A Strange But Genuine Question On Fixed vs Zoom Lenses

Morning all,

Please accept my apologies if this question seems a little dim, as i'm trying to work something out.

I see a lot of people buying fixed lenses (a lot of my fishing friends have 35mm or 50mm ones for trophy shots).

But, what is the advantage of a fixed lens - if you want to shoot at 35mm, why not just buy a zoom lens that covers that range.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts

Many thanks

Ian

general consensus is that the primes produce better quality than any of their zoom counterparts...

Fixed lenses have a min aperture of say f/1.4 or f/1.8 and are therefore better in low light and also have a shallower depth of field, enabling the user to create that lovely creamy background blur. Not only this but the optics tend to be sharper. Now there are some zoom lenses which will go down to f/2.8 and also have excellent sharpness, however these tend to come with a hefty price tag.

smaller, lighter, faster, cheaper, better image quality (mostly)

tuttifrutti wrote in post #18272014
But, what is the advantage of a fixed lens - if you want to shoot at 35mm, why not just buy a zoom lens that covers that range.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts

Ian

Can you indicate a zoom capable of 35mm @ f/1.4?

Cheers all - that's catagorically answered that one for me

ChrisHeathcote wrote in post #18272018
Fixed lenses have a min aperture of say f/1.4 or f/1.8 and are therefore better in low light and also have a shallower depth of field, enabling the user to create that lovely creamy background blur. Not only this but the optics tend to be sharper. Now there are some zoom lenses which will go down to f/2.8 and also have excellent sharpness, however these tend to come with a hefty price tag.

Just to be clear, not all fixed focal length lenses have larger apertures than zoom lenses covering the same focal length. Many do but quite a few are either no faster or even slower

Agree with all that is posted.
As in most everything in life there are always pros and cons to a decision. A quality prime will normally have quite a bit wider aperture with its benefits but at the pain of frequent lens changes to get varying shots. A zoom is really nice to carry when you don't control the shot distances or perspective.
There are some very high quality zooms in the Canon line - the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400 - in the latest versions of those lenses. For many people they can accomplish what they need without having to carry a selection of primes but with the restriction of F/2.8 normally being the widest aperture. Oh and the zooms are heavier and larger!
As I use a 6D I find that the low light performance of the camera makes up for the wider aperture loss of zooms - for my usage! Not all the time of course but I dislike lens changes when outdoors so zooms help me with that. I can carry maybe 3 zooms to cover whatever I might need on a trip while I would need more prime lenses to accomplish the same task. Studio usage is different though and not something I do.

fplstudio wrote in post #18272047
Can you indicate a zoom capable of 35mm @ f/1.4?

Canon 11-70mm f1.4.... it is a an old video lens, so not an EF mount without some sort of adapter.

The closest EF mount zoom covering 35mm is 2/3 (EDIT for correction) stop slower at f1.8. There is a 2nd zoom lens covering 35mm at fixed f2 as well.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18272147
Canon 11-70mm f1.4.... it is a an old video lens, so not an EF mount without some sort of adapter.

The closest EF mount zoom covering 35mm is a full stop slower at f1.8.

To be fair, f/1.8 is -0.66EV slower than f/1.4 !

Wilt wrote in post #18272173
To be fair, f/1.8 is -0.66EV slower than f/1.4 !

Doggone it, corrected above...

Having just added a 135mm f2, I would love to see a zoom lens in that area that was at a fixed f2.

Things brightened up noticeably for the fixed focal length fans!

tuttifrutti wrote in post #18272014
Morning all,

Please accept my apologies if this question seems a little dim, as i'm trying to work something out.

I see a lot of people buying fixed lenses (a lot of my fishing friends have 35mm or 50mm ones for trophy shots).

But, what is the advantage of a fixed lens - if you want to shoot at 35mm, why not just buy a zoom lens that covers that range.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts

Many thanks

Ian

If all they're doing is taking trophy pictures of prize fish, two nice lenses in 35mm and 50mm cost much less than a comparable zoom. Those are simple lens designs that haven't significantly changed in 50 years, and even the cheap ones rival the most expensive zooms aperture-for-aperture.

The big plus for zooms is the flexibility for framing shots, especially when you cannot get closer/farther from your subject.

Very interesting and thought-provoking replies

Thank you very much all