Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 29 Nov 2010 (Monday) 18:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Does anyone here survive without zoom lenses?

 
richardfox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,883 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA
     
Dec 03, 2010 21:51 |  #181

CountryBoy wrote in post #11391575 (external link)
That's just not true at all.


Yankee fans are everywhere , even in Oklahoma :lol:!

Naahhh? For real? No kidding?


Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Dec 03, 2010 22:32 |  #182

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11391134 (external link)
When a zoom can give me better results than my 24L, 35L, 85L or 200 2L then you might have a point. It has to do with thoroughly knowing your equipment and how to get the best out of it. For many they can do it far better with primes.

But how is that an argument against zooms? You guys keep trying to make this a primes or nothing kind of deal. How does one photographic master preferring primes (especially when it was the only choice on his preferred camera) make any kind of argument against another preferring zooms. There were no professional grade zooms until about 20 years ago, so of course there are no "classic" photgraphers that preferred them.

I was not making the argument that zooms or motorcycles are superior or more of a technological marvel, only that primes were the only show in town until recent photographic history.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Dec 03, 2010 22:38 |  #183

sjones wrote in post #11391343 (external link)
......
Now much of what I am saying is subjective, but that is the point, the benefits of technology are mostly subjective, especially when dealing with the arts. I started with zooms but chose to switch to primes because they benefited my process and style (quality was not a factor, as I think zooms, particularly modern ones, are more than sufficient for me on the technical side). And of course, others might start with primes, and find that zooms are what they need.


I think we are actually on the same page. I am not arguing for one or the other. I am arguing against arguing for one or the other.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alpha_1976
Goldmember
Avatar
3,960 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2009
Location: USA
     
Dec 04, 2010 06:23 |  #184

This discussion started when someone said you have a different "perspective" when you have a prime lens of a given focal length (than the zoom set at the same focal length). And now this is simply "primes" vs "zooms"!


I know more about gear than I know about photography :p
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richardfox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,883 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA
     
Dec 04, 2010 07:21 |  #185

alpha_1976 wrote in post #11393057 (external link)
This discussion started when someone said you have a different "perspective" when you have a prime lens of a given focal length (than the zoom set at the same focal length). And now this is simply "primes" vs "zooms"!

Hey, let's not involve any truth here. Makes for a boring thread. ;)


Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,740 posts
Gallery: 59 photos
Likes: 655
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Dec 04, 2010 07:34 |  #186

I did not read all the posts but as to the original question, lately I have been going more and more to primes. I first went to 2.8 zooms which are really amazing but I am getting tired of the size and weight. Even L primes are much easier to deal with. I shoot almost entirely for fun and primes are just more fun.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Fuji X100F • Canon EOS R • 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 35 1.8 RF • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,756 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 7122
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 04, 2010 07:56 |  #187

tkbslc wrote in post #11391887 (external link)
But how is that an argument against zooms? You guys keep trying to make this a primes or nothing kind of deal. How does one photographic master preferring primes (especially when it was the only choice on his preferred camera) make any kind of argument against another preferring zooms. There were no professional grade zooms until about 20 years ago, so of course there are no "classic" photgraphers that preferred them.

I was not making the argument that zooms or motorcycles are superior or more of a technological marvel, only that primes were the only show in town until recent photographic history.

I'm not arguing against zoom for you or anyone else. What I am saying that they're not right for me and many others. And not because as you imply, that we are somehow antiquated. There are not any zooms that can run with any of my primes IQ wise and none are near as fast.

But getting back to the original question;

"Does anyone here survive without zoom lenses?"

Yes, as you can clearly see many do and for me I get along quite nicely without them. ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Dec 04, 2010 08:56 |  #188

This should have been, other than the original OP's question.....

What works best for you, personally. Zooms, primes or both. What is it about what and how you shoot that made you go with the lenses that you use.

Of course that might have only degenerated into silliness after the second page and not the first :-)


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Dec 04, 2010 12:29 |  #189

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11393302 (external link)
I'm not arguing against zoom for you or anyone else. What I am saying that they're not right for me and many others. And not because as you imply, that we are somehow antiquated. [

I never implied anything of the sort. The implication from you and others was that those who use primes are somehow more knowledgeable, creative and superior. That is definitely not true.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 614
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Dec 04, 2010 12:50 |  #190

bohdank wrote in post #11393518 (external link)
This should have been, other than the original OP's question.....

What works best for you, personally. Zooms, primes or both. What is it about what and how you shoot that made you go with the lenses that you use.

Of course that might have only degenerated into silliness after the second page and not the first :-)

This does often seem to devolve into an argument with religious overtones.:rolleyes:

I used to use primes and zooms both, and I mostly used the primes for the times where I really did need the faster apertures. I also do like using primes for times when I can live with just one focal length, as a single prime is lighter and smaller than most zooms. OTOH - how important is 'smaller and lighter' when you are using a 1D Mark IV really?

I mostly just use zooms now, mainly because the high ISO capability of today's bodies have reduced my need for really fast apertures. And I find that f/2.8 is plenty thin for DOF given that I shoot people and I tend to frame things tight.

When I had primes I liked:
1. Fast apertures (sometimes)
2. Lightweight lenses (when shooting with one lens)

With zooms I like:
1. Less missed shots because of wrong focal length mounted.
2. Lighter camera bag overall (less lenses needed to do one thing)
3. Greater ability to frame any shot exactly as I want it (no need to crop everything in post to the correct framing).

