Why use prime... or why use zoom?

I'm having a hard time deciding which to use. I really love my 70-200/4L. In amazing light, I can shoot this at f/5.6 and be very happy with colour, contrast, sharpness.

I bought an 85/1.8. Before I loved primes, until I shot some L zooms. Then my primes were left at home. I bought the 85 to shoot indoor sports where I needed the speed.

Now in an upcoming shoot I need a telephoto headshot. In broad daylight, what do you guys prefer? An L zoom or an non-L prime? I don't need the speed of the prime. Does this point to the zoom automatically? Of course I prefer the flexibility of having that many focal lenghts at my disposal.

I guess the question is... at 85mm f/4 or f/5.6... the zoom or the prime? I'm guessing the prime would be sharper... but the zoom has better colour/contrast? Hm. I dunno.

prime is for low light conditions

KevC wrote in post #2082624
I'm having a hard time deciding which to use. I really love my 70-200/4L. In amazing light, I can shoot this at f/5.6 and be very happy with colour, contrast, sharpness.

I bought an 85/1.8. Before I loved primes, until I shot some L zooms. Then my primes were left at home. I bought the 85 to shoot indoor sports where I needed the speed.

Now in an upcoming shoot I need a telephoto headshot. In broad daylight, what do you guys prefer? An L zoom or an non-L prime? I don't need the speed of the prime. Does this point to the zoom automatically? Of course I prefer the flexibility of having that many focal lenghts at my disposal.

I guess the question is... at 85mm f/4 or f/5.6... the zoom or the prime? I'm guessing the prime would be sharper... but the zoom has better colour/contrast? Hm. I dunno.

Kevin -- i struggle with the same thing. i have two primes and i hardly ever use them because i mostly shoot outdoors and i have three excellent L zooms.

i have the 85 1.8 and it is a really special lens. for portraits it's better than the 24-70L but if the zoom is already on the camera (which it is 80% of the time) i seldom switch over to the prime in daylight.

i think the zoom is a better choice because it's more versatile, and i don't have any lens sharper than my 70-200L f4 .

ed rader

The problem is your 70-200 f4

I have had a f1.4 prime in my mind for the last 2 months - but cant decide as I'm not sure if I will stick it on the camera that often.

In broad daylight, for a headshot, either would be fine, but I would probably rather use my 70-200 f/4 for the job. Both will give you great results though.

If you find out that you don't use your primes, there are two possibilities:
1) you've bought the wrong primes. Unlikely, I guess. Unless you need something faster than f/1.8 like the f/1.4 or f/1.2.
2) you don't like working with primes. Probably the foot zoom that bothers you.

So see it as a lesson and buy a zoom. Nothing wrong with that. The majority of photographers use a mixture of primes and zooms.

At f/5.6, you'd expect all L's to be super sharp and contrastful. Most non-L's with the exception of super zooms are too.

P.

Zooms are for people with 1 body and like to photograph more then change lenses.
Primes are for people with 2 or more bodies and like to photograph and not change lenses.
(OK maybe not scientific but seems to be the trend with 100% prime useres)

All depends how many cameras you have. I have a few primes and have had some others and I can not see a practical purpose for them when shooting at various different lenghts. Heck I got tired of changing my Zoom lenses back and forth wich is why I bought another 10D for wide angle pictures.

Oh I forgot the usual blah I hear about primes, because they're sharper... yeah ok.

KevC wrote in post #2082624
I'm having a hard time deciding which to use. I really love my 70-200/4L. In amazing light, I can shoot this at f/5.6 and be very happy with colour, contrast, sharpness.

I bought an 85/1.8. Before I loved primes, until I shot some L zooms. Then my primes were left at home. I bought the 85 to shoot indoor sports where I needed the speed.

Now in an upcoming shoot I need a telephoto headshot. In broad daylight, what do you guys prefer? An L zoom or an non-L prime? I don't need the speed of the prime. Does this point to the zoom automatically? Of course I prefer the flexibility of having that many focal lenghts at my disposal.

I guess the question is... at 85mm f/4 or f/5.6... the zoom or the prime? I'm guessing the prime would be sharper... but the zoom has better colour/contrast? Hm. I dunno.

