Zoom lenses: do you stop using primes?

[adam*]

I noticed the other day that since buying my Tamron 28-75 i've stopped using my primes (50mm 1.8 and Zeiss 35mm 2.4), both of which I used to enjoy using. The Zeiss, whilst great, needs some patience and with the 350d's viewfinder it's not the easiest of lenses. The 50 doesn't seem to get used as i'm happy at 50mm on the tamron and with f/2.8. Has anybody else found this, or did anybody notice this but then start using their primes more (and for what reasons)?

[Pete]

I still use my 50 from time to time. I like the clarity it gives me. And when I want smooth bokeh, it's unbeatable against my other lenses.

Also gets used a lot with extension tubes.

[Mcary]

I went the opposite way. after using a 28-105 2.8 Tamron zoom in the studio for about three years I switched to primes this year going with the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 for 99% of my studio/portait stuff. I still use my Tamron 11-18 and 17-35 for most out door stuff and find my 35mm 2.0 gets very little use.

Mike

[cosworth]

my 50mm is for passport shots only now.

My 85 gets used for beach portraits or night shots of bands. Not much else.

I'm all about the high IQ zooms now.

[adam*]

Yeah, wish I could afford them. I prefer the tamron because the bokeh is much nicer than that from the 50 1.8.

[gjl711]

Well, as someone who likes to travel light but still have a lot of flexibility I rely extensively on zooms except for my 100m f/2.8 macro. I still use the kit for the low end but that’s the next one getting upgraded although the 100-400 just keeps calling to me. I have the 18-300 range covered and to have the same coverage and flexibility with primes would require just too much equipment and my shoulders are just not that strong. :)

[tweatherred]

I have zoom coverage from 12-400 mm with various lenses but still use my 85 and 50 a good bit. They are essential for low-light shots without flash and the image quality is unbeatable for studio-type shots where I can control the location of the camera and subject and can use foot zoom to frame the subject the way I want.

[Longwatcher]

I am one that started with zooms and then added a couple (or three) primes.

I don't use my 50/1.4 much anymore, but I use my 85/1.2L frequently.
meanwhile I continue to use my 28-70/2.8L and my 70-200/2.8L IS a lot also.

[Cadwell]

Lenses are a tool and I like to use the most appropriate one for the job. Sometimes my primes are simply better suited to what I want to shoot than my zooms are. When I want fast shutter speeds in low light for indoor sports or when I want narrow depth of field, the primes are best. Otherwise the zooms work well.

[rhys]

I went for cheap Miranda zooms then went to all Nikon primes. Now I'm with Tamron zooms. Along the way I changed cameras a couple of times too.

I don't feel primes now offer the significant advantages over zooms that they once did. I also feel that with these two zooms: 12-24 and 28-75 we have 90% of photos covered. For landscape perhaps just the 12-24 is sufficient. Indeed many early photographers only had one lens on their one camera all of their lives yet took spectacular landscape photos.

If I were to go for a longer zoom then perhaps a 70-200 rather than the ubiquitous 70-300. Beyond 200mm lenses tend to be somewhat specialist and the weight of zooms begins to be too much of a compromise.

[dmp-potn]

Hello,

For a great many folks, a complete camera set includes three zooms: normal, long (telephoto), and wide, and one fast prime (for available light shooting). After that, the other primes are optional and for special purpose shooting. For example, Macro, Tilt-shift, Super Telephoto, etc.

Many of Canon's zoom lenses offer performance that is very close to that of primes, and the latest cameras have excellent high ISO performance, so it's no longer necessary to shoot with primes to get excellent image quality.

As primarliy portrait photographers, primes as a class have become more special purpose equipment than something that we use every day. For someone who shoots mostly food or birds, the Macro or Super Telephoto may be what they use most of the time, so it really depends on what your primary subject is.

However, for the moden digital SLR photographer in general, I would say that zooms have effectively taken the place of primes for every day shooting. The flexibility of a zoom is often well worth the minute sacrifice in image quality and the additional weight.

[lmitch6]

I tend to think that a lot of it is relative to ones own photography experiences/needs. I've been shooting for a little over 20 years, and "cut my teeth" in photography with a single 50mm lens. I used a zoom kit for a year or two, and just couldn't get comfortable with them. The "flexibility of a zoom" worked out to be more of a hindrance for me. Mind you that this experience is completely subjective, and everyones' mileage will vary.

Another aspect is what one really shoots. The majority of my shooting occurs in the 20-85mm range (more like 20-50, as I use my 85 rarely). I don't have the need to replicate the entire focal length range as some might. As a landscape shooter, my subjects don't move around too much, so I've got plenty of time to change a lens if I need a different focal length.

A third aspect is the weight/bulk factor. I probably could do the majority of my shooting with a single zoom, given my primary focal range. The downside to this option for me is that the zoom lenses of comparable quality are often much larger and heavier than I'm willing to carry. If I'm out hiking for a day, I need to consider the weight of everything else I'm carrying in addition to camera gear (food,first-aid, emergency supplies, jacket, etc.) For me, the 'bulk' factor is at times much more important than weight. I pfefer my camera bags to be a physically small as possible to do the job. So the small size of prime lenses are a huge plus for me.

[SuzyView]

I have the 24-70 on my camera almost all the time for events, but for portraits, I go with the primes first. The 50 and 85 are not as expensive or as impressive, but the sharpness can't be beat. I would not part with them. So, I agree with the above about using the right tools for the job.

[KevC]

I only bust out my primes if I need the speed. I'm loving my two zoom combo (17-40, 70-200... both f/4).

