Prime VS Zooms.

[zim]

Back when I started photography it was a no-brainer, primes were clearly sharper with better IQ. I had a set of primes and loved using them. Now I’m on the cusp of building a new collection and I have to admit I’m finding the choice difficult. My heart is telling me to go back to what you know and are comfortable with, SandyP, your list looks like pure heaven to me. My head is telling me to get a couple of zooms that cover the range plus probably one wide prime at the bottom end.
Sounds like some are married to their 135 (maybe mistress is a better analogy lol) Is the 70-200 f2.8 really that good that it matches it! I wish Canon would give the option for a black casing though.
If I was a pro I’d have both but it’s just not a realistic budget, damn this being poor malarkey.

One question, do prime users end up with noticeably dirtier sensors that zoom users?

 

[elflord]

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 Is an all prime kit seem outdated?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.

I started with the 15-85mm and the 50mm f/1.4 on APS-C. The zoom did very little for me -- max aperture is f/5.6 at the long end, that's a lot of dof on APS-C. In contrast, I loved the 50. So now I have:

35L, Sigma 85mm, 135L, 50mm f/1.4 on 5DII.

 

[pwp]

Good quality L zooms have been gods gift to busy photographers working in dynamic environments where a lens change may mean lost shots, a barely perceptible improvement or a dirty sensor. I wouldn't mind betting that by far the greater percentage of reproduced images both commercial & editorial are shot with zooms by very satisfied photographers for very satisfied clients.

Other than when I need 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8 I'll be using zooms. About the only time I'll reach for a short prime is when I am after a specific look that f/1.4 or f/1.8 may deliver, or when I'm battling against the light and am reluctant to go higher on the iso, usually because of personal & client expectations for IQ.

There are good, valid reasons for shooting with zooms or primes, but I think the zoom/prime debate has skewed way out of balance towards L primes being perceived as some sort of holy grail. But unless you are making good money from your photography, there is scant justification for spending up big on expensive, comparatively limited primes. Few viewers are going to swoon over the quality of the bokeh, what turns people on are powerful, gutsy images that COMMUNICATE. As my first picture editor kept reminding us, content is king.

Paul Wright

 

[jdramirez]

My first three lenses I had were the kit 18-55, a 50mm f/1.8, and a 55-250mm (I'm not considering the POS 75-300 I had for a year). And I used the prime 80% of the time, and the 55-250 20% of the time.

I now have a 24-105mm f/4 L and a 50mm f/1.4 and I use both relatively equally. I love both equally, so I'm not quite sure. I think I like to have the flexibility of a zoom when I'm hand holding, but if I am tripod mounting, I'm more than happy enough to use the prime (because I can take my time setting up the composition of the shot).

So it is a hard question... but I do think I prefer the prime over the zoom... but it is by a small margin.

 

[elflord]

Good quality L zooms have been gods gift to busy photographers working in dynamic environments where a lens change may mean lost shots, a barely perceptible improvement or a dirty sensor. I wouldn't mind betting that by far the greater percentage of reproduced images both commercial & editorial are shot with zooms by very satisfied photographers for very satisfied clients.

If you're prepared to change lenses when necessary, and you don't have to get every shot -- why not just use primes ? I understand if a pro comes to a wedding and only delivers one shot to their client, that would be a failure, regardless of how good the shot is.

With a hobby shooter however, they are free to deliver as many or few images as they like, and usually have the access to their subjects that eliminates the need to work quickly. I'll add that I generally deliver much fewer images than the number most pro photographers would be required to deliver.

There are good, valid reasons for shooting with zooms or primes, but I think the zoom/prime debate has skewed way out of balance towards L primes being perceived as some sort of holy grail. But unless you are making good money from your photography, there is scant justification for spending up big on expensive, comparatively limited primes. Few viewers are going to swoon over the quality of the bokeh, what turns people on are powerful, gutsy images that COMMUNICATE. As my first picture editor kept reminding us, content is king.

I find primes are a good tool for getting powerful images. I don't really feel the need to "justify" this choice to anyone, it's just my preference.

 

[jordanbstead]

It's far less about the technical result of primes vs. zooms and more about the way my work "looks" after shooting with a 35/135 combo for years. Every bit of the frame is exactly where it should be; there's no shooting-to-crop or cranking it to 16mm to get in the whole scene.

Over the years, the way I approach photographs has improved drastically since relying on a solely prime-based kit. I just know that 35 so well that by the time I bring it up to my eye, the picture has already been made in my mind and I've "seen" it. By then, it's only the shutter that's left to trip.

There's a whole lot to be said about knowing and understanding the limits and power of your kit. Everyone goes through a period of intense gear swapping - hunting to find the "right" focal lengths that suit their shooting style - but it settles down at one point when something just plain works for you.

My belief is if you force yourself to shoot with a "normal" prime or primes (a 35 or 50) for six months, you'll see a massive improvement in your composition, your use of depth of field and a move toward improving your photographic skill rather than a reliance on visual gimmicks.

 

[Thorne]

I got a 50/1.4 with my 10D in 2004, and the 24/2.8 a week later (both for model photography, my emphasis then). Then I got my 100 Macro shortly after my 400D in 2008, when I'd moved on to more scenic and nature photography. This year as I'm getting into architecture, I finally acquired my years-long dream of a 24mm TSE II L, and then a 7D to focus it more accurately, and then my first zoom, a 24-105 IS L, for travel (with the 70-200/4 IS L and a 5DIII next in the queue). So lately on "casual" jaunts, I've been carrying just the 7D and both Ls.

