Why prime focus over a zoom??

[Blue S2]

I have been enjoying photography for many years now, but never got too caught up in the equipment. I had what I needed and I got results that I enjoyed.

I am buying some new equipment finally. (digital SLR) I have been browsing for a new lens or two as well.

I was wondering, what is the advantage of having a lens that is 70mm or 50mm or any singular size as opposed to a zoom lens that covers that range and more? (ie: 24-70, etc...)

Thanks!

[liza]

They're sharper and (usually) have better image quality. I prefer primes to zooms actually.

[peterdoomen]

They're sharper and (usually) have better image quality.

Besides that, primes can be faster at the same focal length (for example, you won't find an f/1.8 zoom while in primes, this is not even really fast).

And, they are usually lighter and smaller. Compare for example the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 with the Canon 200 f/2.8. Even the zoom without IS is considerably larger and heavier than the prime.

P.

[forsakenme720]

If you like the zooms, stick with them. Only the professional and the obsessive are going to notice a difference.

[Phil V]

If you like the zooms, stick with them. Only the professional and the obsessive are going to notice a difference.

You have to be neither professional nor obsessive to have a desire for shallow DoF or to appreciate being to be able to shoot without a tripod.

They're different kinds of tools for people with different needs. There's nothing wrong with zooms (currently outnumber my primes 2:1), My next lens will be a 18ish to 50ish 2.8 zoom. The one after that will be a std prime 9 for 1.6 crop, either 35 f2 or Sigma 30 1.4.

[Meaty0]

Non-committal answer...get both....'cos sometimes there's a need for both. I watched a professional photographer at a wedding recently swap from a 70-200 f/2.8L IS for the ceremony to a 85mm f/1.2L for the shots outside the church and then to a 35mm f/1.4L for the reception, and then back to the 70-200 again!

[Sean-Mcr]

A lens has to suit your style, and primes suit mine. There's no reason for me to have a zoom, i can do all i need with my primes, there is nothing that i can do with a zoom that i couldn't do with my primes, only i have more faith in primes.

[Blue S2]

So with a prime you just need to get closer if you want to fill your lens more with the subject but didn't bring a zoom or different lens with ya? (i know it maybe obvious but ive never sat to actually compare)

[Hermes]

Yep, that's pretty much your only choice. The only time i'd even consider a zoom would be when a subject is constantly moving in relation to the camera (e.g. sports), or there are multiple subjects at different distances (e.g. wildlife). Since I don't currently do any of that stuff I have no zooms :)

For studio work, landscapes, candids e.t.c. i'd always recommend primes. Sharper & faster (for the same price) and much lighter.

[forsakenme720]

You have to be neither professional nor obsessive to have a desire for shallow DoF or to appreciate being to be able to shoot without a tripod.

They're different kinds of tools for people with different needs. There's nothing wrong with zooms (currently outnumber my primes 2:1), My next lens will be a 18ish to 50ish 2.8 zoom. The one after that will be a std prime 9 for 1.6 crop, either 35 f2 or Sigma 30 1.4.

Huh, I didn't say anything about his desire for a shallow DoF, he could get that with a good prime or a good zoom. And I'm not knocking primes, there good for very serious people with a lot of money. It seems like he doesn't want to have a bunch of different lenses to switch between (he said he's looking for one or two) and I knew you guys would tempt him to invest a lot of cash into primes so I figured I'd make sure he knows that he can stick with one or two zooms and still get excellent results;)

[René Damkot]

Primes: cheaper, faster, (slightly) better IQ at the same price level.
Zooms: less changing of lenses, _infinite perspective control_.

[kaitanium]

picked my 28mm prime partly because it was small in size too and not as obtrusive as a zoom lens. so, dunno if anyone mentioned portability

[forsakenme720]

picked my 28mm prime partly because it was small in size too and not as obtrusive as a zoom lens. so, dunno if anyone mentioned portability

Okay, now this is what I don't get about you camera people (I'm new here:) ), when it comes to the camera it must be the absolute biggest. If it weighs 300lb. that's excellent and makes it much easier to hold, but when it comes to the lens, God forbid it weigh more than 5 ounces or you might not be able to lift it:rolleyes: Seriously, someone explain this to me please.