It depends on your shooting philosophy, I guess. Some folks say primes make them more creative. Others like me believe the zoom gives them the freedom to frame and realize the vision (because I pre-frame shots in my mind and I demand the gear keep up not the other way around). Some folks like Coke, some folks like Pepsi. There is no right or wrong answer - only that some would have you think there is a wrong answer.

My zooms are the workhorses. If I did not need the ultrafast aperture for DOF control or low light work, I would probably bring the zoom. In all honesty, a good solid L zoom and prime will probably be indistinguishable from each other by your client or recipient of the photo. (I say them, because we can pixel peep it to death)

If you have a spare moment during the shoot I would bring both and try both in a controlled experiment. Use them both on the subject and shoot the way you want to shoot, it may make it easier to decide. You will find either there will be 1. A good reason in favor of one of the other 2. No good reason - then you can choose either anyway.

I have no 85 f/1.8, so I am currently pressing a 70-200 f/2.8 EX Sigma into service to do this job. No complaints thus far as portraiture goes as long as I stay a little below 200mm, but then again, 200mm can be a little bit excessive anyway The decrease in sharpness at 200 can actually be an asset though. Shooting portraits with the 60 macro's fearsome sharpness does not always draw positive comments especially from subjects concerned about their skin texture and potential blemishes

I use a 70-200L f2.8, sometimes with a 1.4, very ocassionally with a x2 to get that extra reach we all desire...

I mainly shoot soccer, but I feel I'm now at the point where a 300 or 400L f2.8 prime in conjunction with the 70-200 would allow me to have two bodies running, both at 2.8 and make best use of the available light, whilst getting the shutter speed and DOF i feel I need...

Ami right? Which would be better the 300 or 400?

I use whatever's on the body in broad daylight...or maybe mix it up and use an otherwise ignored lens...or just eeny meeny miney mo my way into my bag. I like to think all my glass is good and I can choose based on FL and aperture desired.

For sports it's always my 70-200. My TC is too slow to keep up AF 90% of the time so I just crop...but I'm saving for the 300 f/2.8...not gonna waste time on an f/4. I can already do f/4 with a better TC. I need speed.

bard6817 wrote in post #2083794
I use a 70-200L f2.8, sometimes with a 1.4, very ocassionally with a x2 to get that extra reach we all desire...

I mainly shoot soccer, but I feel I'm now at the point where a 300 or 400L f2.8 prime in conjunction with the 70-200 would allow me to have two bodies running, both at 2.8 and make best use of the available light, whilst getting the shutter speed and DOF i feel I need...

Ami right? Which would be better the 300 or 400?

300. It'll get you to midfield or slightly better if you're on a crop camera, and just short of midfield-ish on a full frame. 400mm would be too long for soccer...more appropriate for football (american) though.

I use the "two body" approach with a prime on one and a zoom on the other.

My favorite zooms are: 17-55MM EF-S IS or the 24-70MM EF L

My favorite primes are: Sigma 30MM F/1.4 and Canon 85MM f/1.8

One good reason for using primes (at least the shorter ones) is to have a lightweight rig. If, for example, an 85mm f/1.2L lens would do what I want for a lot of the work I do, it would be a lot lighter and easier to handle - not even considering that it's a couple stops faster - than my 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens.

I don't use any one focal length a lot more than others, but if I did I would consider primes.

I think you answered your own question. You have an excellent zoom and don't need the low-light capability, so go with the zoom. I will generally take a zoom over prime if it works with the effects, light, etc. That said, I shoot a lot of sports and am almost always carting primes for them.

Prime advantages: Faster aperture in a lighter package. Sharper/better overall image quality, Faster focus.

Zoom advantages: Zoom! More flexible and more cost effective. (one lens does the job of many) Though larger on a lens per lens basis, one Zoom takes up less room and weight than the handfull of primes they often replace.

Generalizations* The above statements are made based on the "all elese being equal" assumption. Obviously one can find zoom lenses that focus faster than some primes, etc.. but for the most part all else being equaly the above holds true.