mm's.

The AF seems a bit slow on the 1.2

How fast do you really need to focus on a subject, in a portrait?

With regard to the Fisheye, it would be nice to try, but you could end up with a load of images, looking exactly the same. Likewise, people can over use filters.

Paulw

I do think that my composition could do with some improvement. So, maybe a prime would be worth checking out.

But, since I've already bought a new lens (10-22mm) I really can't justify another lens. So for now, I'll watch and wait.

Thanks for all the advice .. I may splash out on a 50mm in the near future.

FreeAnd..

As long as you dont overdo the fisheye effect and position correctly you can vary the images greatly

some sample to highlight my point...









As for getting the 1.2 for a portrait, i think there would be better uses and for the money the 1.4 or even the 1.8 are much better bets - they get higher rated too, seems to be lots of problems with the 1.2

Calina

oh man I want a fisheye. But I want a 10-20 even more so I guess that's where the next lot of money is going to go.

and my ssia is going on kitesurfing gear...so....

City-Exile

Calina wrote:

and my ssia is going on kitesurfing gear...so....

We need another SSIA scheme!
I got Lotto numbers, in a fortune cookie, so I'm going to win it tonight...
Don't worry, I'll share my images, from my collection of lenses & bodies, with you all. Obviously, your C&C wont bother me, because I'll be minted! The money wont go to my head & I promise I wont forget everyone on boards.

311

While theres a lens thread still floating ,does anyone have any idea what the tamron 90mm 2.8 macro lens is like ???
Photozone says it's a great lens for the money ,€300 incl. delivery. on kea & Ur galaxy
Seems very cheap.

elven

Damn, I had a review comparing that to the canon 100mm f2.8 and the sigma 105mm f2.8 that basically had them neck & neck, the Tamron considered better than the Sigma. I had a shot of the sigma at the weekend and thought it was great, but I know someone else who owns it and told me to sell a kidney for the canon instead, if I had to... but no experience with the tamron.

Today I sent my payment to Albert for the Canon one £287 inc postage & insurance. Came to about €450 in the conversion.

311

Now you get to fall in love ,all over again:D

elven

Ooh here ya go:

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/

311

Thats a page I read through ,the guy does say the canon is better in every way. But if the pricing is like england ,then go for the tamrom.

For €450 ,thats a great price . You won't have to worry about wasps anymore now