[canoflan]

I have one prime and this the 50 1.4 because if the light is real low and I can get around well for the event, there is no question I can use this wide open and keep the ISO 800-1600. I plan to get the 24mm 1.4 next.;)

[grego]

It's situational. Cadwell put it best when stating that lens are tools. You pick the proper tool to fit the proper context.

[cdifoto]

When zooms are as sharp as primes and open up to f/1.4 without being heavier than snot, I'll have all zoom lenses. Until then I have both fast primes and zooms.

[Mark_Cohran]

I have, and use, both. As someone already said - lenses are tools. You pick the right one for the job.

Mark

[condyk]

A good zoom is just easier and IQ not always that different, but obviously speed is restricted. 2.8 isn't enough for available light indoors lots of times. Horses for courses. I got my 30mm 1.4 for indoors. The Zeiss is nice but 2.4 isn't fast enough sometimes and IQ not much in it with the Tammy which has better colour IMO, even tho' the Zeiss has some wonderful qualities in the right light.

[rammy]

Well I am certainly being convinced I don't need a prime, yet! My next purchase is going to be the 70-200 F2.8L IS and although I could get a couple of primes with that kind of cash, I would rather prefer a zoom! Just before spring I reckon, saving rather than credit cards!

I was going to complete the F4L trinity but the 2.8L is calling me, like sirens in my dreams! Argghhh! I wish I had never bought an L in the first place! :D

[Citizensmith]

I still tend to prefer primes. Like one of the previous posters I've been shooting for 20+ (actually 24 I think) years and spent the first 8 with nothing but a 50mm. I then spent some time collecting a few too many lenses before deciding that was dumb and selling most off. I now have two primes (24 2.8 and 85 1.8 ) and two zooms (17-40 4L and 70-200 4L). Of those the 24 and 85 are definitely the most likely to be on my camera as both are great lenses. Of the 4 lenses I'm considering getting next, 3 are primes.

I'm not disagreeing that a good zoom isn't close to prime quality (although you have to spend a lot to get a good zoom), I just think you should go with what you are happiest with.

[tim]

I use primes when I need fast lenses - in low light or when I want a very narrow DOF. I also use my macro prime when I need to do macro shots. Otherwise it's mostly zooms. On a typical wedding day i'll probably use 17-55 60%, 70-200 15%, 50mm F1.4 10%, 100mm macro 2% plus couple others.

[canoflan]

I have all the zooms I want, now I am thinking L primes due to the sharpness and lighter weight, without giving up the L.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL, oops, I was drooling again.

[Tandem]

After shooting thousands of indoor sports shots exclusively with primes, I had to relearn how to shoot with a zoom. It felt unnatural to move the zoom ring. I'm so used to reaching for my other camera when I want a close up.

Even when I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8 together for outdoor sports I take far more photos with the 400. That's my baby.

[Jesper]

I have 4 primes: 35 f/2, 50 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8 Macro and 200 f/2.8 L, and two zooms: 17-40 f/4 L and 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS.

Most of the time I use the primes; I especially like the 35mm, which is an ideal focal length for me on the 5D. But for things like photographing events, I find an all-round zoom lens like the 28-135 indispensable.

It's a personal choice ofcourse and it depends on what your style and subject are.

[BobbyT]

Depends on what I'm shooting. I need the versatility of zooms shooting events for the LGHS and different get togethers with friends or family. Have to be ready to catch the moment and trying to switch to a different length prime takes too long. But for other shots I have more time and control over primes work great. And primes are fantastic for low light.

[liza]

I went the opposite way. after using a 28-105 2.8 Tamron zoom in the studio for about three years I switched to primes this year going with the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 for 99% of my studio/portait stuff. I still use my Tamron 11-18 and 17-35 for most out door stuff and find my 35mm 2.0 gets very little use.

Mike

I did pretty much the same thing. When I shot film, I used primes exclusively and then went to zooms with digital. I found the IQ from the Tammy 28-75 to be lacking in comparison to my primes, so I use them most of the time now. The only time I break out the 70-200 f/4 is during baseball/softball/soccer seasons.

[ScottE]

I used prime lenses only for about 20 years from the mid 70's to the mid 90's. I tried two zoom lenses, a Sigma 80-210 (in the 70s') and a Tamron 28-200 (in the 90's) when they got good writeups in photography magazines. The zoom lenses did not come close to image quality of my primes and were returned. In the mid 90's I had a chance to pick up a used 70-200 f/2.8 L and decided to give zoom lenses another try. Image quality from this lens was so close to primes that the difference really didn't matter. Since then I have gravitated to high quality zoom lenses and now only use primes for special purposes like macro photography or dim light where a wider aperture is needed. With the optical quality of today's top of the line zooms I see no need for primes except for some specific purposes. (Some cheap zooms still stink.)

[TH!EN]

I feel as if teh 24-70mm 2.8 should be able to be a 50mm that can stretch around a bit.

[kitacanon]

one reason I use a zoom on my Dslr is the fear of dust on the sensor if I change lenses a lot out of doors...
Film cameras, like my Nikon F, can be opened up and cleaned easily...the Dslr has issues with elimination with dust, hence the new models with cleanersnshakers ...

[gjl711]

one reason I use a zoom on my Dslr is the fear of dust on the sensor if I change lenses a lot out of doors...
Film cameras, like my Nikon F, can be opened up and cleaned easily...the Dslr has issues with elimination with dust, hence the new models with cleanersnshakers ...
Dust is not the demon some make it out to be. Cleaning the optics is all part of the DSLR experience and all should learn to to it. The shake system is nice, but it will not eliminate all dust and somewhere along the way you going to have to get rid on an annoying spot. Usually a blower will take care of the problem and the risk of damage is practically zero unless you do something silly like start poking at the sensor with the blower. But even the wet systems are quite easy. Just follow the directions and be gentle.