Prime VS Zooms.

[neuroanatomist]

Is the 70-200 that much sharper than your 85? Seriously? Even wide open? My 85 is insanely sharp, I don't see how a zoom could be significantly sharper....
I saw you left the 135 out, I guess that edges out the 70-200 in sharpness? And is the 200 2.8 really that bad? I figured it would be pretty damn sharp.

In the center, they're similar - but away from the center, the 70-200 II wins, and the same is true for the 135L and 200/2.8L. The 70-200 II is simply an exceptionally good zoom lens, quite possibly the best zoom lens available. It's certainly possible that an updated 135L would be even better, with a tweaked design and the newset coatings. But really, the reason I use my 85L and 135L is for the faster aperture, not better IQ.

 

[bp]

some primes are way better than some zooms. For example yesterday I took some photos with a 24-105 and then took the same with a 400 f/2.8. The ones with the 400 f/2.8 were a noticable improvement both in terms of contrast and IQ.

Uh... OK, wait - you're comparing an $1100 f/4 zoom to an $11,000 f/2.8 prime? ... $10K difference in price and 295mm difference in reach? Interesting.

I do know what you mean though. The other day, I took a picture with my 5yo son's LeapFrog 1MP camera, and then took the same pic with my 5D3 and 85 1.2 II, and I was stunned at the difference.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I do know what you mean though. The other day, I took a picture with my 5yo son's LeapFrog 1MP camera, and then took the same pic with my 5D3 and 85 1.2 II, and I was stunned at the difference.

Just goes to show...you should have used an iPhone, and then they'd be harder to tell apart.

 

[bp]

Yeah, you're probably right.

Back to the original topic though - honestly, before I picked up the 70-200 MK2, I woulda just checked the "Primes" button in the poll without a second thought. Longtime prime freak - you just couldn't get the same level of IQ (+contrast, color, everything) with ANY zoom. I owned the 70-200 f4 IS (which, despite the limitation of f4 is VERY sharp), and I'd rented the 70-200 2.8 IS mk1 a couple times, trying to convince myself that I needed it, but frankly, the MK1 was always soft. I was utterly in love with my 100L and the 85L II

Then the 70-200 MK2 came out, I rented it, and was completely blown away. It was as sharp as my 100L in side by side tests, and the 100L is a VERY sharp lens.

At this point, I only use the 100L for macro (rarely), and probably rely the most on my 70-200 II. It's truly an amazing piece of glass. For wide stuff though, primes all the way. 35L is great, and the 24L II is my sweet sugar momma.

 

[EYEONE]

Having made two huge zoom purchases last year I'd sayrimes. If I had to do it over again I'd get 3 primes: 35mmL, 85mmL and 135mmL.

BUT, I can't complain about the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. I think it's probably the greatest thing on Earth. I actually don't think it's too heavy. I love taking it around.

 

[girod199]

It is up to each individual and what they shoot. My vote could have gone either way. I recently traded my 70-200mm 2.8 non IS for a 135L. I found the 70-200mm to be sharper than the 135L at f/2.8 but at f/4 they were about the same. The 70-200mm was too big to take everywhere and it got heavy carrying it all day. The 135L is much smaller and lighter. That's the main reason I traded for a prime. Versatility was not worth the weight for me. The ability to open up to very large apertures is also another reason I voted primes over zooms. Especially the 50mm primes. At 1.2-1.8, there is no zoom that can compare and 2 of the 50mm's are very affordable. Some zooms are just as sharp or even sharper than primes, like the 70-200mm 2.8 lenses, but most primes are small, light, and are a couple stops faster than 2.8.

 

[RichATL]

I just recently got my first Zoom, (that wasn't a kit lens).

I've been shooting rebels for years, and putting the cash into glass...primes specifically.
20mm 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.2, 100, 2.8

I recently bought the old 28-70mm 2.8, to replace my EF-s kit zoom that came with my rebel.

It's an amazing lens, and covers my "walk around" needs. But, I'm so used to stopping and switching lenses, that I'll probably continue to use my primes, particularly in the studio, the most. But having the speed and versatility available in my bag is nice though.

 

[lol]

I've got a mixed bag (see sig) but as the overwhelming number of shots are taken with zooms, they'd get my vote.

The main reason I have primes is for those rare occasions where I need the bigger aperture for a reduced depth of field in a given field of view. Normally I'm fighting the other direction, not having enough depth of field.

Over the years zooms are getting better. I doubt they will ever catch up with primes in aperture terms, but they're certainly no slouches in image quality. I just got the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS this week. While I haven't done much field testing on it yet, my impressions so far it's at least equal to the Canon 300mm f/2.8 (non-IS) in sharpness, and easily superior in vignetting characteristic.