[liza]

Okay, now this is what I don't get about you camera people (I'm new here:) ), when it comes to the camera it must be the absolute biggest. If it weighs 300lb. that's excellent and makes it much easier to hold, but when it comes to the lens, God forbid it weigh more than 5 ounces or you might not be able to lift it:rolleyes: Seriously, someone explain this to me please.

First of all, aside from the huge telephotos, primes are typically cheaper than zooms. As Sean said, the use of them is just a matter of personal style. I was a film shooter for many years and used primes almost exclusively. While not as convenient as a zoom, the image quality makes up for having to zoom with one's feet.
And kaitanium's post had to do with a lens being unobtrusive rather than heavy. It's difficult to take certain types of shots (e.g. street photography, photojournalism) if you have a huge white zoom on the front of your camera that attracts a lot of attention.

[CyberDyneSystems]

So with a prime you just need to get closer if you want to fill your lens more with the subject but didn't bring a zoom or different lens with ya? (i know it maybe obvious but ive never sat to actually compare)

Really ? even if the prime is 600mm?

[Phil V]

Huh, I didn't say anything about his desire for a shallow DoF, he could get that with a good prime or a good zoom. ;)
No: But you did say that only pro's and obsessives would know the difference; I was giving practical advice about the differences. It helps for us all if we read the question rather than just try to counterattack an opposing opinion (even when that opinion hasn't been expressed).

I knew you guys would tempt him to invest a lot of cash into primes so I figured I'd make sure he knows that he can stick with one or two zooms and still get excellent results

[Sean-Mcr]

Huh, I didn't say anything about his desire for a shallow DoF, he could get that with a good prime or a good zoom. And I'm not knocking primes, there good for very serious people with a lot of money. It seems like he doesn't want to have a bunch of different lenses to switch between (he said he's looking for one or two) and I knew you guys would tempt him to invest a lot of cash into primes so I figured I'd make sure he knows that he can stick with one or two zooms and still get excellent results;)

Where did he say that he never wanted "a bunch of lenses"? He asked for the differences you gave none at all:confused:

Do you get to decide who is and who is not serious about their photography?

For the price of a 24-70 he could have 3 to 4 primes all of them better optically then the zoom, faster sharper and lighter

He'll notice the difference very quickly if his F/4 lens or even f/2.8 fails to get the shutter speed he needs. You failed to ask how he shoots, never bothered to show im the differences, which are clear


The question was why a prime over a zoom?. Not which should i have? But why a prime over a zoom?

The answer to that is that they are faster, they are often sharper then zoom lenses that cost much more, a 50mm 1.4 stands up to the 24-70 optically and is almost a quarter of the price. They give greater subject separation.

The L primes totally leave the zoom optically in their wake, speed, colour, sharpness quality control. But the none L's like the 50mm's the 85 the 28 and the 35 are fantastic lenses that stand up to lenses three and four times their price

Yes changing lenses must be a real pain, The very reason for having an Slr is because of the ability to use interchangeable lenses. Anybody that finds changing lenses a chore are kind of missing the hole point of owing an slr

[StevenRaith]

I do motorsport/trackdayu photography for fun and I currently have an 18-50 Sigma F3/5-5/6 and a tamron 70-300 F4-5.6.

I thought that was fine for doing static shots and tracking stuff, good range of framing options, etc.

However, my mate let me play with his 350d+50mm F1.8 and the images from it on teh static shots and the DOF control are so, so much better - you can use ISO100 in dusk lighting hand held, really useful - so I have ordered one from my friendly local camera shop chappies [been waiting two weeks now but more convenient for me to pick it up from there than from teh post office..which is three times the walk away].

Looking forward to getting it.

