L primes vs. L zooms

[karusel]

It's been probably discussed a gazillion times, and I began wondering about this issue when I've first seen an image produced by a 35 1.4L and went on to see the reviews at photographyreview.com. I've decided I need to take some steps.

Now, the lens I own now:
Tamron 17-35 Xr Di 2.8-4.0
Tamron 28-75 Xr Di 2.8
Canon 50mm 1.8 II
Canon 100-400L IS

I'd sell the last three (super wide angle not too important right now) and buy the following:
35mm 1.4 L
50mm 1.4
135mm 2.0 L
200 2.8L

Now, I'm not sure if I'm just being silly, isn't the Tamron 28-75 good enough? And speaking of which, what about Canon 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L.

Can you explain from your own experience how good zooms like 70-200 2.8L compare to primes like those mentioned above and if they are worth the hassle of exchanging lens in, possibly the most hectic moments?

Edit: also, weight, size and color of the lens is to me irrelevant, picture quality is everything.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yep,. the Zoom Vs. Prime debate still rages on ;)

No one can answer this for you.. one must allways weigh the advantages and come to there own conclusions.

Most people just buy zooms.

There are efficionados who own only primes.

Some sane individuals see the advantages of both and own some of each.

The compromise is allways a triangle conveinience-price-image quality.

I see some of the L Zooms as being able to provide "prime like" quality. This does not mean "as good as" .. it means.. merely "you could have fooled me" ;)

At 200mm the recomandations vary considerably;

1. I recomend the 200mm f/2.8 Prime for those looking for superb image quality, a fast aperture @ 200mm,.. and a "nice price"

2. For those who want flexibility over price,. but still need the fast aperture,. then the f/2.8 zooms are the recomendation. You give up very little regarding image quality.

3. ...if cost is more important than aperture,. than the f/4 zoom is the obvious choice. Again you give up little in image quality.

4. For anyone getting a 135mm f/2L,. I would recomend the 1.4X T-con before I would recomend the 200mm f/2.8 prime. At a fraction the cost the 1.4X will sacrifice little in the way of image quality on that particular lens...



Four recomendations based on four different sets of needs,.. And see,. thus far I have only touched on your 200mm choice,...


;)

[pcasciola]

In my opinion, a complete set of lens covers the focal lengths you need in both primes and zooms, and that is my own personal goal. My problem is I like to shoot from 10mm to 600mm so I'm planning on spending a boat load of money. If you kept your current 4 lenses in addition to the 4 you listed, that looks perfect to me.

The Tamron 28mm Xr Di in my opinion is just as sharp as the 50mm f/1.8. The difference is, I get over double the shutter speed in low light with the 50mm when I don't want to use a flash, and it provides a lot shallower DOF when needed. In your case, the 50 f/1.4 would give you four times the shutter speed of the Tamron, and much better bokeh.

[SeanH]

All I know is my buddys have rented the 300mm 2.8, and there is NO comparison to the photo's of the same event using the 70-200 2.8 that we normally use. And it had nothing to do with the longer focal lenth......pure image quality, that 300 can make anyone's shots look like a pro's.

But the 70-200 2.8 is a great lens if you consider the cost of the 300 2.8.

here's a sample of that days shoting from my 20D & 70-200 2.8 L

[drisley]

I love the primes (as that is all I have).
The L primes supposedly do offer slightly better image quality than the L zooms, but for me the biggest thing was that they are smaller, lighter, black, faster AF, and faster optically (wider apertures).
The image quality was not as big a deal. Heck, when you see alot of professionals (like the SI Illustrated Swimsuit photogs), they are quite often using an L zoom (usually the 70-200F2.8 ).

[DeeplyDigital]

Funny, your suggested lens collection is similar to the one I will end up with.
I just sold my 70-200, 85 1,8 and am in the process of trading in my 24-70 for 24 1,4.

Gear will be
17-40
24 1,4
50 1,4 (superb with 20D in low light)
135 2,0 (yet to be bought)
200 f2,8 Mk1 (so sharp, so fast, great bokeh)

I'm starting to think that I need only one lens, depending on the camera's crop factor. I like moving to get the shot I want.
Using primes or zooms is a personal thing, some people need all the lenses they can get, some need one lens to get all the pictures they want.

J.

