prime v.s. zoom

[Yan]

from my understanding.. there are some people prefer prime lens and some prefer zoom lens.. I assume it is because both have pros and cons.. so what are these?? so far what I can think of is this...

pros of prime lens and cons of zoom lens
- brighter
- better picture quality
- more affordable

pros of zoom lens and cons of prime lens
- easier to frame

I start to think that.. cropping might be able to takeover the pros of zoom lens.. does this make sense? i.e. to get 24mm shot, just first shoot with 20 prime and crop it. I think nowadays 8MP digital SLR this can be a possibility without reducing too much of resolution..

[DocFrankenstein]

Primes:
Faster
Cheaper
You'll miss some shots, cause you can't zoom

Zooms:
Much harder to build...

I am not sure though... depends on what you shoot.

If your subject framing is consistent and it doesn't jump back and forth, you want a prime cause it's sharper/faster/cheaper.

If you are a photojournalist you'll probably want a fast 28-200 zoom. You'll lose some "sharpness" but the overall result will be better, because you'll be able to zoom in/out fast and you won't miss a shot... This white thing was designed with photojournalist in mind:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=319784&is=USA

Cheers.

[drisley]

When I sold my 70-200F4L zoom and bought the 135F2L prime, and 1.4x extender, the reasons were:

-lens size (the prime is much smaller)
-lens colour (the prime is black,not white, so atttracts less attention)
-faster aperture (f2)
-faster focusing
-the prime is sharper. But, that was an unexpected bonus as I didnt think there was much out there that could be a canon L zoom.
-price. it was slightly cheaper to get the prime and extender than the 70-200F2.8L zoom.

I like primes, but most people don't because zooms are much more convenient.

[EXA1a]

Please don't try to generalize everything. That won't help anybody and will only start a war over it.
For instance: why do you think that primes are more affordable or cheaper? Compare the EF17-40L zoom to the collection of 20/f2.8, 24/f2.8, 28/2.8, and 35/f2 primes. The zoom will be much cheaper although I compared an L zoom to cheap primes, you don't even cover the full range with the primes, not to talk about the gaps inbetween. AF of the zoom will be faster for most. Picture quality will be comparable. And so on.
BTW: Are you talking full frame or 1.3x or 1.6x crop? You see, generalizations simply don't help.

--Jens--

[sGu]

primes are cheaper and lighter? not really

400mm f2.8 IS prime is about the same price of a 600mm, and it's much heavier ...

for quality, go for primes; for versatility, go for zoom. but then, L zoom glasses can produce very good results which you can hardly tell from prints; and with prime lens, you just have to keep reposition yourself when framing a shot.

my 2 cents

[nosquare2003]

I start to think that.. cropping might be able to takeover the pros of zoom lens.. does this make sense? i.e. to get 24mm shot, just first shoot with 20 prime and crop it. I think nowadays 8MP digital SLR this can be a possibility without reducing too much of resolution..

The quality of zoom will be better than cropping. And I assume that you will be happy to get a zoom rather than a prime...

The perspectives of 20mm and 24mm lenses are different if you "fill" the frame with the subject. Otherwise you have to imagine the FOV of a 24mm lens on a 20mm lens?! (Lenses distortion is not considered here.)

Anyway, a prime is not a zoom...(though it sounds stupid for saying this :P )

[Cadwell]

Weight really isn't a factor. As an example, the Canon EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM prime weighs 2.55kg. A comparable zoom (in terms of focal length and aperture) such as my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 APO EX IF HSM weighs 2.6kg. Pretty much the same.

Bascially you have a trade off here. A prime gets you slightly better image quality and slightly faster focusing as opposed to the greater flexibility of having a zoom.

Of course not all primes / zooms are created equal. There are good primes and bad primes as well as good zooms and bad zooms. To say that a prime will always provide better image quality than a zoom isn't true.

[Yan]

ya sorry for compareing apple and orange AND generalizing these.. but I some how do not feel need of the zoom lens (other than when I shoot motorsports) so I just wanted people to put me in prospective, so I can find some advantages of the zoom lens which I was missing.

was thinking either to get 20mm 2.8 prime or waite until I save up for everyone's favorite 17-40 4L. I know, I know, it isn't right to compare these.

and at this point I am not considering EF-S because I want to use the lens on both my film and digital.

[roanjohn]

Some people are just prime fanatics.

Primes generally are faster though. I've never seen a zoom go any faster than 2.8.

As for me, I want the best of both worlds.

Ro1

[petiot]

Well, i would like to bring a more subjective view on the differences between zomm and primes. I feel that (for me at least) using prime pushes me to pay much more attention to framing. It is easier to turn a ring than walking few steps, and being constrained to prime, i feel that i most of the time find myself thinking twice a bout a frame, and sometime i find that a tight corp is better for instance. I know this has been said before, but i think it might be an important factor when deciding for primes: taking photo with primes will not be as easy or confortable as with zoom, but you ll get better at it !! ;)

personnaly i have sold all my consumer grade (24-85 and 90-300) lens to start building a durable, higher quality set of lens. I have now a 17-40 and a 50 f1.4. I almost exclusively use the 17-40 at 17 mm but i would certainly be glad to be able to access 50 mm without having to change lens (downside of primes).