IMO having a prime is a matter of taste, but if you can't decide, stick with simple zooms until you get used to what you can do with the camera, then see if you can borrow a prime off someone and see if you can find a use for it. If not, don't worry. If so, have a shufty around and pick one up.

Seems pretty simple to me :)

I don't believe for a minute that a prime is for 'professionals only' or any crap like that - they suit a purpose just like any tool, and you use it if you can find a use for it - simple as.

[liza]

...Yes changing lenses must be a real pain, The very reason for having an Slr is because of the ability to use interchangeable lenses. Anybody that finds changing lenses a chore are kind of missing the hole point of owing an slr

Well said!

[Sean-Mcr]

I'm not telling you to get a prime, i'm just answering your question. I have zero idea of how you shoot.

The differences are there to see, they have been pointed out to you. It's up to you to decide if those differences warrant having them over a zoom.

[forsakenme720]

Geez you guys are touchy...I put smiley faces and laughing faces to show that I'm not trying to argue. And to clear things up since I'm being misquoted all over the place, I never said any thing about switching lenses being a pain. I never expressed an opinion about it at all. I said that maybe Blue wouldn't want to constantly be switching lenses. It was an observation because he or she (I don't know Blue so I don't want to assume) said he or she was looking for a new lens or two, not 3 or 4...that's why it seems to me that a bunch of primes wouldn't be good for this situation.

Phil, I did read the question; there's no need to insult me. I feel my advice is practical too, and I answered the question the best I could. He was used to zooms so I said stick with them. I think that's practical enough.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

Wow I cant believe no one mentioned two major reasons primes are better than zooms.


1- faster and more accurate AF (cameras' af sensor is faster and more accurate with wider aperture lenses).
2- brighter viewfinder.


I dont know about you guys,but the above two are the major reasons I went with primes. I would also add bokeh (shallow DoF).

[Teme]

I'm a total noob here, but I have already found myself in situations where I could not have gotten by without the speed of my (currently only) prime. Not even a f2.8 zoom would have been enough at ISO 1600. Sure, I could also try and use a flash but in most situations it would ruin the mood as well as the picture. I also like playing around with the DOF and bokeh. There will be more primes on my shopping list shortly...

Br,
Teme

[Blue S2]

HAHA, well I am certainly not in the market for a 600mm prime! yes then I wouldnt have to walk closer! No need to that though. Generally never use beyond 150. The more I research these, the more I am changing my mind. I got a 5D today and have been experimenting and comparing with the lens I currently have. I am really starting to think I will need th better aperature compared to the functionality of zoom for what I do. The subjects I shoot don't fare well to flash often, so I prefer faster shots. The problem is ambient light doesn't always favor that! Maybe a few prime lenses with good aperature might work out for me better. Hmm...more to think on.

[aparmley]

Great thread going here! Sean has done a great job at answer the OPs question, Corrupt added the other two I had considered but not yet saw!

Entering the theoritical, non technical side of the question:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think everyone has covered all the bases here. Basically - you now should come back full circle and analyze the most basic premise of them all, why do both primes and zooms exist. Clearly, with all the marketing tools and ploys that exist today you could really come up with more answers to that analysis than one really needs to bother with. Both zooms and primes have their purpose; they both have their strong points and their weakness. Where one lens is weak the other picks up the slack and out performs it. Once you see that and your better half doesn't take off running check book in tow, then the whole realm of possibilities opens up for you. for instance, and to just highlight the answers that have been posted, My zoom is too slow for this light - weakness of zoom! slap on the fast prime - strenght of prime fills the functionality gap of the zoom. Darnit, I'm in a confined place and my prime is too short/long for my subject with no option of foot zooming it - weakness of prime! Enter zoom, there much better, I can bring the subject closer to me or I can get a wider view now - strenth of zoom! I'm getting tired of chasing the kids around in the yard, this prime isn't cutting it - Bam! slap on the zoom, now I can make adjustments with my zoom based on the change in distance the kids are creating, giving our knees and feet a nice break from the running around. . . You see there are all sorts of reasons to have a prime, there are all sorts of reasons to have a zoom, and to be ready for all those conditions where one is favorable over the other requires one to have a little bit of both! Thats ignoring the shooters who specialize in one area sure, but I'd be willing to bet that even those people will like to mix it up every now and again.