[Cadwell]

I'm happy with the image quality of all* my lenses, zooms and primes. I use them for different things, though. The zooms ( which run to f/2.8 ) get used for outdoor motorsport shooting and I love the flexibility they give me. The primes are used for indoor available light shots and are all f/1.4 or f/1.8; an aperture you can't get in zooms. Horses for courses.

*the exception is the "lens we never mention" which spends it's life on a shelf.

[HKFEVER]

Lens that I have:
- 15mm fisheye, good for fun image
- 16-35mm f/2.8L, Landscape and shoots in small room
- 50mm f/1.4, good for low night and shoots people
- 24-70mm f/2.8L, good walkaround len
- 100mm marco f/2.8, shape and excellent for close up but the distance is too short
- 135mm f/2.0L, shape like a razer blade
- 70-200mm f/2.8L is, a bit too long for portrait, but shape anad easy
- 300mm f/2.8L is (waiting) hope can get it soon
- 400mm f/2.8L is (wish) the price is too much at this moment.

But I don't have any EF mount camera anymore, I sold them all (1V, 1DMKII, and 2 1DSMKII).

Hopefully my 3rd 1DSMKII will arrive in next Monday.:lol:

[drisley]

Why do you sell them?

[HKFEVER]

Why do you sell them?

I bought 1st 1DSMKII before X'mas, and my another half also cought me one for X'mas. So I end up two.

I brought the 1st 1DSMKII to Frankfurt, and one of my client brought it:D . After I back to HK, he called me again that his frend want to buy my 2nd one:lol: . So I sold them all. The 2nd 1DSMKII was courier to thm by FedEx today.

Hope my 3rd one will arrive HK in next Monday:rolleyes: .

But someone in Canon told me that Canon is making a new MKIII or else in different body shape:evil:

[robekert]

Every one of the responses have been very valid. CDS nailed a lot of good points. This is my experience. When I bought a 1DMkII I wanted to exploit its resolution capabilities so I bought a range of "L" primes. (24 1.4-35 1.4-85 1.2-135 2.0-200 2.8-300 4.0) The outlay was roughly $5000. It was a good kit but I felt very limited. I had great low light capability but missed many shots. Changing lenses in the field was cumbersome. Carrying all of the lenses was also cumbersome.

I decided convience was more important. I sold all of the primes and replaced them with 24-70 2.8-70-200 2.8 IS-1.4X TC and a 85 1.8. The kit is easier to carry and I miss less shots. The price difference is also $2000 dollars :shock: I do not think the image quality has suffered either. I never print larger than 16X20, and that is rare. I am very comfortable with this kit and I find it very usable......no regrets.
Cheers,
Rob

[karusel]

Ressurecting an old thread. :D

I'm still split in a decision...

There's a book I'm reading right now, and I came to notice a pattern to the photos. The ones outside, hiking, street, whatever, were taken with a zoom lens, the ones in studio with a fix focal (on a medium - large format cam). And the guy IS a professional who I guess should care about quality, right? Even with a zoom, there are sometimes situations when I hit the low or high end and I'd still want to twist some more to get the shot. And this sucks. It should suck even more if I only had a focus ring to twist... so hey, what good is a beautifully beautiful pretty girl, that runs away from you? No good, that's what. Unless you run faster than her, that is. And mind you, there are situations where you:
a) can't run
b) would miss it even if you ran supersonic
c) don't feel like running
d) don't feel like running all the time

I think I know what the solution is. I mean, there is absolutely no other way to go. I need to have them all. The L's. Zooms and fix focals. And then pick them for occasions. And I'm not even kidding.

[pcasciola]

I think I know what the solution is. I mean, there is absolutely no other way to go. I need to have them all. The L's. Zooms and fix focals. And then pick them for occasions. And I'm not even kidding.I'm with you. Except that I see no reason to have the 200/2.8L now that I have the 70-200/2.8L IS. However, I am keeping the 85/1.8 and I want to add the 135/2L and 200/1.8L at some point too.

Although, I guess you could make the argument that the 200/2.8L is less obnoxious than the white IS zoom, as well as smaller and lighter.

Ok, all of them it is. :D

[CoolToolGuy]

I think I know what the solution is. I mean, there is absolutely no other way to go. I need to have them all. The L's. Zooms and fix focals. And then pick them for occasions. And I'm not even kidding.

That sounds like an excellent strategy to me! :o

Have Fun,

[davidwegs]

It's been probably discussed a gazillion times, and I began wondering about this issue when I've first seen an image produced by a 35 1.4L and went on to see the reviews at photographyreview.com. I've decided I need to take some steps.

