The great battle: primes vs zooms

[TrumpetPower!]

What am I shooting, and why?

If it's an event and I have no clue what I might be shooting, I want one or more zooms.

If it's one specific shot and I know exactly what I want, I probably want just one prime.

If it were, say, a football game, I'd want one of each: the 400 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8.

Since this is a money-is-no-object exercise, I went with the list of primes and the unstated assumption that I'd have an assistant to carry them and a half-dozen bodies so they could be switched out at a moment's notice.

But your list also missed out on some of the most important primes, like the TS-E 24, the MP-E 65, and the Great Whites....

Cheers,

b&

 

[pwp]

What battle? You use the body/lens combination that suits your needs, creative requirements and financial means, whether that be as a consummate established professional, startup-professional, expert enthusiast, keen amateur or pixel peeper. Chronic gear nuts are excluded! ;D They need it ALL!

Coming out of a news/media background, and continuing with clients that require a high percentage of location work, and moving around a lot on the locations, a light manageable bag is crucial to success. I carry a mix of zooms & primes, but I have no doubt that if circumstances required me to set up from scratch again, I'd have the 16-35 f/2.8II, 24-70 f/2.8II plus the legendary 70-200 f/2.8isII as my first three lens purchases. No question. There is very little you cannot do with these three lenses.

So zooms constitute my core kit, and primes flesh it out to cover narrower specific needs. So add in the 24 f/1.4II, 100 f/2.8L macro, 135 f/2L and the 300 f/2.8. Day to day, the primes get far less use than the zooms. Zooms rule...and in 2012 they're just so GOOD!

-PW

 

[PavelR]

I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness

You seem to miss the point of using prime lenses. Its more depth of field, and low light needs that drive users to primes. Sharpness has less to do with it.
If I'm shooting in very low light, I have little choice. Same if I want very shallow depth of field, f/2.8 might not be enough.
Many primes are as sharp or sharper than zooms, not a big issue for me.

Sharpness and overall IQ is the main reason to use primes for me. (even in "enough light" situations)
Zoom I use only in a situation I know I do not have enough time / space / clean place to exchange lenses.
Thus "...weight worth..." - yes it is! ;-)

My 50L is not sharper than my 24-70 f2.8 II @ 50mm f2.8 nor f1.2

Better bokeh is what we looking for in primes

Than go and buy a better prime... I do not prefer the whole picture blurred against sharp isolated subject.
+ all my primes used for stills are sharper @ 2.8 than 24-70II@50, F2.8...
PS: Your 50 is only acceptable in the center, but I usually do not prefer center composition...

 

[RS2021]

I went through the phase of collecting the key primes...over it now. Once I looked at what I was actually using, zooms usually came out on top. Versatility is key. Granted, I am still partial to a few primes and other primes I loath. Indoors, ambient light, primes are called for... Outdoors street photography, I would pick a zoom and not the 35L.

 

[Dylan777]

I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness

You seem to miss the point of using prime lenses. Its more depth of field, and low light needs that drive users to primes. Sharpness has less to do with it.
If I'm shooting in very low light, I have little choice. Same if I want very shallow depth of field, f/2.8 might not be enough.
Many primes are as sharp or sharper than zooms, not a big issue for me.

Sharpness and overall IQ is the main reason to use primes for me. (even in "enough light" situations)
Zoom I use only in a situation I know I do not have enough time / space / clean place to exchange lenses.
Thus "...weight worth..." - yes it is! ;-)

My 50L is not sharper than my 24-70 f2.8 II @ 50mm f2.8 nor f1.2

Better bokeh is what we looking for in primes

Than go and buy a better prime... I do not prefer the whole picture blurred against sharp isolated subject.
+ all my primes used for stills are sharper @ 2.8 than 24-70II@50, F2.8...
PS: Your 50 is only acceptable in the center, but I usually do not prefer center composition...

I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?

How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp

 

[SJTstudios]

I agree with Mt Spokane to a point. Primes used in street photography are useful stopped down for a complete telling of the scenes story. Small, inconspicuous, great for pre-focusing. It's not always about bokeh.

Don't worry, I get your point, I probably should have further evaluated on this topic, I'm just advertising one of those "would you rather situations.

 

[PavelR]

I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?

How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp

Yes, I did - with my hands and my eyes. 24-70 II is sharp @ F3.5. But, 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 are far better @ F2.8 than 24-70 II @ F2.8.
I do not recompose with any lens, because the right moment of a shot is lost and sometimes correct focus is lost too.

 

[Dylan777]

I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?