As far as learning or first serious lens purchase is concerned , I think primes are the way to go. - the only thing they lack is the convenience of multiple focal lenghts. Zooms tend to lack speed, portablilty, great sharpness wide open, and maximum DOF control as everyone has stated before me. So I think looking at it that way, you see why so many people tend to start with a prime.

There is no one lens that can do it all. selective pairing of primes and zooms will provided the shooter with the optimal versatility.

I'm done. Sorry for the long winded post. These are my experiences and conclusions and I hope they are found usefull.

[Sean-Mcr]

Geez you guys are touchy...I put smiley faces and laughing faces to show that I'm not trying to argue. And to clear things up since I'm being misquoted all over the place, I never said any thing about switching lenses being a pain. I never expressed an opinion about it at all. I said that maybe Blue wouldn't want to constantly be switching lenses. It was an observation because he or she (I don't know Blue so I don't want to assume) said he or she was looking for a new lens or two, not 3 or 4...that's why it seems to me that a bunch of primes wouldn't be good for this situation.

Phil, I did read the question; there's no need to insult me. I feel my advice is practical too, and I answered the question the best I could. He was used to zooms so I said stick with them. I think that's practical enough.

He'd didn't ask about bunches of anything, he asked why should he get a prime over a zoom. You're misguided if you think that you need 4 primes for two zooms. Any experienced prime user knows different.

What makes you think that prime users are constantly switching lenses?

A prime user normally has a lens on because they already know what they want to achieve, knows the conditions, and knows what their lens can capture. It's not often a lens is changed when shooting, but when its called for it's a quick and painless affair

I'm not trying to insult you, but you seem ill informed on primes. Plus the obsessive/pro line didn't do you any favours

[forsakenme720]

He'd didn't ask about bunches of anything, he asked why should he get a prime over a zoom. You're misguided if you think that you need 4 primes for two zooms. Any experienced prime user knows different.

What makes you think that prime users are constantly switching lenses?

A prime user normally has a lens on because they already know what they want to achieve, knows the conditions, and knows what their lens can capture. It's not often a lens is changed when shooting, but when its called for it's a quick and painless affair

I'm not trying to insult you, but you seem ill informed on primes. Plus the obsessive/pro line didn't do you any favours

I wasn't asking for favors and I still feel the same about what I said about obsessive and professional people. I think you took that as an insult but it wasn't meant to be. When someone has a hobby, but aren't necessarily a professional at it and they spend much of their time working on it, then they are obsessed with that particular hobby. It just means they like it a lot and maybe a little too much, but it doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

And what makes you think I'm an experienced prime user - lol. I'm not an experienced anything as far as photography goes; I'm a total noob and that's why I'm not trying to give any serious advice. I figured that if you use primes then you're going to want variety so you would want at least 3; plus I always see about that many in people sigs when they have them there. I was just giving advice about money because whenever people ask about lenses on here, usually the most expensive are recommended from what I've seen so far. I just wanna make sure no one is being pressured. That's all.

[Sean-Mcr]

I never said you were experienced, your posts actually say the opposite to be honest.

It's not wise to comment on something you have little experience off, by your own admission you've not been trying to give serious advice, so your posts shouldn't be taken seriously.

What might be a hobby to you, might be a great love to another person. They might know it intamately, and talk from knowledge and experience. You don't appear to come from either camp


As you said: I'm not an experienced anything as far as photography goes

Then I'd advice you not give advice on something you have little knowledge off.

