prime vs. zoom lenses

[The Emperor]

which are better for automotive photography (still shots). knowing that the primes are very sharp but are very inconvienient due to the fix focal length. but is it really worth getting an L (zoom lenses) or any other zoom lenses rather than some primes?

[peterdoomen]

but is it really worth getting an L rather than some primes?

L is not only zooms, also primes can be L. L is just Canon's Luxury Lens Lineup.

What lens you need depends on
- shooting from a distance or from close: tele or wideangle. Long tele (300 and beyond): lots of money needed!
- shooting in low light? Low f-numbers needed, and lots of money!
- output medium: is sharpness the most important, for example, when your shots get published on paper? Lots of money needed!

So it really depends on what "automotive" photography is for you: do you visit shows where you can get close to the subject, or are you far away from the subject?

Then, how deep is your pocket? L's cost a lot, but you can also try to find bargain lenses with good quality such as the Tamron 28-75 (zoom) or Canon 85 f/1.8 (prime).

P.

[grego]

EX line by Sigma is quite good:

17-70 f/2.8-4.5
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
100-300 f/4
120-300 f/2.8

[The Emperor]

im really concerned about sharpness. ive been reading and searching about primes having almost the same sharpness or even better sharpness than some L zoom lenses.

the reason why im asking is because i am able to afford the 17-40L but i want to make sure that my purchase will be well worth it. its either the 17-40L or some primes.

[grego]

im really concerned about sharpness. ive been reading and searching about primes having almost the same sharpness or even better sharpness than some L zoom lenses.

the reason why im asking is because i am able to afford the 17-40L but i want to make sure that my purchase will be well worth it. its either the 17-40L or some primes.

Primes have more. Zooms are a compromise to quality. Higher end zooms deliever prime like quality, though.

You can't go wrong with the 17-40 though. Good general purpose lens.

[peterdoomen]

If you want to test if primes are suited for you, you can always buy the inexpensive and fast Canon f/1.8 50mm. That way, you have at least a low light lens too. Comes in handy sometimes!

P.

[Lenzflair]

Prime offer the best sharpness overall, but it really depends on what type of shots you are going to use the lens for. 17-40 is ok for static display shot, or panning in close for moving shots but you will get some distortion at the widest angle close in. I use a 24-70f2.8l which is a great lense, as is the 70-200f 2.8. For longer range work I use a 400 f2.8 prime which is a great lens. I have no problems with sharpness on any of the L series zooms that i own.

[Lester Wareham]

im really concerned about sharpness. ive been reading and searching about primes having almost the same sharpness or even better sharpness than some L zoom lenses.

the reason why im asking is because i am able to afford the 17-40L but i want to make sure that my purchase will be well worth it. its either the 17-40L or some primes.

At the very wide end the Canon primes (with the exception of the 35mm f1.4L perhaps) seem to be oldish designs and the 17-40 f4L is probably sharper.

At 50mm and above the primes are proabably sharper than the zooms although the L zooms with not too much zoom range are good.

However I have to say that the difference in sharpness is probabably not that obvious under normal conditions.

[cdifoto]

You seem to be really hung up on sharpness...perhaps excessively so. In everyday shooting, unless all you ever shoot are static subjects with a tripod and mirror lockup with a wired remote, you will probably not see much difference between a good prime and a good L zoom, if any at all. That's reality.

[liza]

It's all in the usage. The selection between prime and zoom depends entirely on what you're shooting. If it's for everyday walkaround type shots, a zoom should be fine. Or if you need more versatility for something fast paced, such as wedding photography, a good quality zoom will suffice. I shoot sports, however, and use primes for the most part. When it comes down to the shots that the guys with the zooms take vs. my shots taken with primes, my newspaper editor invariably chooses mine over theirs.

[cdifoto]

It's all in the usage. The selection between prime and zoom depends entirely on what you're shooting. If it's for everyday walkaround type shots, a zoom should be fine. Or if you need more versatility for something fast paced, such as wedding photography, a good quality zoom will suffice. I shoot sports, however, and use primes for the most part. When it comes down to the shots that the guys with the zooms take vs. my shots taken with primes, my newspaper editor invariably chooses mine over theirs.

Yeah, most likely because you're getting shutter speeds that they aren't due to the faster max aperture. Either that or they suck at shooting sports. :)