October 25, 2014, 02:26:40 PM

Poll

Which canon package is best for your bag, what's the weight and $ worth?

Zooms: canon 16-35mm f2.8 ii + 24-70 ii +70-200 2.8 is ii
27 (51.9%)
Primes: canon 14mm 2.8 ii + 24mm 1.4 ii + canon 35mm 1.4 + canon 50mm 1.2 + canon 85mm 1.2 ii + canon 100mm 2.8 is + 135mm f2 + 200mm f2
25 (48.1%)

Total Members Voted: 52

Author Topic: The great battle: primes vs zooms  (Read 6150 times)

PavelR

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2012, 03:24:32 PM »
I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness

You seem to miss the point of using prime lenses.  Its more depth of field, and low light needs that drive users to primes.  Sharpness has less to do with it.
If I'm shooting in very low light, I have little choice.  Same if I want very shallow depth of field, f/2.8 might not be enough.
Many primes are as sharp or sharper than zooms, not a big issue for me.
Sharpness and overall IQ is the main reason to use primes for me. (even in "enough light" situations)
Zoom I use only in a situation I know I do not have enough time / space / clean place to exchange lenses.
Thus "...weight worth..." - yes it is! ;-)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2012, 03:24:32 PM »

scrup

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
    • Free Hosting
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2012, 04:15:51 PM »
Zooms for me but it really depends on the environment.

Capturing the moment is part of the equation and comes before IQ. If you have to change lense then you mite miss the opportunity. A good image is better than no image.




Pinchers of Peril

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 137
  • Shoot first ask questions later
    • View Profile
    • PS Photography
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2012, 04:58:24 PM »
It's not always about bokeh.

I find this quote blasphemous  ;)
Canon 5D Mark III, 85 1.2 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 16-35 2.8 II, 50 1.4, 40mm pancake www.paulandsunny.blogspot.com

cliffwang

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 491
    • View Profile
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2012, 05:25:27 PM »
For short range, I prefer primes.  Zoom for 100mm+.  Sometimes I also want to use primes because it's fast and DoF.
Canon 5D3 | Samyang 14mm F/2.8 | Sigma 50mm F/1.4 | Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 VC | Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS MK2 | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro L | Canon Closed-up 500D | 430EX | Kenko 2x Teleplus Pro 300 | Manfrotto Tripod

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4197
    • View Profile
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2012, 05:26:58 PM »
I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness

You seem to miss the point of using prime lenses.  Its more depth of field, and low light needs that drive users to primes.  Sharpness has less to do with it.
If I'm shooting in very low light, I have little choice.  Same if I want very shallow depth of field, f/2.8 might not be enough.
Many primes are as sharp or sharper than zooms, not a big issue for me.
Sharpness and overall IQ is the main reason to use primes for me. (even in "enough light" situations)
Zoom I use only in a situation I know I do not have enough time / space / clean place to exchange lenses.
Thus "...weight worth..." - yes it is! ;-)

My 50L is not sharper than my 24-70 f2.8 II @ 50mm f2.8 nor f1.2

Better bokeh is what we looking for in primes
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

TrumpetPower!

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2012, 06:11:31 PM »
What am I shooting, and why?

If it's an event and I have no clue what I might be shooting, I want one or more zooms.

If it's one specific shot and I know exactly what I want, I probably want just one prime.

If it were, say, a football game, I'd want one of each: the 400 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8.

Since this is a money-is-no-object exercise, I went with the list of primes and the unstated assumption that I'd have an assistant to carry them and a half-dozen bodies so they could be switched out at a moment's notice.

But your list also missed out on some of the most important primes, like the TS-E 24, the MP-E 65, and the Great Whites....

Cheers,

b&

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1606
    • View Profile
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2012, 06:33:47 PM »
What battle? You use the body/lens combination that suits your needs, creative requirements and financial means, whether that be as a consummate established professional, startup-professional, expert enthusiast, keen amateur or pixel peeper. Chronic gear nuts are excluded!  ;D  They need it ALL!

Coming out of a news/media background, and continuing with clients that require a high percentage of location work, and moving around a lot on the locations, a light manageable bag is crucial to success. I carry a mix of zooms & primes, but I have no doubt that if circumstances required me to set up from scratch again, I'd have the 16-35 f/2.8II, 24-70 f/2.8II plus the legendary 70-200 f/2.8isII as my first three lens purchases. No question. There is very little you cannot do with these three lenses.

So zooms constitute my core kit, and primes flesh it out to cover narrower specific needs. So add in the 24 f/1.4II, 100 f/2.8L macro, 135 f/2L and the 300 f/2.8. Day to day, the primes get far less use than the zooms. Zooms rule...and in 2012 they're just so GOOD!

