The great battle: primes vs zooms

[SJTstudios]

What do you guys think is king as canon begins to upgrade.

And what do you think canon will do with their lens lineup?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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

 

[ChilledXpress]

You should have the option for both as many, myself included, don't consider it a "battle" and own much of your selected options. I reg carry from both because that is the best option for most situ.

 

[Dylan777]

Zooommmmmmmmmmm

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I try to use the right tool for the job, and not just buy a lens because its a zoom or a prime.

 

[RLPhoto]

Primes but I'm warming up to zooms.

 

[DWM]

Should have listed the cost of each option. That might have a big impact on which one someone would actually pick.

 

[SJTstudios]

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

But not in total.

Ex.
14mm+24mm+35mm vs 16-35 ii

24mm+35mm+ 50mm +85mm vs 24-70ii

85mm+100mm+135mm+200mm f2 v 70-200 2.8 ii

Would you rather carry the body and the one lens, or the body, one lens, and a bag for the other lenses.

I admit I should have been more specific here, and maybe do an open topic rather than a poll, but sometimes a poll just helps me get a better idea of what people think, opinions can sometimes be confusing.

 

[Loswr]

None of the above. What goes in my bag is what I need for the shots I want to take that day. Some days, that's the 600mm f/4L IS II + 40mm f/2.8. Other days it's the 16-35mm f/2.8L II + TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. Still other days it's just the MP-E 65mm. For the same reason, the 'bag' is different on different days.

It's really about using the best tool for the job...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

 

[crasher8]

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.

 

[ChilledXpress]

None of the above. What goes in my bag is what I need for the shots I want to take that day. Some days, that's the 600mm f/4L IS II + 40mm f/2.8. Other days it's the 16-35mm f/2.8L II + TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. Still other days it's just the MP-E 65mm. For the same reason, the 'bag' is different on different days.

It's really about using the best tool for the job...

Couldn't agree more !!! Then the question also begs... which bag/pelican case. I have almost as many bags/cases as I do anything else.

 

[Axilrod]

I think it's more about convenience than quality, I think if it were just as easy to carry around 5 primes as a zoom then people would never use zooms. But I prefer the look that you can only get from primes, the images I get with them just seem to have more soul than most zooms.

 

[Badmajick]

For me, versatility is huge. I do a lot of work in the back country so I carry a zoom lens (sigma 18-70) as the workhorse and a 50mm prime for the low light. I can't bring the whole kit on a 16 day expedition where my gear already weighs over 80 pounds not including the camera stuff.

Plus, swapping lenses often in the back country just leads to extra complication when I need to be focusing on more important things like not falling.

not to mention the price of the two kits (since the poll asked for price comp also) are 5,497 and 14,893 respectively. The second is a little prohibitive as I'm just getting into things.

 

[Standard]

Versatility is subjective as well. I use prime lenses and consider them just as versatile, with the added benefit of stealth and lighter weight over the zooms.

 

[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! ;-)

 

[scrup]

Zooms for me but it really depends on the environment.

Capturing the moment is part of the equation and comes before IQ. If you have to change lense then you mite miss the opportunity. A good image is better than no image.

 

[Pinchers of Peril]

It's not always about bokeh.

I find this quote blasphemous

 

[cliffwang]

For short range, I prefer primes. Zoom for 100mm+. Sometimes I also want to use primes because it's fast and DoF.

 

[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