Aren't primes too restrictive?

Further to my recent post regarding zooms being more compromising on the creative effect, I must admit that I try to use a particular prime if it is in the realms of possibility (135mmF2L), so I guess I am talking out of my...
...mind.

Graham

I do a lot of post-processing on my pictures, and trust me, there are a lot of things that you can do to improve your picture. Improving the quality of a picture in terms of sharpness and good bokeh is not one of them. Post-processing is great for improving color balance and exposure compensation, but like you've probably heard before: garbage-in, garbage-out. Don't expect post-processing to make up the difference between a (good) prime and a zoom.

and vice versa. i don't think that's what he meant .

ed rader

I use both zooms and primes. I have 3 L zooms, 2 L primes and the best (I think) of the Canon standard primes, the 50mm f1.4 and the 85 f1.8. I don't find primes restrictive because I use them when then won't be restrictive, i.e. when I'm going to be standing in one place and the focal length is appropriate for what I need to do (studio), or when I need the extra low light capability, or when I can zoom with my feet.

I use zooms when it's appropriate. When I can't move around, when I need muliple focal lengths for the shoot, and/or when I don't need the low light capability of the primes.

The lens is a tool. You choose what is most appropriate for the job at hand. Primes are only restrictive if they're not appropriate for the shooting situation.

Mark

Variable Lens Factors

- Cost

- Size: length, filter-size, weight

- Focal length range

- Maximum aperture: "fast"ness

- Speed of auto-focusing

- Imaging quality: sharpness, color accuracy, saturation, and distortion, light falloff, flare.

- Depth of field range


Sharpness is just one of many factors sacrificed against focal length range in the prime vs zoom argument. Sharpness is rarely the most important factor unless maybe if you are making posters of still-lifes.

Sharpness is just one aspect of image quality. Others are distortion, light falloff, flare, color accuracy and saturation. At a particular price-point, a prime will likely beat a zoom in all of them. That would seem to seal the argument. These days, however, the image quality of zooms is "good enough" for most applications.

But a prime has still has advantages in other areas and these are the reasons I still use primes quite a bit:

Size: If a lens is big, it is less likely to be with you when you could use it.

Depth of field range: With the ability to choose your depth of field, you choose where you want the viewer eye focused.

Maximum aperture: Go most anywhere, without flash. At a particular price-point a prime is likely to let in ten times the light of a zoom, which also has big effect on the next factor...

Speed of auto-focusing: In a zoom, the motor has to push a heavier element further to get the lens in focus.

A zoom gives good flexibility in easy lighting situations when I don't know quite what I'm going to be photographing. In other situations, those other factors above, become more important and I want a prime.

I use my 28-105 and my 50/1.4 about equally; my 24/2.8 a little less than those, and my 100/2.0 and 200/2.8 for sports.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I actually like using a zoom on a tripod. It saves having to reposition everytime you change focal length or want a closer/wider crop. For the most part, though I'd prefer a prime, as the simplicity frees up my mind to concentrate on other aspects of the picture.