Again you're wrong about primes being expensive, they don't have to be so. They're very well priced and ofetn optically superior to zooms and more often then not cheaper


As for being pressured, i can't recall me ever telling him to go out and buy a lens. Just answered his question, I'm sure he'll make his own mind up on the info he's been given

[forsakenme720]

As for being pressured, i can't recall me ever telling him to go out and buy a lens. Just answered his question, I'm sure he'll make his own mind up on the info he's been given

I wasn't talking about you specifically. It's just a general observation of what I've seen here a lot. And from what I've seen (at epinions.com for example) primes are expensive if you want good ones. If you were only getting 2 it wouldn't be, but more than that and you're definitely over $1,000 minimum. So, I do feel qualified to talk about prices because I don't need to be an expert to know about them. And that's the only advice I've given in this thread.

[PHT]

Primes are noticabably sharper than zooms. If one looks at a test crop sample it would appear that the prime has a slight edge, but if you look at the overall picture, I believe that prime has a definitive superiority in sharpness and details. Not to mention corner sharpness as well. I feel that when someone says that primes has a slight edge, it must be at like f/9 or something, because I see that it is way better. But perhaps if you are not into quality and mainly wanting to capture the right moment at the right time, like photojournalists, zooms would suit you most. I myself use it for family pictures so feel that prime is the only way to go. I just recently tested out the 24-105L and took some pictures with it. After I compared those pictures with my 35mmL for I regret buying the 24-105L and returned it. I thought that I could sacrafice a little bit of picture quaility for versatility, but boy was I wrong!

[StevenRaith]

When someone has a hobby, but aren't necessarily a professional at it and they spend much of their time working on it, then they are obsessed with that particular hobby. It just means they like it a lot and maybe a little too much, but it doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

I wouldnt classify myself as obsessed with photography - the camera has spent the last month sat in teh corner of my room while I wait for something worthwhile to snap. I'm very much a casual hobby snapper, but I like the technicalities of it which is why I stick around here and occasionly interject with any knowldge that I hav picked up along the way :)

I figured that if you use primes then you're going to want variety so you would want at least 3;

Ah, so you don't know anything about primes [from your own confession] but you came to this authorative conclusion? Depending on what you do, you might need fifteen, or just one - but you would never want at least [insert figure here]. that's just utter tosh.

plus I always see about that many in people sigs when they have them there. I was just giving advice about money because whenever people ask about lenses on here, usually the most expensive are recommended from what I've seen so far.
Photography is typically an expensive hobby - £500+ for a camera, £100+ for most lenses, and £300/£50 minimum for secon hand stuff. We know this.
Normally the more expensive lenses are recommended because, contrary to popular belief, they are substantially better!
I can tell you now that my mates £700 70-200 F2.8 Sigma is simply in a different league to any budget lense I use.

It's not a case of trying to bankrupt someone - whether they can afford/how they finance it is ENTIRELY their own issue - if they want ot sell their couch or rob a bank to fund it that's a decision for them. They could also just save up, shockingly. Like most of the rest of us.
Yes there are a lot of people here who are on high incomes. That doesn't mean that they will try to 'tempt him' to remortgage his house to get a lense FFS.

I just wanna make sure no one is being pressured. That's all.

Hmm..

he could get that with a good prime or a good zoom. And I'm not knocking primes, there good for very serious people with a lot of money. It seems like he doesn't want to have a bunch of different lenses to switch between (he said he's looking for one or two) and I knew you guys would tempt him to invest a lot of cash into primes

You're the one applying pressure mate - everyone else from what I can see just gave a technical opinion or something from their experience.


Ribbing newbies who don't talk sense: It's the evo (http://www.bluwiki.org/go/Evo_Magazine_Forum_Wiki) way.

IN the meantime however Blue, have a hunt arond for the Canon 50mm F1.8 - under £100 from most places [$150?], IME it's nice and sharp and good for portrait stuff and general landscape shots. Also seems to be excellent for car bonnet badges/detail stuff in general, and indoor stuff too.

