Prime vs zoom

[Leejo]

Zooms mostly - especially where no primes exist for an EF-S [Sigma 8-16mm]
or when simply as a walkabout (15-85 & 70-300)
but 24&35&50mm Primes when I need low light performance - seeing as the above are rather slow -
or I have the time ...
The Lensbaby and 500 T2-Mirror lens are just for fun.

Next lens(es) could be either a prime 100mmL Macro or zoom 70-200Lis2.8 or even possibly a 70-300L to replace the 70-300...

 

[vlad]

If I know the ballpark focal length I need ahead of time - primes. If there is ambiguity - zooms. But not all or nothing, typically my bag will have at least one of each.

And it's not always about getting that magical prime look or creamy bokeh or whatever - sometimes it's about size and weight.

Why haul around the 70-200 II if a 135L will do (and IS is not needed).
The 16-35 has a great range, but the 24 1.4 is much less obtrusive.

I will admit that with the 5D III the dominance of primes when it comes to low light has been compromised by the higher usable ISO range.

 

[Loswr]

I will admit that with the 5D III the dominance of primes when it comes to low light has been compromised by the higher usable ISO range.

+1

I'll still use my 85/135 lenses for subject isolation in portraits, but the 35L was my go-to lens for indoor ambient light shooting and nighttime walkaround, and I wonder how much I'll use it in those situations now that I have a 24-70/2.8 II.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I will admit that with the 5D III the dominance of primes when it comes to low light has been compromised by the higher usable ISO range.

+1

I'll still use my 85/135 lenses for subject isolation in portraits, but the 35L was my go-to lens for indoor ambient light shooting and nighttime walkaround, and I wonder how much I'll use it in those situations now that I have a 24-70/2.8 II.

The obvious question is...how often do you shoot faster than f/2.8 not because that gives you the depth of field you desire for the shot but because it's the only way to get the shutter speed you want, and you really wish you could shoot at f/2.8 or slower to get more depth of field?

If the answer is, "not often," I predict you'll rarely reach for the primes. Of course, if the answer is, "all the time," then it's the 24-70 that'll gather dust....

Cheers,

b&

 

[PhotographerJim]

I'm about equal using both. Although the shots taken with the 24-105L I have seems to lack the 'feel' of those shot with my primes.

I must be old fashioned, I still prefer Ilford Delta 100 & my 50 f/1.4 & 100 f/2 primes.

 

[Loswr]

I will admit that with the 5D III the dominance of primes when it comes to low light has been compromised by the higher usable ISO range.

+1

I'll still use my 85/135 lenses for subject isolation in portraits, but the 35L was my go-to lens for indoor ambient light shooting and nighttime walkaround, and I wonder how much I'll use it in those situations now that I have a 24-70/2.8 II.

The obvious question is...how often do you shoot faster than f/2.8 not because that gives you the depth of field you desire for the shot but because it's the only way to get the shutter speed you want, and you really wish you could shoot at f/2.8 or slower to get more depth of field?

With the 35L, the answer is 'often' for indoor ambient and 'sometimes' for nighttime walkaround. Regardless, I'll hang onto the 35L for a while. It's not a fair time to evaluate indoor ambient usage with DST begun and days getting longer. I'll see what happens next winter...

 

[Random Orbits]

I will admit that with the 5D III the dominance of primes when it comes to low light has been compromised by the higher usable ISO range.

+1

I'll still use my 85/135 lenses for subject isolation in portraits, but the 35L was my go-to lens for indoor ambient light shooting and nighttime walkaround, and I wonder how much I'll use it in those situations now that I have a 24-70/2.8 II.

The obvious question is...how often do you shoot faster than f/2.8 not because that gives you the depth of field you desire for the shot but because it's the only way to get the shutter speed you want, and you really wish you could shoot at f/2.8 or slower to get more depth of field?

With the 35L, the answer is 'often' for indoor ambient and 'sometimes' for nighttime walkaround. Regardless, I'll hang onto the 35L for a while. It's not a fair time to evaluate indoor ambient usage with DST begun and days getting longer. I'll see what happens next winter...

I recently shot a boys basketball game in response to a last minute request from a friend, who was the young boys' coach. I'd never been to the court before, so I brought a few lenses. Well, the gym was not much larger than the court, and I was shooting near the baseline near one of the corners. I had hoped to use the 135L but it was too long and I had to use the 24-70 instead. A large percentage of the shots were wide open at ISO 3200 for shutter speeds near 1/500. The zoom saved me that day because most of the pics were from 35-60mm from under the basket. The pics were good and I was impressed how well the 5D3 + 24-70 II's AF worked.

The next day, I shot a birthday party at a beginner's gymnastics gym in even dimmer conditions. The gym had a large bank of windows on one side, which made a lot of the pictures strongly side or back lit. I started with a 85mm prime close to wide open but it couldn't track the kids erratic movement, so out came the 24-70, which delivered so well for the basketball game. Most of the pics with the 24-70 were at ISO 5000 near 1/500. What surprised me was that the basketball pics were a lot better than those from the birthday party. I know it's not any one thing, but the higher ISO (and noticeably worse DR/increased noise), worse lighting, and smaller, more erratically moving kids, all had their parts for why the images were worse. The prime missed a lot, but it was better at taming the harsh side/back light due to the natural vignetting and dimmer/more defocused background due to the larger aperture (plus it allowed me to drop down to ISO 1000). In the end, I chose the zoom over the prime in both cases (IQ drops with higher ISOs but missing the shots because they're blurry is even worse), but I sometimes wish I had a fast-focusing 35 or 50 prime instead.

