Prime VS Zooms.

[RLPhoto]

With all this new equipment being released by canon offering great ISO performance. Is an all prime kit seem outdated? I see most opt for pro-zooms than for primes, And some don't own any primes at all. Instead going for 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 combo.

If you had to forsake zooms or primes, which would it be and why? I could do 80% of all my work with just the 50mm and I'd like to read the varied opinions on primes vs zooms.

 

[wickidwombat]

if i had to choose i would take primes over zooms
(you should make it a poll)

 

[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!

 

[D.Sim]

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!

A brick? Just how are you using that thing....

 

[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.

 

[DJL329]

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.

 

[AJ]

The beauty of an SLR system is that you don't have to choose. You don't have to forsake one or the other. Most days I shoot zooms, some days I shoot primes. Depends on my mood + subject matter.

 

[7enderbender]

If it was one or the other I'd choose primes. I only own one zoom, the 24-105. It's a fine lens for what it is, but mostly I'd chose a fast prime. I'm also one of those people who opted for the 135 and the 200 over the 70-200 zoom. I could make due with my 50 and 135 alone.

 

[darrellrhodesmiller]

each lens is a tool.. and you need the right tool for the right job.. i think it also has a lot to do with personal taste and your shooting style.

i use both primes and zooms.. quality wise i really cant tell much of a difference.. and if i'm out and about i usually pick a zoom lens just because its easier to bring a 24-105 which will handle 95% of what i need. that being said, i REALLY prefer prime lenses and i think i take better shots with prime lenses.. i dont think it has anything to do with the quality of the lens.. or the pictures being sharper.. it just takes out a variable.. i really have ot focus on composition.. i have to really focus on where i'm standing.. (my feet are the zoom) i take shots more thought out and carefully.

 

[Neeneko]

A while back I was trying to find information about a vintage lens I picked up. One reference I found was from a 1963 Popular Mechanics in an article talking about the future of lenses, that before not too much longer we would all use a single zoom lens that will replace all of our primes forever.. oh and it would be f0.7...

So yeah, the 'why use prime kits when zooms exist?' is an old debate...

 

[GavinFarringtonPhoto]

I'm sure you've already considered the quality and low-light capabilities of primes, but since that hasn't convinced you, I also love them because they force me to think harder about what I'm doing. Some of my most creative shots have been forced out of me because I couldn't solve the problem by simply zooming in. Enjoy shopping!

 

[briansquibb]

each lens is a tool.. and you need the right tool for the right job.. i think it also has a lot to do with personal taste and your shooting style.

i use both primes and zooms.. quality wise i really cant tell much of a difference.. and if i'm out and about i usually pick a zoom lens just because its easier to bring a 24-105 which will handle 95% of what i need. that being said, i REALLY prefer prime lenses and i think i take better shots with prime lenses.. i dont think it has anything to do with the quality of the lens.. or the pictures being sharper.. it just takes out a variable.. i really have ot focus on composition.. i have to really focus on where i'm standing.. (my feet are the zoom) i take shots more thought out and carefully.

That is very true - except 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.

Quite frankly I was stunned at the quality from the 400 - the client is going to turn the shot into an advertising board - A1 size. This was using the 1Ds3 at iso 100 - even when pixel peeping I couldn't see any noise (though it was lit by 3 flash bounced off the ceiling)

I guess there is no definitive answer to this question - Primes are so much lighter, zooms are so much more flexible - but I cant imagine a 300-800 Sigma as a walkabout

 

[SandyP]

weddings, fashion, beauty, portraits, lifestyle, documentary...



14L, 35L, 50L, 45TS-E, 85L, 135L



PURE SEX.

 

[wickidwombat]

I cant imagine a 300-800 Sigma as a walkabout

don't lie if canon made it you would be rocking it for sure

 

[briansquibb]

I cant imagine a 300-800 Sigma as a walkabout

don't lie if canon made it you would be rocking it for sure

It is hard enough handholding the 600 - never mind that heavyweight

Must be getting old

 

[tomscott]

weddings, fashion, beauty, portraits, lifestyle, documentary...



14L, 35L, 50L, 45TS-E, 85L, 135L



PURE SEX.

YES! Awesome combination.

But TBH I think there is room for both all the time! I love using both, sometimes when im feeling lazy I will just stick a zoom on, sometimes I feel more creative so instantly go towards primes. I think its more of my mood and also the subject. But I like using both! I cant believe the views toward the 70-200mm I think it is my fav lens! Think its quick, very useable, great results and not that cumbersome, im guessing my opinion is quite universal which is why they are so popular.

 

[koolman]

For the fast pace pro - who needs to grab the shot - the versatile zoom is the only way.

For the patient amateur/hobbiest/or pro slower paced work - the primes are smaller, lighter, cheaper, and often better IQ.

Note: This is not always true - as some of the better L zooms - especially mark 2 versions designed for digital, will outperform legacy primes from days of old.

 

[Loswr]

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!

Except that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is actually sharper than botht he 85mm f/1.2L II and the 200mm f/2.8L II, and it has IS. I use the 85L when I need thinner DoF than I can get with f/2.8, but else the zoom is the way to go for that matchup.

I agree that they are both tools, and I like having a selection of both zooms and primes.

 

[Axilrod]

I started out like most, buying a 24-70. Then I picked up a 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. Month later found a 35L/50L for a good deal, so I picked those up. Then I got the 16-35L II, 100L Macro, and 135L. Then I traded my 35L and 85 1.8 for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Sold the 70-200, got another 35L and the 85LII. Sold the 24-70 and now my only remaining zoom is the 16-35mm, which I'm now looking to replace.

I still wish I had a 70-200 and I'll probably get the new 24-70 when it comes out. The convenience of zooms is just too much to pass up at times and there are plenty of moments that it would be nice to not have to swap out lenses. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS performs incredibly well and the mark II even better, if all zooms performed like those I might be able to live without primes. But my 50L/85L/135L produce images that would be tough to get out of zooms, and it would be tough for me to get rid of them.

Then again I do shoot video 90% of the time so primes definitely have an advantage in that realm, so for me:
Primes > Zooms

 

[Axilrod]

Except that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is actually sharper than botht he 85mm f/1.2L II and the 200mm f/2.8L II, and it has IS. I use the 85L when I need thinner DoF than I can get with f/2.8, but else the zoom is the way to go for that matchup.

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.