Now, the lens I own now:
Tamron 17-35 Xr Di 2.8-4.0
Tamron 28-75 Xr Di 2.8
Canon 50mm 1.8 II
Canon 100-400L IS

I'd sell the last three (super wide angle not too important right now) and buy the following:
35mm 1.4 L
50mm 1.4
135mm 2.0 L
200 2.8L

Now, I'm not sure if I'm just being silly, isn't the Tamron 28-75 good enough? And speaking of which, what about Canon 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L.

Can you explain from your own experience how good zooms like 70-200 2.8L compare to primes like those mentioned above and if they are worth the hassle of exchanging lens in, possibly the most hectic moments?

Edit: also, weight, size and color of the lens is to me irrelevant, picture quality is everything.

A lot of what you ask relates to the weight of a lens and the size. If you shoot with primes in genral, you will adopt a way of shooting that is diferent from the use of zooms.

If you are experienced (or become so) then you will instinctivley choose the lens length you need in anticipation of the shot. The benefit of a zoom is the speed. The quality is not the same (IMO) as with a zoom. I have a 70-200/L IS and it is arguably the best of the L zooms for image quality. However, when compared to the 135/2 it just isn't quite there.

If image quality is of the utmost importance to you, the primes win (esp fast ones f2 or faster).

[drisley]

I'm with you. Except that I see no reason to have the 200/2.8L now that I have the 70-200/2.8L IS. However, I am keeping the 85/1.8 and I want to add the 135/2L and 200/1.8L at some point too.

Although, I guess you could make the argument that the 200/2.8L is less obnoxious than the white IS zoom, as well as smaller and lighter.

Ok, all of them it is. :D
If you really want the 135/2L, I recommend you sell the 200/2.8L and get the 135/2L as you planned, and buy the 1.4x extender. That gives you a 190mm F2.8 lens that is 99% as sharp as the 135/2L (in my tests). On second thought though, you would lose the focus speed advantage primes have with the 1.4x.

[Anders Östberg]

...
Some sane individuals see the advantages of both and own some of each.
...
Pheew. Then I'm sane, even if I have doubts when looking at my growing lens collection. :p

Seriously though, zooms and primes both have their uses - different tools for different jobs.

[jylitalo]

I love the primes (as that is all I have).
The L primes supposedly do offer slightly better image quality than the L zooms, but for me the biggest thing was that they are smaller, lighter, black, faster AF, and faster optically (wider apertures).

Since this topic has been brought back to life, I decided that its probably time to make comment this quation. Saying that L primes are smller, lighter, black, faster AF and faster optically is not always whole truth. L zooms with f4 seems to be lighter than L primes (even though those same zooms are heavier than non-L primes), while L zooms with f2.8 are heavier than L primes.

L zooms (filter/weight) || L primes (filter/weight) || non-L primes
16-35/2.8 77mm/600g || 24/1.4 77mm/550g || 35/2 52mm/210g
24-70/2.8 77mm/950g || 35/1.4 72mm/580g || 50/2.5CM 52mm/280g
17-40/4 ... 77mm/500g

70-200/4 ...... 67mm/ 705g || 85/1.2 .. 72mm/1025g || 85/1.8 58mm/425g
70-200/2.8 IS 77mm/1570g || 135/2 .. 72mm/ 750g
....................................|| 200/2.8 72mm/ 765g

One idea that I've been playing in my head would be to use L zooms with f4 for daylight shooting and have couple non-L primes for indoors/low light/macro shots. This would keep overall weight relatively low, expenses in acceptable level, etc. while giving good quality and nice coverage on focal length.
If I someday manage to make some money out of this hobby, I might start to think about upgrading to f2.8 zooms or L primes, but ...

[genewch]

A never-ending and interesting debate.

I have a 100mm macro. It works great on macro and portraiture. Once I carried it to shoot performers in a piano recital which a friend invited me. When I set up a tripod at the back of the seating area and shot, I wished I had a longer tele lens, though the 100mm macro could cover the whole performers at that distance. A 200mm is better. I can feel the slower AF speed of the macro comparing with conventional lenses. So now I'm deciding on a 135mm f2 or a 200mm f2.8. I love the 135mm + 1.4x combo for flexibility over 200mm alone, but is it silly to get a 135mm which is close to 100mm? On the other hand, a 200mm may restrict me to have a long distance to the objects, though a 200mm is fine in other uses such as for far away landscapes. Cost is another consideration. A 135mm itself is more expensive than a 200mm.