How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp

Yes, I did - with my hands and my eyes. 24-70 II is sharp @ F3.5. But, 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 are far better @ F2.8 than 24-70 II @ F2.8.
I do not recompose with any lens, because the right moment of a shot is lost and sometimes correct focus is lost too.

24-70 II can only reach up to 70mmm and you compared to 85, 135, and 200mm?

What I'm seeing in my 24-70 II is extremely sharp at f2.8....I haven't shoot at f3.5 or smaller yet.

Pic below was taken inside a pre-school classroom. I cropped nearly 70%, no flash of course @ f2.8. You have any pic at f3.5 on your 24-70?

 

[Hobby Shooter]

What battle? You use the body/lens combination that suits your needs, creative requirements and financial means, whether that be as a consummate established professional, startup-professional, expert enthusiast, keen amateur or pixel peeper. Chronic gear nuts are excluded! ;D They need it ALL!

Coming out of a news/media background, and continuing with clients that require a high percentage of location work, and moving around a lot on the locations, a light manageable bag is crucial to success. I carry a mix of zooms & primes, but I have no doubt that if circumstances required me to set up from scratch again, I'd have the 16-35 f/2.8II, 24-70 f/2.8II plus the legendary 70-200 f/2.8isII as my first three lens purchases. No question. There is very little you cannot do with these three lenses.

So zooms constitute my core kit, and primes flesh it out to cover narrower specific needs. So add in the 24 f/1.4II, 100 f/2.8L macro, 135 f/2L and the 300 f/2.8. Day to day, the primes get far less use than the zooms. Zooms rule...and in 2012 they're just so GOOD!

-PW

Hmm, I fit in somewhere around keen amateur doing my best to move closer to expert enthusiast. I also can't see a battle here. Personally I shoot with zooms mostly, I have one prime, 35L, but it doesn't get as much use as it deserves.

 

[crasher8]

I carry a 24-105 and a 50 around more than anything else. Now that I have a 135 I might lug that and the pancake for a nice combo.

 

[PavelR]

I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?

How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp

Yes, I did - with my hands and my eyes. 24-70 II is sharp @ F3.5. But, 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 are far better @ F2.8 than 24-70 II @ F2.8.
I do not recompose with any lens, because the right moment of a shot is lost and sometimes correct focus is lost too.

24-70 II can only reach up to 70mmm and you compared to 85, 135, and 200mm?

What I'm seeing in my 24-70 II is extremely sharp at f2.8....I haven't shoot at f3.5 or smaller yet.

Pic below was taken inside a pre-school classroom. I cropped nearly 70%, no flash of course @ f2.8. You have any pic at f3.5 on your 24-70?

Yes, I'm comparing because OP asking to compare primes vs zooms and I choose primes 98% of the time.
I do not usually shoot architecture, thus I can use "feet zoom" and pick up 85,200 anytime against 24-70 + 70-200.
I tested new 24-70 taking several shots and difference between 2.8 and 3.5 was clearly seen on the camera display...
So, there is no FF AF prime wider than 85 matching the IQ 85+ (only TS24II w/o AF), thus I use 85+ 98% of the time...

 

[sanj]

That's a somewhat impossible poll for me. I would vastly prefer shooting with the second kit; the first kit is far more practical.

so true

 

[Deleted member 42026]

I voted primes. I would prefer to carry that set over the zooms, however I don't see myself needing all of those mentioned.

In reality, I'm sure a lot if us carry a mix.

 

[verysimplejason]

I'd love all the primes but I'll not carry everything. I'll think first on what to carry depending on the situation. Maybe a 3 lens combination.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

The 2nd might be best for my bag, but I just don't have the $ to buy all those primes.

 

[PavelR]

Yes, I'm comparing because OP asking to compare primes vs zooms and I choose primes 98% of the time.
I do not usually shoot architecture, thus I can use "feet zoom" and pick up 85,200 anytime against 24-70 + 70-200.
I tested new 24-70 taking several shots and difference between 2.8 and 3.5 was clearly seen on the camera display...
So, there is no FF AF prime wider than 85 matching the IQ 85+ (only TS24II w/o AF), thus I use 85+ 98% of the time...

Everyone can say my lens is SUPER sharp at bla-bla-bla....it's difficult to debate when there no hard facts included.

I do not need to convince anybody to use any lens, I'm only saying what I found out and what I use the most...
You can try yourself and if you do not see the difference, you will be happy - carrying less weight and keep zoom versatility...
BTW: http://the-digital-picture.com/ database of the lenses is pretty good - I usually compare the IQ here before buying lens and than my test shots confirm almost all the time match the conclusion I did online. (DB is correct at least for Canon and Sigma, some Nikkor lenses I own are better than seen there...)