Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?

[surapon]

A lens has little to do with taking better pictures as long as its the tight focal length. The subject, composition and lighting are 99%.

+ 100 For me, Dear Teacher, Mr. Mt Spokane.
Yes, Sir, One of My Teacher " The PRO" use 1 time disposable Kodak 35 mm film camera,( $ 5-7 US Dollars ?) 20 years ago , and shoot some scenery Views , and get the best Photos that I have ever seen.---Yes, Sir, It depend on the Brain, Heart and the Skill of the person who press the shutter to create the masterpiece. The good/ great equipment will help/ support to get better one.
Have a great Weekend, Sir.
Surapon

Guess at the cost of the equipment used to make this shot: ;D

Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear mrsfotografie.
I can not guess how much the cost of Camera to recorded this Photo, But I can see = By the Skill Photographer, Who Have the Artistic in mind with Composition( Semi-Rule of Thirds), and strong hands to not let the camera move, and get the Sharp -Details of the subject.
Thanks , if you tell me that you use Fuji Disposal Card Board Camera = $ 3-4 Dollars.
Surapon

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Opposite for me. I need the sharpest possible telephotos for big cropping of nature photos, and zoom moderate wide to moderate teles for general carry around.

I think the distinction is better pictures versus sharper images. I think of content when I hear better pictures, versus higher IQ or sharper images. A sharp image of a poor subject, or poorly done one might be inferior to a good camera phone shot done well. Given the exact same subject at the exact same distance, its still not clear if a prime would do better at f/8 or f/16. There are too many variables that the OP has left for us to assume.

 

[Marsu42]

When I use a zoom, I am aware that the laziness factor kicks in sometimes, and I take the easy road to composition by just twisting the zoom ring, rather than expending the extra effort by getting closer or lower. Do you find that to be the case with your personal shooting style?

Currently I'm using my 100L/2.8 on ff a lot because the dof is really a change from crop with 70-300L/4... but that's because of the different look and depth of field, not because zoom vs. prime even if it's easy to attribute the difference to this. And it's easier to develop gas when buying primes

That's why I'd like to make a case for zooms: Once you realize you have to beat your laziness, they have distinct advantages:

• zooms are quicker: When something happens unexpectedly, you will be too late with a prime (i.e. have to crop a lot or you're too near)
• zooms can be more inconspicuous: When moving or crawling around the ground with a prime wildlife tends to be disturbed sooner or later unless you carefully set up the shot up front
• zooms are cleaner: Changing primes a lot outdoors is a pita because of sensor dirt or humidity, you also need 3 hands to do it correctly
• zooms let you frame better: If a part of the foreground is bothersome or the subject-background relation isn't what you want you can re-frame with a zoom, resulting in a better shot
• zooms let you frame differently: you can quickly re-frame the shot for printing (more border) or screen viewing (different aspect ratios with space on different sides)
• zooms are easier to carry around than 2-3 primes covering the same focal length, and the best lens is the one you have with you

 

[distant.star]

.
This seems overly arcane to me.

Sort of like asking if your food tastes better when you use a spoon instead of a fork!

I most agree with the comment about the need for good preparation. For me, I think through to the outcome I want, and then I pick the lens(es) I think will do the job.

Some lenses are just wrong in certain circumstances, no matter what.

For something concrete to discuss, how much different can a picture be with a Canon 40mm pancake vs a Canon 24-105mmL? The 40 will take you down to f/2.8, but that's only one stop off the f/4.0 of the zoom. And the zoom has IS while the pancake does not. I'm seeing few instances these days where the 40mm gets mounted to my 5D3. The 24-105 usually gives me adequate results -- and a lot more versatility.

 

[takesome1]

I think the distinction is better pictures versus sharper images. I think of content when I hear better pictures, versus higher IQ or sharper images.

I think of all of these when someone says "better pictures". Making a "better picture" should include everything that goes in to creating an image.

The lenses are nothing but tools and primes can improve your image when its specialty is required.

Making an assumption of the OP's post, it appears he is noticing some of the things the primes are capable of. Perhaps he noticed this by accident, it doesn't mean that what he is seeing makes the prime superior in all situations. In reality zooms and primes both have unique abilities and recognizing those abilities help make a "better picture".

Side note, some of my favorite pictures have been taken with my iPhone. What I find unfortunate is that the images will not hold up to large print.

 

[mrsfotografie]

A lens has little to do with taking better pictures as long as its the tight focal length. The subject, composition and lighting are 99%.

+ 100 For me, Dear Teacher, Mr. Mt Spokane.
Yes, Sir, One of My Teacher " The PRO" use 1 time disposable Kodak 35 mm film camera,( $ 5-7 US Dollars ?) 20 years ago , and shoot some scenery Views , and get the best Photos that I have ever seen.---Yes, Sir, It depend on the Brain, Heart and the Skill of the person who press the shutter to create the masterpiece. The good/ great equipment will help/ support to get better one.
Have a great Weekend, Sir.
Surapon

Guess at the cost of the equipment used to make this shot: ;D

Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear mrsfotografie.
I can not guess how much the cost of Camera to recorded this Photo, But I can see = By the Skill Photographer, Who Have the Artistic in mind with Composition( Semi-Rule of Thirds), and strong hands to not let the camera move, and get the Sharp -Details of the subject.
Thanks , if you tell me that you use Fuji Disposal Card Board Camera = $ 3-4 Dollars.
Surapon

Not quite, but it is this, bought last week (new) for 69 euro (95USD): ;D ;D ;D

 

[surapon]

A lens has little to do with taking better pictures as long as its the tight focal length. The subject, composition and lighting are 99%.