For the lens experts: Would it be possible/beneficial to make some "stepped zoom" lens, for instance a lens that has two or three fixed focales, e.g. 17/50/85 that you can switch between? Such lens would have the quality of primes. I am not thinking about an indexed zoom, but more about lens section that could pile up quickly to give different focale. I dont know anything about optics but maybe the fact of having predefined focale setting would allow a simpler/better design than zoom ... well i guess this is a stupid idea :roll:

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have and shoot both Zoom and primes..

The decision of which to use in a given job is subjective in two ways.. both for us.. and as far as the "subject" of our work is concerned.. ie: which is best suited for a particular job.

The Best Primes do offer better image quality and usually faster autofocus.. I also find that with certain primes.. the autoexposure and WB on a given camera is more likely to "nail it" on it's own given a fast prime.

I've not heard anyone else speak of this phenomenon... so it may just be me.. but the first time I put my 500mm on my 10D I was amazed at how much better the 10D handled the exposure and WB as compared to the zoom I had been using.

[drisley]

AF of the zoom will be faster for most. Picture quality will be comparable.
--Jens--

Actually, you've got that backwards. The AF of the primes will be faster than the zooms.
Both my 85F1.8USM and 135F2L USM are noticable faster at focusing than was my 70-200F4L zoom, although the zoom was fast too.
As far as picture quality goes, you have to compare L to L and consumer to non-consumer. The 85F1.8 is MUCH sharper than any consumer zoom.
And believe it or not, the 135F2L is significantly sharper than the 70-200F4L (although this zoom is extremely sharp too). Even with the 1.4x extender, the 135F2L at 189mm wide open is still significantly better optically than the 70-200F4L. Plus the prime focuses much faster.

Primes are better than zooms, and vice-versa, depending on the photographer, and his/her situation.
I know what lens I will need before I go shooting, and I shoot alot of low light, so the primes are best.
But, I think for the vast majority, zooms work better.

[EXA1a]

AF of the zoom will be faster for most. Picture quality will be comparable.
--Jens--

Actually, you've got that backwards. The AF of the primes will be faster than the zooms.
Both my 85F1.8USM and 135F2L USM are noticable faster at focusing than was my 70-200F4L zoom, although the zoom was fast too.

Probably it didn't come out clear but I was only referring to my example comparison of the 17-40/4L to a set of 20/f2.8, 24/f2.8, 28/2.8, and 35/f2 primes, just to show how ridiculous a general statement "prime vs. zoom" would be. Two of these primes don't even employ USM and are very likely to be slower in AF.
Sorry for my misunderstandable writing.

--Jens--

[drisley]

That is true.
All things being equal, a prime will be sharper and focus faster.
But when you have variables like USM, and L, and varying apertures, it's tough to generalize. :)

[roanjohn]

There are good primes and bad primes.
There are good zooms and bad zooms.

Generally speaking, within the same aperture and focal length, a prime will be sharper than the zoom.

Ro1

[RDKirk]

Funny that nobody's mentioned that with fewer element surfaces, primes can always resist flare and maintain contrast better in high-flare situations. That's the primary situation in which I turn to them.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Funny that nobody's mentioned that with fewer element surfaces, primes can always resist flare and maintain contrast better in high-flare situations. That's the primary situation in which I turn to them.

Sure oit was mentioned.. it was subcatagory 9A ... covered under the short form.. Titled.. "Primes are better" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Andy_T]

All things being equal, a prime will be sharper and focus faster.


My speculation on this ... (meaning that I can't substantiate this with any backup data other than my own reasoning :wink: )

My guess is that in order to focus, the camera uses the lens wide open and only stops down when taking the actual shot.

It his case, a 1.8 prime will let in more light than a 2.8 zoom, so the camera will have more light to use to focus.

Best regards,
Andy

[spearce6]

I use the cheapest prime in Canon's range - the 50mm f1.8 mark I version. I find this is sharper than any of my L series zooms (17-40, 28-70 or 70-200 f4). I can pick out a shot from the 50mm anytime from a mixed pile.
It's a question of convenience though. Sometimes I will take only the 50mm if I know I'm going to be out in the evening in low light levels or if I am going to be shooting a portrait series. Otherwise, I always have a standard zoom on my 10D. If I have the time and 50mm (80 on the 10D) is the right lens, I will always switch though.

Steve
http://www.steve-pearce-photography.com

[Kevin M]

It depends entirely on your type of photography.

If capturing the moment is of paramount importance - as in photojournalism - you will probably find zooms to be more efficient and convenient. If you have a more leisurely approach to making pictures - as in landscapes - you are more likely to zoom with your feet or just change lens. I much prefer the latter - but if I worked for the media, I would also have the fastest, widest range zooms that I could afford.