prime v fixed

thebaz

Out of curiosity, people keep saying a prime lens is the business, currently i am only using my nikon 50, i have no zoom , and plan to get another (f 1.4) .
Any techies , tell me the real advantage of primes over zoom ?

cheers,
B.

RoryW

found on web.......

Arguments for Prime Lenses
Let’s explore some of the common arguments for Prime lenses. Keep in mind that there are many prime lenses out there and that what follows are unashamedly generalizations.

1. Quality - while zoom lenses are improving considerably in the quality that they offer their users, prime lenses are known for being high quality and having the ability to produce clean, crisp and precise shots. This is an argument that often comes out in the prime vs zoom lens debate but it’s worth remembering that in every manufacturers range that there are some lenses (both zoom and prime) that are known for being exceptionally sharp and there are some that are known as being a little muddy. While it might be true that in general prime lenses are pretty high quality it shouldn’t be an assumption you make of every prime lens.

2. Price - prime lenses are generally simpler lenses in terms of construction. By the fact that they don’t need to zoom they generally have less moving parts and as a result they are generally cheaper to buy. Once again - there are many factors that determine the price of a lens (including quality) so not all prime lenses are ‘cheap’ but do some searching around and you’ll find some that are definitely value for money.

3. Weight - because of their simple construction you often find that prime lenses are smaller and particularly lighter lenses than zoom lenses in similar focal lengths. My two lightest lenses are my two 50mm lenses (I have the f1.8 and the f1.4 - I’m still trying to work out which one to keep). They are great for heading out to locations where it is just not practical to haul lots of gear around with me.

4. Speed - in general prime lenses are faster (in terms of aperture) than zoom lenses. This is slowly changing as zoom lens improvements continue to be made by manufacturers but in the Canon range if you want extra fast lenses you’ll start with prime lenses (for example the 85mm and 50mm lenses for example). This allows you to shoot in lower light without the need for a flash.

5. Technique - one argument that gets pulled out against zoom lenses is that they make the photographer lazy. Instead of having to move around to find the best angle for the focal length they allow the photographer to stay in the one place and just zoom in and out. Some believe this sucks the creativity out of the process. I’m not sure about this one - while I do enjoy the challenge of using a prime lens (it definitely does mean you have to work harder and think about your shots a little more) you can still be a creative and hard working photographer with a zoom lens on your camera if you are aware of the temptation just to shoot from the one position all the time.

Arguments for Zoom Lenses
1. Portability (another perspective) - when prime lens proponents pull out the ‘weight/portability’ argument zoom lens lovers often argue that a point in favor of the zoom is that you only need to cary one lens instead of a range of lenses to have the same focal length range. Instead of carrying around a 14mm, 50mm and 85mm lens you could carry one lens that covers the full (or close to) range of focal lengths. You’ll also never have to change your lens and risk getting dust on your image sensor.

2. Price (another perspective) - similarly - while zoom lenses might be more expensive than prime lenses the cost of one lens in comparison to multiple lenses can often be comparable.

3. Flexibility - perhaps the biggest argument for Zoom lenses is the flexibility that the offer a photographer. They allow someone wanting to shoot at a variety of focal lengths the ability to quickly change perspective and add variety into their shots within a second (or a fraction of one if you’re a quick zoomer). This is ideal for many types of photography including weddings or sports where you have to constantly be looking for random shots and may not have the time (or ability) to physically move closer or further away from you subject.

So are Prime or Zoom lenses best?
Obviously there is a range of factors to consider and ultimately the decision will come down to a number of factors including the type and style of photography that you do, your budget, the need for portability, how often you’re willing to change lenses, the quality you’re after and the shooting conditions you’ll be shooting in.

My own approach with lenses is to go with both. I’m lucky enough to have a budget that allows me this opportunity. I have a couple of 50mm lenses (see above) which are great for low light situations and those times when weight is a consideration as well as a 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens which is obviously for macro shooting but is also quite good for portraits (an added bonus).

I also have a few zoom lenses a 17-40mm, a 24-105mm and a 70-200mm which cover the full range of focal lengths that I generally shoot in.

As I mention above - there is generally a lot of variation between lenses (both prime and zoom). I find that there is especially a lot of variation in the zoom range of Canon (and I presume for other manufacturers too). Most DSLRs come with the option for a kit zoom lens which are generally of a much lower quality than a professional grade lens (in Canon Pro lenses are designated as being ‘L’ series lenses).

My advice to those shopping for a lens is that it’s well worth investing in quality lenses. The camera body definitely has an impact on the quality of your shots but lens quality is where you can really take your photography to the next level. Do some careful research before buying a lens and buy the best one you can afford (without re-mortgaging the house).


Prime Lenses - an Introduction
DSLR Lenses - An Introduction
Practical Tips




Comments are closed at Prime vs Zoom Lenses - Which are Best?