One last point that comes up sometimes in these discussions will revolve around image quality. But honestly, I find the optical performance of Canon's best zooms to be quite close to their primes. I think the supposed last tiny bit of performance from the primes is often overstated by certain people who have a <<ahem>> religious fervor about this topic.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
merp
Senior Member
490 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2006
     
Dec 04, 2010 12:56 |  #191
bannedPermanently

I am moving more, and more toward primes. Couple months from now I want too pickup that 50/85, and then that 35 --- all a matter of time =]]




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
richardfox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,883 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bellbrook, Ohio, USA
     
Dec 04, 2010 13:00 |  #192

JeffreyG wrote in post #11394514 (external link)
This does often seem to devolve into an argument with religious overtones.:rolleyes:

I used to use primes and zooms both, and I mostly used the primes for the times where I really did need the faster apertures. I also do like using primes for times when I can live with just one focal length, as a single prime is lighter and smaller than most zooms.

I mostly just use zooms now, mainly because the high ISO capability of today's bodies have reduced my need for really fast apertures. And I find that f/2.8 is plenty thin for DOF given that I shoot people and I tend to frame things tight.

When I had primes I liked:
1. Fast apertures (sometimes)
2. Lightweight lenses (when shooting with one lens)

With zooms I like:
1. Less missed shots because of wrong focal length mounted.
2. Lighter camera bag overall (less lenses needed to do one thing)
3. Greater ability to frame any shot exactly as I want it (no need to crop everything in post to the correct framing).

One last point that comes up sometimes in these discussions will revolve around image quality. But honestly, I find the optical performance of Canon's best zooms to be quite close to their primes. I think the supposed last tiny bit of performance from the primes is often overstated by certain people who have a <<ahem>> religious fervor about this topic.

Everything you said was true. :)


Canon 50D gripped, EF 50/1.8, EF-S 10-22, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400L, 300 2.8L, Canon 500 f8 mirror with chipped EF mount, 580EX, 1.4x and 2x Canon teleconverters, Canon EF Life-Size converter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alpha_1976
Goldmember
Avatar
3,960 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2009
Location: USA
     
Dec 04, 2010 13:00 |  #193

TooManyShots wrote in post #11391401 (external link)
Hmmm.....I never thought a zoom is some sort of technological marvel.....over prime lens, even back in the days. First, there are no zoom faster than f2.8. You can find plenty of primes, even the old manual focus only ones, at f1.4 or even f1.2. Second, zoom lenses are like jack of all trades, not exceptional good at one particular focal length.

Didn't realize we are discussing aperture and sharpness of "primes" vs "zoom" now! What happened to "creativity" argument?


I know more about gear than I know about photography :p
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Dec 04, 2010 13:51 |  #194

Since I made the suggestion....

I use a mix and when shooting events, which is what I primarily do, I start off with zooms to get the "must" shots in the can. Why zooms.... I usually cannot be exactly where I want to be in relation to the framing I want to get. I also like to mix up framing, etc. I'll use everything from 17 to 200mm and occasionally 300mm, for a variety of shots from different vantage points, in front of a stage, on a stage, left, right, from behind shooting forwards, if possible, high and low.

Once I am confident I have the variety and sufficiently interesting shots I need and could walk away, I'll bring out the primes, again, for a different look. Better, not really. Different, yes.

F2.8 is fast enough for me to get clean shots at most venues. With todays, cameras, ISO3200 will produce clean shots and I am one that does not like noise, so remember who is saying this :-)

Now, when I shoot portraits, whether posed or more environmental and candid, in style, I will usually go to primes because
I am in control of the environment
The subject
The additional control over DOF, which does not mean I shoot everything wide open but I will throw those into the shoot mix.

Today's zooms are not your daddy's zooms or mine for that matter (old fart). They can and do compete with the better primes out there, imo, in all the criteria one uses to judge lenses.

I print up to 24 x 30 and I don't tell myself, this one is going to be a big print so I better use x lens. I use what is best for how I want the image to look. I won't use a 135L when 24mm is the look I want. You can frame a shot exactly the same using a 24mm or a 135mm and they will look completely different. An example of perspective difference but relevent to all the "would the 35L be better on my X or the 135L" posts one seasons far too often here.

So, are primes better than zooms ? Is a Mack truck better than a Corvette ? Let's not lose sight of how we use, or are sometimes forced, to use our lenses. That usually is more important than any MTF table.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TooManyShots
Cream of the Crop
10,203 posts
Likes: 527
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NYC
     
Dec 04, 2010 13:54 |  #195
bannedPermanent ban

alpha_1976 wrote in post #11394569 (external link)
Didn't realize we are discussing aperture and sharpness of "primes" vs "zoom" now! What happened to "creativity" argument?


That's wasn't my argument. My argument is that you shoot primes you become more aware of your surroundings....:) The creativity argument is from the zoom users who believe a prime is too restrictive for any creative purposes, whereas a zoom gives you the unlimited creativities for the share fact that you have all the focal lengths for any eventuality that may or may not happen.


One Imaging Photography (external link) and my Flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

20,603 views & 0 likes for this thread
Does anyone here survive without zoom lenses?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is hanhasgotqi
716 guests, 200 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.