Prime vs zoom

[RGF]

Do you zooms or prime lens. In my case I will use a zoom if I can but I need a specialized lens 14mm UWA, Macro, long glass.

I don't have any primes that overlap with zooms (16-35, 24-105, 70-200) but have been reading how great some of the primes are.

 

[Click]

Both primes and zooms.

 

[RLPhoto]

Mostly primes, own only one zoom.

 

[TM]

Having the trinity for both zooms and primes is the way to go, if you can. ;D
Zooms for versatility and convenience, and fast primes to get those magical shots.

 

[jdramirez]

I own a 25-105 f/4L IS... and I'll use that if I am uncertain of how close I will be to my subject and presuming there is good light.

I had a 50mm f/1.8 and I have a 50mm f/1.4 that I use when I know there will be low light situations and 50mm on my crop sensor (60D) equals about 80mm on a full frame... and while most people will say that is too long, it isn't a bad distance for me. I used to use my f/1.8 exclusively over my 18-55mm... I really liked the depth of field and the bokeh.

I have recently been using a 100mm f/2.8L Macro for most of my sport shootings (football, basketball, track). It's very sharp, I get great shutter rates in sunlight (1/6000 of a second), at f/2.8 it is sharp and I really prefer using it. Actually I had a 70-200mm f/4L USM and I much preferred the 100mm, then I had a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and again the 100mm was my lens of choice.

I also have a Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 fisheye that I stop down to around 8 or higher, and I tripod mount it and I'm fond of the results.

I'm mulling over getting a 300mm f/4L IS or maybe a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii. It's really a puzzle... I buy and sell gear and right now I'm cash rich... so I have more money than I do needs...

 

[pierceography]

It really depends on what I'm shooting. If I can afford to, primes all the way. However, there are plenty of conditions where you simply have to have a zoom.

If I can take my time and prepare for don't have to rush to swap lenses, I'll stick with my 50, 85, 100, or 135. However, if I'm on foot (exploring a city), I'll usually stick with my 24-70mm.

So for me, it's really a combination of both! But if I had to pick, I prefer the picture quality of my primes.

 

[elflord]

I'm not a pro, so I am never under pressure to "get the shot". I also have plenty of access to my primary subjects. So it's primes all the way for me (35L/50mm f/1.4/siggy 85/135L and on a panasonic gf2 the 20mm f/1.7 and the 45mm f/1.8)

Having said that I owned the 15-85mm EF-S lens and it was quite nice for outdoor shots -- it would make a fine travel zoom. It was very good for what I used it for (outdoor walkaround-ish shots), it's just that I didn't take these shots very often. I liked it very much as a wide angle lens (where I am more likely to want more depth of field and hence aren't bothered that it's a slow lens), I didn't use the tele lengths on it as much.

The primes: 35L : my "wide lens". Siggy 85: my "indoor portrait lens". 135L : my outdoor tele. 50mm f/1.4 -- this one's a bit of an odd duck (it was my favourite lens for APS-C and I couldn't bear to part with it) but when I have to choose exactly one lens, this is the one.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've been using primes 20:1 over zooms.
That is about to change I think. I just bought a 70-200mm f/2.8, ordered a 24-70mmL today, and have a 16-35mmL and 100-400mmL. I'll sell my little used 70-200mm f/4 IS, and probably my 24-105mmL
This leaves me with a few primes, 15mm f/e, 17mm f/3.5 Tokina, 35mmL, 100mmL, and 135mmL. I sold my 85mm 1.8 and two 50mm 1.4's and a 50mm 1.8 MK I last week. I also have some older consumer zooms that I will sell, but they do not amount to much. A 22-55, 28-200, and 50-200 that I've had laying around. I also have three TC's.

I'm trying to reduce the number of lenses that I use, but I'm prone to buying more. I am concerned about the ability of the zooms to function well in low light, of 2704 images at a recent shoot, 1550 were greater apertures than f/2.8, and many of the others were shot by a person who had a smaller aperture lens.
what I can get aw

I typically use a pretty fast shutter because there is movement, but I'll find how slow I can go very soon.

 

[rpt]

I mostly shoot with zooms. I usually do not shoot in very bad light but that could be because of the zooms I have

Most of the time either the 24-105 or the 100-400 is on my camera. Unless I am shooting macros... There was only one evening that I shot exclusively with the 40mm...

 

[Don Haines]

I prefer zooms for wide angle, but a f gets longer you can't beat primes.

10-20 is just irreplaceable
17-55 is very nice.... I borrowed one and it will probably be my next lens purchase....
The 70-200's (any of them) are sharp, but the 100L is SHARP!

I like the 400f5.6 more than the 100-400 or the Sigma 120-400.... whenever Canon updates it, I'll add one to my kit.

and for drooling after but can't ever afford, 600F4.0. OMG THAT IS SOME FINE GLASS!!!!!

 

[rpt]

I like the 400f5.6 more than the 100-400 or the Sigma 120-400.... whenever Canon updates it, I'll add one to my kit.

Don, thanks for the idea. That is what I will do too! Well, if it does not cost an arm and a thumb...

 

[Hillsilly]

Predominantly primes as I like travelling as small, light and unobtrusive as possible. But I do have a 70-200 and 17-40 that come out occassionally.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Mostly primes.

For that matter, the zoom I've been reaching for the most recently isn't even really conceptually a zoom...the 8-15 is really just two fisheye lenses in one, the one full-circle and the other 180° diagonal, with convenient markings for those who use it on APS where it's just a 180° fisheye.

I haven't touched the 16-35 in a while. The 24-105 I'll grab as a walkabout when I have no clue why I have the camera in my hands. It also makes for a good viewfinder to decide which prime to use. The 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) I'll use for telephoto landscapes, especially with the Moon in the frame...being able to recompose quickly as the Moon moves about the scene is nice.

But I probably use the TS-E 24 more than any other lens, and I'm not afraid to stick on the 1.4x on it, either. Basically, if I can think of an excuse to use the TS-E 24, I do.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Radiating]

Having the trinity for both zooms and primes is the way to go, if you can. ;D
Zooms for versatility and convenience, and fast primes to get those magical shots.

Agree 100%

though I do

2.8 & 1.4 trinity

 

[MathieuB]

For street photography, the convenience of my 28-70mm 3.5-4.5 is hard to beat, but I prefer the pictures that I get from my primes, the 40mm 2.8 and the 85mm 1.8 (especially for portraits). If you're on a restricted budget, primes are the way to go in my opinion, if you want to achieve those magical shots.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

I manage very well with a 35mm and an 85mm - especially for travelling. Must be a throwback to film
days when zooms weren't so very good.

 

[Cosk]

I used to shoot zoom (and had a couple primes)... until one day I started looking at all the framed photos on my walls and realized that all but one or two were taken with the primes.

Zooms may have been 80% of my clicks... but all the keepers came out of the smaller set of prime shots.


Now I shoot all prime... which caused an unintended consequence that led to a very tricky and expensive problem: I'm out of walls.

 

[RGF]

I manage very well with a 35mm and an 85mm - especially for travelling. Must be a throwback to film
days when zooms weren't so very good.

I remember the Nikon 43-86 zoom, real dog of a lens

 

[ecka]

Zooms for work, primes for pleasure!

 

[c.d.embrey]

Ninety-five % of the time I'm shooting with an 85mm f/1.8. The other five % with a 90mm f/2.8 TS-E. No zoomz needed.