Designed by The Blog Studio | (RSS) | Contact Us | About DPS | © 2006 - 2007 Digital Photography School

<SEANREMOVEDTHISscript type='text/javascript' src='http://track Close
The Police Officer's Guide to Operating and Surviving in Low-Light and No-Light Conditions: How to Prevail in …
by Tony L. Jones
(2 customer reviews)

List Price: $40.95
Price: $40.95



Privacy InformationThe Police Officer's Guide to Operating and Surviving in Low-Light and No-Light Conditions: How to Prevail in …

mathias

The main advantage is supposed to be the sharpness of the lens with a prime.
It certainly was back in the days of film and in some cases (, especially with medium format ) still is , but with todays zooms , especially with some of the L glass zooms available from Canon , there is very little in the difference.

Other advantages are that they are usually lighter , and faster than zooms , ( thats faster in terms of aperture , for example a 50mm 1.8 ... 1.8 is rare and expensive in a zoom lens whereas its cheap in a prime.)

Some would say that they help improve technique because you have to work harder for your shot , ( not me though )

Arguments for zooms are that you get a range of focal lengths in one lens and dont have to switch so often but of course they are bigger heavier and slower.

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/prime-vs-zoom-lenses-which-are-best/

RoryW

also on web...

According to a popular photography magazine article http://www.popphoto.com/default.asp about the zoom vs prime issue, zoom lenses actually tested very close to the quality of many prime lenses. Pop photo tested three brands Canon, Nikon, and Minolta. All lenses tested were high quality lenses. The primes did score higher numbers but only slightly. How can this be? The article explains that recent developments in computers and robotics have made the production of higher quality zoom lenses easier and at lower costs.

Borderfox

In terms of tests no zoom will ever come close to f1.2 and at the end of the day thats the difference in my world between getting the shot and not.... simple as

thebaz

thanks guys -- you know its late - the title is a bit confusing
but you know what i mean
zzzz

run_Forrest_run

thebaz wrote:

thanks guys -- you know its late - the title is a bit confusing
but you know what i mean
zzzz

yeah I was a little confused about the title myself, that's why I continued to read on. Good article.

PaulieC

I used a canon 50mm 1.4 at a wedding last week and I was really blown away with how well the pictures turned out, compared to my zoom (a Sigma 24-70 f2.8). If you did lab comparisons, there probably wouldn't be much of a difference in the quality of the two lenses, but the pictures taken with the prime lens just seemed to pop more than zoom lens shots do for some reason.

So much so, I jsut bought a 30mm 1.4 Sigma off Borderfox. And I got a 100 macro recently. My bag is slowly being taken over by the primes!

rymus

thats the way to have it! I've only got two at the moment, well, three if you count the macro lens and I love them all equally.. Well, some are more equal than others; the sigma 30mm for example.

I can quite easily see all my money going on L primes when I eventually get my ass moving and go full frame. Must go ask for that pay rise.

thebaz

i've just ordered the sigma 30 mm , and kicked the zoom purchase to touch.
Damn photography is an expensive business.

rymus

ah baz.. I could have sold ya mine

thebaz

rymus wrote:

ah baz.. I could have sold ya mine

i thought your canon ??

rymus

oh yeah.. you're one of them.. forgot

Stephen

One of them... the cheek!

/waits patiently for sigma 10-20 to come in the post

PaulieC

rymus wrote:

I love them all equally.. Well, some are more equal than others; the sigma 30mm for example.

rymus wrote:

ah baz.. I could have sold ya mine

Yip, that sounds like love to me . What do you do with the ones you hate??

rymus

stomp on em...

but for the record.. I'm only selling it because I've planned to get a 35L

magicbastarder

i much prefer primes. mainly for depth of field at f1.4 or f2, secondary concern is low light performance, third concern is that i prefer that you generally have to do more work with a prime, which leads to better photos. IMHO.

Borderfox

It definitely improves how you look at a shot, the 50mm f1.8 was the best thing I bought to improve the way I looked at things and compostion also.

mathias

I love the nifty 50 , did some black and whites at a wedding with it on a film camera , they came out great.

I also love the 100mm canon 2.8 macro , probably the prime I use the most ,

Having said that , I also love the 17-40L , and this one spends more time on the camera than any other.

I dont think it could ever be a one or the other situation , therell always be cases where one will be better than the other , but for low light protraits , the primes have it hands down.

The fifty at the alter in church has no equal for the price!

elven

If I could get an 18-200mm f1.8 that weighs a couple hundred grams for a few hundred quid, I wouldn't go raving about prime lenses...

As it is, I shoot with an 18-50 sigma f2.8 (thanks borderfox!!!), the nifty-fifty, my 100mm canon macro - oh, how I love thee - and at a push my old slow plastic crappy 70-200 f4.5-5.6. I'm managing to build up a collection of lenses that are fairly fast and sharp, for the price.

I find if I have a zoom lens on I spend most of my time zooming and less actually composing, though...

il gatto

A fast prime is a great thing to have, but two zooms of good quality will be far more flexible than three of four primes. For lowlight and fast moving subjects, a prime is great, but sometimes moving to a better position to frame a shot isn't possible, and while changing primes may help, it also may not, because the next lens you try may still be too far from the ideal focal lenght, or indeed, the shot has been missed whilst changing the lens.
I applaud people who exclusively use prime lens', but I personally wouldn't recommend filling your bag with them, but only because I don't. It very much depends on what you photograph and personal preference.