Well worth borrowing/renting sone to see if you can find a use for it, if you can it's a decent price and will get you used to the idea of framing the shot with your position, rather than your zoom range.

It's not the quietest of lenses though IME. ;)

Urgh, it's early in the morning and I'm grouchy and I want my lense :(.

[Sean-Mcr]

I wasn't talking about you specifically. It's just a general observation of what I've seen here a lot. And from what I've seen (at epinions.com for example) primes are expensive if you want good ones. If you were only getting 2 it wouldn't be, but more than that and you're definitely over $1,000 minimum. So, I do feel qualified to talk about prices because I don't need to be an expert to know about them. And that's the only advice I've given in this thread.


50mm 1.4, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8, 28mm 1.8, sigma 30mm 1.4, 60mm macro 100mm macro sigma 105 macro. To name but a very few, that are very well priced. As for only getting two. See that's where you're misguided. you think you need to 3-4 primes to able to do what one zoom can, which is 100% incorrect.

You can't talk about price when you know little about the performance, and that's why people normally choose these lenses price and performance


Epinions?, did you find out if your new hoover was worth it while you were there? Words fail me

How about forming your own opinion from experience, that site is joke


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but don't worry you're well out of danger

[Hermes]

I figured that if you use primes then you're going to want variety so you would want at least 3;

Sounds like you're thinking about primes with a zoom mentality - if you're just gonna be standing in one place constantly changing lenses to use diferent focal lengths, you may as well buy a zoom.

One of the real beauties of primes is getting used to a certain focal length and learning to compose & frame with it almost without thinking - knowing instinctively when you're at the right distance to fill the frame rather than fumbling for your zoom ring.

[StevenRaith]

I'm glad you ripped him, not me - I'm pretty new to this stuff too.

I have ben in the position where I have talked rubbish in an authorative measure and I didn't do it again....this place is quite 'nice' when it comes to telling people who are talking nonsense to button it.....:D

[forsakenme720]

Epinions?, did you find out if your new hoover was worth it while you were there? Words fail me


Grrr...I didn't say I go there for people's opinions, I go there to compare prices. I think it's a place that most people should go to so they know they're not getting ripped. And they have everyone's beloved B & H so I would know what you're talking about before you bash it as a site for comparing prices (for future reference).

Anyway, you guys can all gang up on me and bash me up down left and right, but I'm still not going to admit that "I'm talking rubbish" or pretending to know about something I don't, because I never pretended to be an expert on primes. I know their general purpose and why people prefer them and that's the info I went with. I never claimed to have a bunch of technical info., and I'm not going to apologize for my opinions. So, either let's have the bashing continue or admit that there was a simple misunderstanding from the beginning. I've tried the second route, but it's not up to me ultimately.

[Tom W]

Interesting - the prime vs. zoom debate is getting a bit more ambitious than I would have expected.

My solution would be to buy both.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

because I never pretended to be an expert on primes. I know their general purpose and why people prefer them and that's the info I went with.

you also said


Only the professional and the obsessive are going to notice a difference.


Both incorrect and insulting. I am neither obsessive nor a professional. How come I can tell a difference? Im sure this forum and others include fellows exactly like myself.

If this is the "opinion" you wish not to apologize about,fine, but your opinion is also rather BS'ish and extremely wrong.

[chrishunt]

I was wondering, what is the advantage of having a lens that is 70mm or 50mm or any singular size as opposed to a zoom lens that covers that range and more? (ie: 24-70, etc...)

I prefer primes not only because they are usually faster and sharper, but also because I am forced to compose images at one focal length. This usually gives my shots a perspective I might not have shot, or seen, if I was using a zoom.

[forsakenme720]

you also said

Both incorrect and insulting. I am neither obsessive nor a professional. How come I can tell a difference? Im sure this forum and others include fellows exactly like myself.


Bah, I already said I didn't mean it to be insulting or offensive, it's just my style. I always come off this way on forums. I'll try my best to keep the misunderstandings to a minimum;)