+ 100 For me, Dear Teacher, Mr. Mt Spokane.
Yes, Sir, One of My Teacher " The PRO" use 1 time disposable Kodak 35 mm film camera,( $ 5-7 US Dollars ?) 20 years ago , and shoot some scenery Views , and get the best Photos that I have ever seen.---Yes, Sir, It depend on the Brain, Heart and the Skill of the person who press the shutter to create the masterpiece. The good/ great equipment will help/ support to get better one.
Have a great Weekend, Sir.
Surapon

Guess at the cost of the equipment used to make this shot: ;D

Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear mrsfotografie.
I can not guess how much the cost of Camera to recorded this Photo, But I can see = By the Skill Photographer, Who Have the Artistic in mind with Composition( Semi-Rule of Thirds), and strong hands to not let the camera move, and get the Sharp -Details of the subject.
Thanks , if you tell me that you use Fuji Disposal Card Board Camera = $ 3-4 Dollars.
Surapon

Not quite, but it is this, bought last week (new) for 69 euro (95USD): ;D ;D ;D

Wow, Wow, Wow----- Same As my Dear Teacher SAID, The Great Photos are created from the Heart, Thew Brain and the Skill of that Photographer.
Thanbkssssss.
Surapon

 

[cellomaster27]

Man, not gonna include any quotes because I agree with too many people here. But I want to say a few things..

The occasion determines zooms or primes. If you're dealing with fast moving subjects vs studio, you maybe want zooms. Oh and I am a strong advocate for primes! I've used my 28mm all day on a shoot before. Usually, because it's later in the day. Also, I feel like the IQ is so much better and sharper. Having the option of wider apertures is a major plus of course. Yes you have to move around for the framing but I don't know, for me that's the fun part. Main issue is not being wide enough. I think that the reason behind sharp primes is that it doesn't zoom and all that glass is focused on one focal length so the IQ is not compromised.

If you have a nice zoom, by all means use it. But I can get some excellent photos with a prime or two. I don't have to change too much either. Again, it's usually not being wide enough. Anyways, I like this topic. Happy shooting!

 

[candc]

a good zoom will give you what you are looking for in most cases but just as some others have posted you should think about what you want to do first and then set the zoom to that. if you want to isolate your subject then zoom to the long end and step back, if you want the exaggerated perspective then zoom short and move closer. if you know your zoom is only good at certain focal lengths then use it there and just zoom around if there is no other way.

i guess if you are shooting in one type of scenario and you know what that is going to be ahead of time then a prime is better but if i am going to go for a walk in the woods and just carry the camera then i want a zoom on it.

 

[Don Haines]

A lens has little to do with taking better pictures as long as its the tight focal length. The subject, composition and lighting are 99%.

+ 100 For me, Dear Teacher, Mr. Mt Spokane.
Yes, Sir, One of My Teacher " The PRO" use 1 time disposable Kodak 35 mm film camera,( $ 5-7 US Dollars ?) 20 years ago , and shoot some scenery Views , and get the best Photos that I have ever seen.---Yes, Sir, It depend on the Brain, Heart and the Skill of the person who press the shutter to create the masterpiece. The good/ great equipment will help/ support to get better one.
Have a great Weekend, Sir.
Surapon

Guess at the cost of the equipment used to make this shot: ;D

Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear mrsfotografie.
I can not guess how much the cost of Camera to recorded this Photo, But I can see = By the Skill Photographer, Who Have the Artistic in mind with Composition( Semi-Rule of Thirds), and strong hands to not let the camera move, and get the Sharp -Details of the subject.
Thanks , if you tell me that you use Fuji Disposal Card Board Camera = $ 3-4 Dollars.
Surapon

Not quite, but it is this, bought last week (new) for 69 euro (95USD): ;D ;D ;D

Wow, Wow, Wow----- Same As my Dear Teacher SAID, The Great Photos are created from the Heart, Thew Brain and the Skill of that Photographer.
Thanbkssssss.
Surapon

But you NEED! a $10,000 lens and a 1DX to keep up with exciting action.... like sleeping cats

 

[Sporgon]

For something concrete to discuss, how much different can a picture be with a Canon 40mm pancake vs a Canon 24-105mmL? The 40 will take you down to f/2.8, but that's only one stop off the f/4.0 of the zoom. And the zoom has IS while the pancake does not. I'm seeing few instances these days where the 40mm gets mounted to my 5D3. The 24-105 usually gives me adequate results -- and a lot more versatility.