Point being, I'm digging the versatility of the zoom (and especially the IS), but it seems I'll always be a prime shooter - the TSE is on my camera 90% of the time. And when I had to do some event photography recently (not normally my thing), I found swapping between the 7D and Rebel with the 50 and 100 mounted on them handier for dealing with the low light than I likely would have found the zoom. But I'm not saying one type is better than the other, just my own inclinations and practical needs. (Besides which, shifting with the TSE is just a whole new joy of photography.)

 

[briansquibb]

I am going to do a pano with the 400 f/2.8 tomorrow

 

[Deleted member 42026]

Im very biased towards primes. I think they create better shots in some situations, for one has to frame the hard way as opposed to crop in with a damn zoom which I see as a hideously bad habit if you program your brain to do it.

Plus of course, primes are faster by a LOT. And I do also love shallower depths of field, and or at least the ability to choose to use a shallow depth of field if the situation calls for one.

 

[mb66energy]

I am biased for primes too.
But as tools are just a helper to get what you want, I try to take the best of both worlds.

Basically I love shooting with two equal bodies which left me choose two 40Ds instead
of one 50D: Fast change of focal lengths and focal length ranges.

My tool combinations vs. application (for APS-C):

Application	Lenses
Walk around (macro, closeup and landscape)	EF-S 60mm or EF 100mm Macro
Low light	EF 24mm(2.8) AND EF 100mm(2.0)
Ultra flexibility	EF-S 10-22mm AND EF 70-200(4.0) PLUS EF-S 60mm
Long reach (industrial landscapes)	EF 400mm(5.6) + 2xTC AND EF-S 60mm or EF 100mm Macro as backup for other situations
Towns, Architecture	EF-S 10-22mm AND EF-S 60mm or EF 100mm Macro

I use both but I like primes more for having
- macro functionality
- less lens elements => usually higher flare resistance
- their educational function by letting me think about framing
(but ... usually I set a zoom to the focal length I need and start framing afterwards!)
- compactness (the EF 100mm(2.0) is tiny compared to the zooms!)

 

[keithinmelbourne]

Back when I started photography it was a no-brainer, primes were clearly sharper with better IQ. I had a set of primes and loved using them. Now I’m on the cusp of building a new collection and I have to admit I’m finding the choice difficult. My heart is telling me to go back to what you know and are comfortable with, SandyP, your list looks like pure heaven to me. My head is telling me to get a couple of zooms that cover the range plus probably one wide prime at the bottom end.
Sounds like some are married to their 135 (maybe mistress is a better analogy lol) Is the 70-200 f2.8 really that good that it matches it! I wish Canon would give the option for a black casing though.
If I was a pro I’d have both but it’s just not a realistic budget, damn this being poor malarkey.

One question, do prime users end up with noticeably dirtier sensors that zoom users?

I use primes almost exclusively now, and I won't lie by saying it's an easy option. Frequent lens changes can be a nuisance at times, especially when you're on the move. Similarly, your sensor does get a bit dirtier. I clean my sensor more now than when I used the 24-105 (which I left on most of the time). These days, I try to forecast which lens will be the one I'll use during a session and try to stick with that. Usually it's the 50L, but more and more I'm using the 135L outdoors. Indoors, at parties and events, I stick with the 35 and 24Ls. The results from all these lenses is worth a bit of extra inconvenience or sensor cleaning.

 

[RLPhoto]

Another valid point for me is that a prime kit is lighter than a zoom kit.

A 70-200 2.8L IS II and a 24-70 2.8L is about 90 ounces.

A 24mmL II, 50mmL and a 135L is around 65 ounces. Give or take a few steps forward or backward to get the same results.

Just another thought.

 

[bdunbar79]

Not all primes are better than zooms. For instance, the 24-70L zoom is actually slightly sharper than the, yes, the member of the holy trinity, 35L prime, when stopped down. I've seen it myself and Bryan Carnathan noticed it as well. It depends on how high quality the zoom lens is. No sane person would say the 85 f/1.8 is sharper than the 70-200L II IS zoom lens at 85mm, at f/8. There are a lot of factors. Personally, for sports, I NEED the flexibility of the zooms. A missed shot is worse than a slightly less saturated shot, for example.

 

[Razor2012]

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!

I find the 70-200 2.8II pretty sharp wide open. I'm sure they are both fairly close @f4.

 

[RLPhoto]

The final Prime I need to obtain is the magical 200mm F/2.

 

[charlesa]

Common misconception nowadays that primes are sharper than zooms, but they give versatility in composition and are sharp.... ask a photojournalist if he works with a prime or prefers that god 70-200 f/2.8...

 

[bdunbar79]

The final Prime I need to obtain is the magical 200mm F/2.

Get in line at B&H. July 31 estimated availability if you are hardy enough to spend the money

 

[briansquibb]

Another valid point for me is that a prime kit is lighter than a zoom kit.

A 70-200 2.8L IS II and a 24-70 2.8L is about 90 ounces.

A 24mmL II, 50mmL and a 135L is around 65 ounces. Give or take a few steps forward or backward to get the same results.

Just another thought.

.... and the 200 is twice the weight of the 70-200 as is the 400 twice the weight of the 100-400

 

[wickidwombat]

I am going to do a pano with the 400 f/2.8 tomorrow

it would be interesting to try this with the gigapan, the epic pro i have says its rated up to 10KG so should be fine with a 1D body hanging off a 400

 

[felipey]

Not all primes are better than zooms. For instance, the 24-70L zoom is actually slightly sharper than the, yes, the member of the holy trinity, 35L prime, when stopped down. I've seen it myself and Bryan Carnathan noticed it as well. It depends on how high quality the zoom lens is.

I beg to differ:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Even at f/2.0, the 35L is sharper than the zoom at the center. Plus, the distinct look it gives subjects at f/1.4-2.8 is something the zoom can't even come close to in my opinion.