-PW


canon rumors FORUM

Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2012, 06:33:47 PM »

PavelR

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2012, 07:04:57 PM »
I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness

You seem to miss the point of using prime lenses.  Its more depth of field, and low light needs that drive users to primes.  Sharpness has less to do with it.
If I'm shooting in very low light, I have little choice.  Same if I want very shallow depth of field, f/2.8 might not be enough.
Many primes are as sharp or sharper than zooms, not a big issue for me.
Sharpness and overall IQ is the main reason to use primes for me. (even in "enough light" situations)
Zoom I use only in a situation I know I do not have enough time / space / clean place to exchange lenses.
Thus "...weight worth..." - yes it is! ;-)

My 50L is not sharper than my 24-70 f2.8 II @ 50mm f2.8 nor f1.2

Better bokeh is what we looking for in primes
Than go and buy a better prime... I do not prefer the whole picture blurred against sharp isolated subject.
+ all my primes used for stills are sharper @ 2.8 than 24-70II@50, F2.8...
PS: Your 50 is only acceptable in the center, but I usually do not prefer center composition...

RS2021

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2012, 07:06:01 PM »
I went through the phase of collecting the key primes...over it now. Once I looked at what I was actually using, zooms usually came out on top. Versatility is key.  Granted, I am still partial to a few primes and other primes I loath. Indoors, ambient light, primes are called for... Outdoors street photography, I would pick a zoom and not the 35L.
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” - Henri Cartier-Bresson

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4197
    • View Profile
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2012, 07:17:41 PM »
I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness

You seem to miss the point of using prime lenses.  Its more depth of field, and low light needs that drive users to primes.  Sharpness has less to do with it.
If I'm shooting in very low light, I have little choice.  Same if I want very shallow depth of field, f/2.8 might not be enough.
Many primes are as sharp or sharper than zooms, not a big issue for me.
Sharpness and overall IQ is the main reason to use primes for me. (even in "enough light" situations)
Zoom I use only in a situation I know I do not have enough time / space / clean place to exchange lenses.
Thus "...weight worth..." - yes it is! ;-)

My 50L is not sharper than my 24-70 f2.8 II @ 50mm f2.8 nor f1.2

Better bokeh is what we looking for in primes
Than go and buy a better prime... I do not prefer the whole picture blurred against sharp isolated subject.
+ all my primes used for stills are sharper @ 2.8 than 24-70II@50, F2.8...
PS: Your 50 is only acceptable in the center, but I usually do not prefer center composition...

I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?

How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 07:22:05 PM by Dylan777 »
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

SJTstudios

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #25 on: December 17, 2012, 07:36:10 PM »
I agree with Mt Spokane to a point. Primes used in street photography are useful stopped down for a complete telling of the scenes story. Small, inconspicuous, great for pre-focusing. It's not always about bokeh.
Don't worry, I get your point, I probably should have further evaluated on this topic, I'm just advertising one of those "would you rather situations.

PavelR

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #26 on: December 17, 2012, 07:42:15 PM »
I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?

How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp
Yes, I did - with my hands and my eyes. 24-70 II is sharp @ F3.5. But, 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 are far better @ F2.8 than 24-70 II @ F2.8.
I do not recompose with any lens, because the right moment of a shot is lost and sometimes correct focus is lost too.

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4197
    • View Profile
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #27 on: December 17, 2012, 08:10:40 PM »
I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?

How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp
Yes, I did - with my hands and my eyes. 24-70 II is sharp @ F3.5. But, 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 are far better @ F2.8 than 24-70 II @ F2.8.
I do not recompose with any lens, because the right moment of a shot is lost and sometimes correct focus is lost too.

24-70 II can only reach up to 70mmm and you compared to 85, 135, and 200mm?

What I'm seeing in my 24-70 II is extremely sharp at f2.8....I haven't shoot at f3.5 or smaller yet.

Pic below was taken inside a pre-school classroom. I cropped nearly 70%, no flash of course @ f2.8. You have any pic at f3.5 on your 24-70? 
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #27 on: December 17, 2012, 08:10:40 PM »

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #28 on: December 17, 2012, 08:32:30 PM »
What battle? You use the body/lens combination that suits your needs, creative requirements and financial means, whether that be as a consummate established professional, startup-professional, expert enthusiast, keen amateur or pixel peeper. Chronic gear nuts are excluded!  ;D  They need it ALL!

Coming out of a news/media background, and continuing with clients that require a high percentage of location work, and moving around a lot on the locations, a light manageable bag is crucial to success. I carry a mix of zooms & primes, but I have no doubt that if circumstances required me to set up from scratch again, I'd have the 16-35 f/2.8II, 24-70 f/2.8II plus the legendary 70-200 f/2.8isII as my first three lens purchases. No question. There is very little you cannot do with these three lenses.

So zooms constitute my core kit, and primes flesh it out to cover narrower specific needs. So add in the 24 f/1.4II, 100 f/2.8L macro, 135 f/2L and the 300 f/2.8. Day to day, the primes get far less use than the zooms. Zooms rule...and in 2012 they're just so GOOD!

-PW
Hmm, I fit in somewhere around keen amateur doing my best to move closer to expert enthusiast. I also can't see a battle here. Personally I shoot with zooms mostly, I have one prime, 35L, but it doesn't get as much use as it deserves.

crasher8

  • Guest
Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #29 on: December 17, 2012, 10:04:20 PM »
I carry a 24-105 and a 50 around more than anything else. Now that I have a 135 I might lug that and the pancake for a nice combo.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The great battle: primes vs zooms
« Reply #29 on: December 17, 2012, 10:04:20 PM »