[schmoelzel]

Hey.....I missed this thread and it is very relevant to my ultimate plan of what I want in glass for my 1D. I have a 70-200F2.8 L and will always keep it because it has great optical quality and is very convenient. But I prefer primes and since most of my shooting is portrait-type shots, I have decided that I want the following primes that are really the FL that I use most often.......

What I have now.....

1. Canon 35 f1.4 L
2. Canon 50 f1.4
3 Canon 85 f1.2 L
4. Canon 70-200 f2.8 L
5. Canon 1.4x T-con

The last lens on my list is the 135F2 L and once I have that I think my search for the ultimate prime collection is over!! (famous last words!!:D)
I am a little lacking in the wide angle department but I sold Drisley my 16-35L and while I don't use wide angle much, I think it would come in handy for street-scapes and such. I had the Tamron 28-75 but I found the 28 not wide enough for what I wanted it for......so just yesterday I bought a used Sigma 15 f2.8 fisheye and I think this will suffice for the the wide-angle shots. As I mentioned, once I have the 135F2 L , the games of lenses will be over for me (I hope!).

[grego]

I think for a full kit(keeping money out of it, ha!):

A good mix of primes and zooms you'd want.

Zooms:
70-200mm f/2.8L IS
16-35mm f/2.8L
24-70mm f/2.8L

Primes:
35mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.4L
85mm f/1.2(1.8 is very fine too)
135mm f/2

And then a few telephoto primes:
300mm f/2.8L
400mm f/2.8L
Oh and why not get crazy: 600mm f/4 :p

[jwwill0]

I think for a full kit(keeping money out of it, ha!):

Yes, by all means, lets keep money out of if!!:lol: That always ruins my fun.

[Lester Wareham]

The compromise is allways a triangle conveinience-price-image quality.


For me a major factor is the weight and size of zooms.

Why have a heavy 70-200 f2.8 round your neck if you are shooting at 85mm and will get a lighter, faster and cheaper 85mm f1.8, oh and sharper.

In populating my EF system after my FD system I tried to convince myself on zooms, and the weight and size puts me off most of the time. I had a 70-210 f4 zoom that never saw much use after getting primes.

Of course on the example above you could use the f4L, a bit bigger and the same weight as the 200mm f2.8L with the loss of speed. And the 85mm argument still makes sense.

You have to ask yourself, is the type of shooting I am doing going to need me to change focal lengths from shot to shot very quickly. Unless you are shooting sports I think not.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I think we all just need to specialize.:cool: Find one or two areas of photography we truely love and are good at, and focus on that. Buy a few lenses, and have fun taking pictures!

It really sucks to constantly chase after lenses trying to accomodate every situation we may run into with a camera. Unless your a millionair, it never ends!

Way easier said than done though. I currently can't seem to settle myself into one area of photography. I want to do everything! The macro, the birding, the zooing, the portraits, the sports, I want it all!:lol: And I'm guessing that's how everyone else is too, but there's gotta be a niche for everyone. After shooting for 3-4 months now with my current equiptment, I'm starting to notice that I prefer very shallow DOF's, and most enjoy macro photography, candid photography, and bird photography.

So right now I'm thinking about this;
sell 50mm f/1.8 and 70-200mm f/4L

Buy (sigma 30mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8 can't chose) 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro, and a 400mm f/5.6L. Oh, and a second body (350D) so I can get two functionalities without swapping lenses.

For example; I go to a butterfly sanctuary... throw the 150mm f/2.8 macro on my 20D since I'd be primarily be shooting macro's of the butterfly's, but keep the 50 f/1.4 on my XT so I can quickly swap to take a candid of some cute lil kid starting at one of the butterflies.

That to me is starting to look like the perfect lens set up. It's tough though. It sucks to wanna get a pic and not have the right equiptment. And it's hard to predict what you will truely need and use.

[genewch]

Specialization... good idea to limit our chasing of lenses and equipment. :-P As an amateur, it seems too early to specialize in particular fields of photography. At least there's too much room to improve my skills. Anyway I find using primes is a good way to train our observation on composition before we shoot. As the field of view of a prime is not changed, you can only either zoom by foot or change another lens. Of course zooms are superior in some time-critical situations. For me, if I'm not in a rush, I prefer primes. I can pack my bag with lighter and smaller lenses, enjoy the pleasure of wide apertures and fast speed.