The only lens(es) that would be hard to replace with zooms would be macro lenses. I like the ability to have easily variable focus distance which would be lost if I had to use a zoom with either extenders or close up filters. I guess to a lesser degree you might add other exotic lenses like tilt-shift too, but in that case I think there is more potential of a TS zoom than a 1:1 macro zoom.

 

[JR]

I generally prefer prime over zoom. The only exception to this is with the 70-200 II IS but there again i end up using my 135L more often then this zoom. I hope the new 24-70 II is good and may make me switch to use zoom again for their flexibility...

 

[awinphoto]

It USED to be common knowledge that primes were sharper than zooms but zooms offered the flexibility that zooms didn't. Zooms are speedily catching up to primes in the primes and gotten to the point where quite frankly If I can get away with fewer lenses at a pro shoot, I will without thinking twice. There are times when I need the F Stop of a prime given a certain situation, and that's cool... Also with the better ISO capabilities of these new cameras, it opens doors also for zooms and primes alike... As it has been mentioned before, it's all about using the right tool for the task at hand.

 

[sawsedge]

The definitive answer: It depends!

If you need a shallow DOF or are shooting in low light, a fast prime is the way to go. If your subjects will be moving, a zoom may be the best solution.

Budget and style of shooting are also important factors. In the end, the "right tool for the job" depends on you.

+1

I could not vote, I use both. It is always a matter of the best tool for the job. I have an equal number of each.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I could not vote, I use both.

Pity this isn't like a real election, where you can vote more than once...

 

[FarQinell]

A Canon prime will always beat a zoom!

Seriously though you can often get two sharp primes for less than the corresponding zoom eg an 85/2 and an 200/2.8 instead of the cumbersome 70-200 f2.8 which handles like a brick!

Depends on what you do. Tracking moving objects is easier with the 70-200 II f/2.8 than with the L primes in the same range.

Sorry but have to disagree.
The 70-200 f2.8 is heavy - front heavy.
By comparison the other two are lightweight and well balanced.
If anybody wants a 70-200 then go for the f4 which is very sharp wide open unlike the f2.8 - very light and light on the pocket as well!

 

[briansquibb]

Sorry but have to disagree.
The 70-200 f2.8 is heavy - front heavy.

The 70-200 f/2.8 II + 1D4 are well balanced

 

[FarQinell]

Sorry but have to disagree.
The 70-200 f2.8 is heavy - front heavy.

The 70-200 f/2.8 II + 1D4 are well balanced

That's a heavy combination to carry around?
Better balance with a heavier body - I agree.
Poor balance with APS-C body.

 

[briansquibb]

Sorry but have to disagree.
The 70-200 f2.8 is heavy - front heavy.

The 70-200 f/2.8 II + 1D4 are well balanced

That's a heavy combination to carry around?
Better balance with a heavier body - I agree.
Poor balance with APS-C body.

This is my default setup and hold them all day - dont even use a strap as the hand holds spread the weight well

 

[JR]

Sorry but have to disagree.
The 70-200 f2.8 is heavy - front heavy.

The 70-200 f/2.8 II + 1D4 are well balanced

That's a heavy combination to carry around?
Better balance with a heavier body - I agree.
Poor balance with APS-C body.

This is my default setup and hold them all day - dont even use a strap as the hand holds spread the weight well

Still, I would not call that walking around material for me for sure! You must be a strong man Brian...

Seriously, I have always found the 70-200 2.8 on the heavy side but I must admit that I am getting use to it now and the wait is bothering me less and less. I would hold it for the whole day, but dont mind using it with a flash for a while...

 

[Random Orbits]

A Canon prime will always beat a zoom!

Seriously though you can often get two sharp primes for less than the corresponding zoom eg an 85/2 and an 200/2.8 instead of the cumbersome 70-200 f2.8 which handles like a brick!

Depends on what you do. Tracking moving objects is easier with the 70-200 II f/2.8 than with the L primes in the same range.

Sorry but have to disagree.
The 70-200 f2.8 is heavy - front heavy.
By comparison the other two are lightweight and well balanced.
If anybody wants a 70-200 then go for the f4 which is very sharp wide open unlike the f2.8 - very light and light on the pocket as well!

So you're saying that the 85 and 200 primes can track moving objects as well as the 70-200? I don't recall commenting on weight at all.

 

[dunkers]

If I had a preference, I would use primes. I just love moving about to take my shot rather than standing still and twisting my wrist.


It really depends on what I'm shooting. My 70-200 f2.8 IS II is for sports. My 100L is for headshots, portraits, etc.

 

[FunPhotons]

I'd prefer primes but for the following reasons ...

• Canon puts most of their R&D into zooms
• Primes require more lens changes and hassle

I've been using zooms long enough now (converted over seven years ago) that I'm pretty much used to them and OK. Bigger, heavier, but they do have more flexibility.

Given that, I do have a fantasy of having a all Zeiss prime kit.