For more stationary subjects indoors and for use at night, I'll opt for the primes almost all the time. For shooting kids sports where I have access to the sideline (not focal length limited), zooms are great. Did I mention how impressed I was with the 24-70 II's focusing abilities??

 

[bycostello]

both, depends what i am doing

 

[bdunbar79]

Definitely both for me too. Football my standard gear is a 400 f/2.8 on one camera and a 70-200 f/2.8 on another. Gotta have both. Soccer I can run all around the edges of the field so I use a 300 f/2.8 but I still use the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom on a second camera.

 

[AudioGlenn]

both, depends what i am doing

+1

 

[FTb-n]

"Standard" kit for me was a 60D with a 17-55 f2.8 and a 7D with a 70-200 f2.8L II. For a while, I used a 35 f2 for low light, but I had better success with the 17-55 even with slower shutter speeds (down to 1/30). Now I've added the 40 for those times when I want to travel light(er).

With a recent acquisition of a 5D3/24-105 f4, I'll be shuffling lenses between this body and the 7D more often, but still relying on zooms. But, I can see myself using the 5D3 with the 40 for short work in lower light.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Primes and zooms

 

[kbmelb]

I shoot primes whenever I can. I love shooting f/2 and under. I shoot with two FF cameras so most of the time I have the 50L on one and either the 35L or 85L on the other. I also have the 135L for longer range event work and head shots.

During event work I sometimes slap the 24-70 on one cam and either the 135 or 85 on the other. I try hard to avoid the zoom though.

I also have the 16-35II for wide work and the 100-400 for tele stuff. This stuff is the lesser of my work so I don't feel compelled to own primes in the range. I do occasionally wrestle with the thought of the 14 2.8II though.

 

[RGF]

I shoot primes whenever I can. I love shooting f/2 and under. I shoot with two FF cameras so most of the time I have the 50L on one and either the 35L or 85L on the other. I also have the 135L for longer range event work and head shots.

During event work I sometimes slap the 24-70 on one cam and either the 135 or 85 on the other. I try hard to avoid the zoom though.

I also have the 16-35II for wide work and the 100-400 for tele stuff. This stuff is the lesser of my work so I don't feel compelled to own primes in the range. I do occasionally wrestle with the thought of the 14 2.8II though.

I have the 14 and think it is a great lens.

 

[insanitybeard]

Mostly zooms, but I only own one prime at the moment. I aim to get another wide-normal fastish prime as a compact walkaround lens in the future.

 

[Zv]

Depends on what I'm shooting. I prefer zooms for outdoors, walking around and events. If I have the time and I'm working indoors or doing something specific like a headshot or products then primes are the way to go.

If I had the money though I'd have the 24-70L II and 70-200L II with a 5D III and be done. Two lenses that pretty much do it all would be awesome.

I feel like I have too many lenses and too much overlap.

 

[bdunbar79]

I'm mixed on this topic. Outdoor sports with sideline passes or golf courses, track meets, etc. where you aren't limited where you can go, you really can use the 400 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8 and 200 f/2 quite easily. Indoor sports it's not so trivial. Weddings it isn't trivial at all and is actually worse. So I think it is very smart to use both, each where they are maximally useful.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

I use both.
Coming from the 80s: the 35-70/4 (?) wasn't a lens with real good IQ, and there was a 3-stop gap, with the highest ISO of 3200 of the T-MAX 3200. So I used the FD 50/1,4.
Today I still use primes although I have zooms with now satisfying IQ.
Using f 1.4 to 2.0 sometimes gives the extra kick on 35mm, or the holographic look of the 135L wide open.

 

[ScottyP]

I dunno. I think the super wide aperture effect is a little overused. Arty folks or lens guys love a super shallow DOF In more situations than do average viewers of photos. At least for people photos. My wife really dislikes shots where one eye is in focus but the other eye, and the ears and maybe even the mouth, and most of the hair are blurry. And this is 1.33 stops more true on a FF body. Plus your keeper rate plunges with a razor thin DOF.

 

[eml58]

I use Both, depending on what is needed.

For Underwater Photography it's primes, 14f/2.8 L II, 24f/1.4 L II, & used to be the 15f/2.8 but the newer 8-15f/4 @ 15mm kills the older 15 prime, almost the only case I see in My photography where a Zoom beats a prime.

For my Wildlife Photography, done mostly in Africa, Antarctica & The Arctic, almost exclusively Primes, 200f/2 L, 300f/2.8 V2, 400f/2.8 V2 & my latest addition, the 600f/4 V2, only Zoom I pick up, which is a cracker by the way, the 70-200f/2.8 L II.

Most used Lens overall for me is the 300f/2.8 V2, best Lens Canon make I believe.