If you are looking at the centre of the frame (on FF) at apertures in the f 5 - 8 region then there is no perceivable difference, but as soon as you move out towards the four corners of mid frame there is a huge difference, and this makes a noticeable improvement on a landscape photo. On a zoom such as the 24-70 II you wouldn't see the same difference, and if you just had a central subject with the 24-105 then you wouldn't see the difference.

It depends on the application. Also the 24-70 II is a monster in order to achieve the same IQ as a tiny prime.

I understand the OP question, but I think it is possible to be disciplined with a zoom and work along as if you had primes.

 

[TexPhoto]

Like the Tastes Great / Less Filling war of the mid 80s, Prime vs Zoom may never be decided.

My preference is for a great lens. A 24-70 f2.8 II is a great lens. An 85mm f1.2 is a great lens.

I think it was Steve Martin who once said:
I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs and fairy tales.
And I believe in the family - Mom and Dad and Grandma.. and Uncle Tom, who waves his penis.
And I believe 8 of the 10 Commandments.
And I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there's a game on.
And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things.. that money can buy.
And I believe it's derogatory to refer to a woman's breasts as "boobs", "jugs", "winnebagos" or "golden bozos".. and that you should only refer to them as "hooters".
And I believe you should put a woman on a pedestal.. high enough so you can look up her dress.
And I believe in equality, equality for everyone.. no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.
And, people say I'm crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.
And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story 1-bedroom apartment.
And I believe the Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns.
And I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was - an arctic region covered with ice.
And, lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is nothing worse than the music you're listening to right now. That's what I believe.

We'll be right back.

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

I would agree that my wife and I take the money pics with my primes, with the exception of the 70-200 2.8L ii on the 5Dii, wow, that's a great combination. On the 7D, it is hard to beat the 35L or 85L ii.

When my wife and I shoot a wedding, she will often take the 7D/60D combo with the 35/85 and I'll use the 5Dii with the 17-40/70-200 combo. She gets more of the "spectacular" shots, I get the majority of the keepers. It works out well, but we almost only stick to primes for our portrait shoots.

There's just something about shooting with the primes that continues to bring enjoyment to photography.

Good post!

Cheers,
-Tabor

 

[JumboShrimp]

As a follow-up to my original post, I believe that when you work with a prime, you think about your (potential) image much more than if you had a zoom. Primes make you "zoom" with your feet. They also have the capability of a much more shallow DOF, and probably a much closer focusing range. Primes have different limitations/opportunities than zooms, of course. Whatever you shoot with, we should all take a prime or two out for a walk-around every now and then to sharpen our skills. "It may not help but it couldn't hurt." (BTW, good threads and interesting comments by all.)

 

[Nishi Drew]

As long as the lens is good and is of a usable focal length/aperture in the scenario I'm in then it's all good.
But I prefer using primes and the photos I can get by using them.

As much as I love my 35mm, I've always been jealous of 24-70 users, but to be honest I don't need it.
I can always crop in if necessary, and if I need a telephoto then 70mm isn't nearly long enough anyways, I have an
85mm and 70-200 for that. And if I need wider then rarely is 24mm enough, I'll go all the way to 16mm.

And browsing through Reuter's photos of the year I was rather surprised at the complete lack of 24-70 lenses amongst the dozens of shots, either ultra wide zooms or the same 'ol set of teles which make sense, and then in between those are the fast primes of 24, 35 and 50. The speed and subject separation even at wide angles is definitely nice to work with in all sorts of situations, and I can agree that with a good FL you feel comfortable with in that normal-wide range is enough, and zooming using your feet I believe will produce better photos, as with what Capa said about you're photos not being good enough means you aren't close enough.

 

[crasher8]

yes

 

[alexanderferdinand]

I use my 24-70II most of the time.
Expensive- but worth it.
I like it.
My 35/1,4L I love to use.

Why? I dont know.

BTW: in german they are called "fixed- focal".
Interesting the english name "prime". Like "number one" or "the best".

 

[Hillsilly]

I'm personally a big prime fan. They typically have a wider aperture, better bokeh, are usually cheaper and are often smaller and lighter (unless you start carrying multiple lenses). My 40mm is almost glued to my camera and I normally prefer my 135mm to my 70-200mm. I do a lot of walking with my camera, and I like lighter gear (despite my main camera being a 1Ds MkII). I also dislike being the centre of attention, and the 40mm is better at this than a 24-70 or 24-105. Plus I'm an enthusiast, not a professional. My livelihood doesn't rely upon me getting a particular shot. But I tend to have the opposite problem to the OP. With a prime, I often get close to the shot I want, whereas with a zoom I might have nailed it. If I was more serious, I'd probably stick to zooms.

 

[sanj]

The question is not if primes are better than zooms.

 

[Marsu42]

BTW: in german they are called "fixed- focal". Interesting the english name "prime". Like "number one" or "the best".

I'm also German and same with me: "prime" sounds irritating because my first association is not "basic/one", but "premium". My guess was that it's a bit of a marketing term - or isn't it? Does the name "prime" have the same "premium" connotation for native English speakers?