[karusel]

I love primes more and more. What's funny about it is I find the fact they have fixed focal length and are therefore not flexible as a good thing; first of, I know quite well what the FOV of a certain focal length I have on the camera is so I when I see a good scene I know I can shoot it, because it's like, right there, I find a good composition right from where I stand as opposed to zooming to find the right FL and then compose. I'm sure this explanation is a bit confusing, but if you have done some shooting with a prime you'll know exactly what I mean...

[condyk]

I think we all just need to specialize.:cool: Find one or two areas of photography we truely love and are good at, and focus on that. Buy a few lenses, and have fun taking pictures!

This is my conclusion too.

I had every area other than super wide and super long covered but the problem is that if you go the all over coverage route then you need a personal caddie to carry all the stuff around. If you leave stuff at home then you feel pi**ed off when you feel you need that exact lens and you don't have it with you.

Something like travel focuses the mind on personal priorities. I remember Nitsch's thread in which he bought the 17-85 and 75-300 DO so he could travel light. both decent and with some compromises but he will carry them and use them and maybe even get more and better shots than going 'fully equipped'.

I have sold everything other than my 24-70 which can live on my camera and cover most stuff and my just ordered 300mm IS L and TCon combo which can meet 90% of what I need to do for my main wildlife/Africa interests.

So, I think I will stick to a three lens set up once I've got a Tokina 12-24. I have few decisions to make now, I can focus, relax and enjoy working within clear constraints, I can travel light, I can take more and better shots knowing these lenses inside out, and maybe have even more fun :cool: These are my own priorities.

[pcasciola]

That's not a bad plan condyk. Right now, my three most used lenses are the 10-22, 28-75 and 300L IS, with and without the 1.4x Sigma T-Con. I don't even use the 70-200 as much as I thought I would, but every time I do use it I can clearly see it's the best of the bunch. I just don't seem to need that focal range all that much for what I shoot. I'm still not giving up my primes, though. The 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and 500/4.5 can do things the zooms just can't do.

[mnealtx]

<snip>
So, I think I will stick to a three lens set up once I've got a Tokina 12-24. I have few decisions to make now, I can focus, relax and enjoy working within clear constraints, I can travel light, I can take more and better shots knowing these lenses inside out, and maybe have even more fun :cool: These are my own priorities.

I'm in the same boat. I'm trying to figure out what I'll "need" for the type of photos I want to take - the problem is that now, so many things catch my eye and make me think "Man, that would be a *great* shot!".

I think I'm going to stay with the lenses in my sig for the moment - with the exception of possibly adding a 1.4x TC. I could still be swayed by a great deal on a 100-400 L IS, though... ;)

[wintoid]

I've ended up with a 17-40L and 50 and 85 primes. My logic is this:

1) Wide end for landscape/architecture must be a zoom. If you use primes, you have to do a lot of walking to get the framing you want, and that may not even be possible.
2) Primes are good for portraits and walkabout candids. You can fairly easily adjust framing at that sort of range by zooming with your feet.
3) Sports shooters are likely to need zoom at the telephoto end. I don't shoot sports, so I'm speculating.

Of course if you're happy to crop, then my arguments are worthless :D

[buze]

Well. I'm happy with 30 lens or so. The pleasure of taking photograph is to use the tool at hand to take it.

Pick tools, make the photographs.

True, something I might feel would have needed my super duper Canon gear along on my walk to get a snap on whatver was flying by... But mostly I don't, and on the other hand I'm delighted with the result I get with compositions I took with my 40 years old all manual lens I had in the bag at that time. Because I actualy couldn't "point and shoot", I had to think about the photograph. To work for it, it has more *value* to me.

My rule is, I pick a few odd old primes along on the "important shots" just in case I'm bored, and pick a nice Canon/Sigma handful with AF in the bag on my general walkabout just in case something massive really hapends.

Variety is life.

Today on my 2 hours walk I had on the menu :
+ Chinon 28mm f2.8... pretty nice, a pleasure to use. Cost : £2
+ Industar 61 L/Z (52mm) f2.8. Smells of russian grease, very sharp. Cost: £13
+ Pentacon 135mm f2.8. Circa 1960 or so. SUPERB lens. Cost: < £10
+ Canon 70-300 DO IS. Cost: about £800 if you are lucky

Guess which lens didn't get used ?