# Prime VS Zooms.



## RLPhoto (Apr 4, 2012)

With all this new equipment being released by canon offering great ISO performance. Is an all prime kit seem outdated? I see most opt for pro-zooms than for primes, And some don't own any primes at all. Instead going for 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 combo. 

If you had to forsake zooms or primes, which would it be and why? I could do 80% of all my work with just the 50mm and I'd like to read the varied opinions on primes vs zooms.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 4, 2012)

if i had to choose i would take primes over zooms
(you should make it a poll)


----------



## FarQinell (Apr 4, 2012)

A Canon prime will always beat a zoom!

Seriously though you can often get two sharp primes for less than the corresponding zoom eg an 85/2 and an 200/2.8 instead of the cumbersome 70-200 f2.8 which handles like a brick!


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 4, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> A Canon prime will always beat a zoom!
> 
> Seriously though you can often get two sharp primes for less than the corresponding zoom eg an 85/2 and an 200/2.8 instead of the cumbersome 70-200 f2.8 which handles like a brick!



A brick? Just how are you using that thing....


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 5, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> A Canon prime will always beat a zoom!
> 
> Seriously though you can often get two sharp primes for less than the corresponding zoom eg an 85/2 and an 200/2.8 instead of the cumbersome 70-200 f2.8 which handles like a brick!



Depends on what you do. Tracking moving objects is easier with the 70-200 II f/2.8 than with the L primes in the same range.


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 5, 2012)

The _*definitive*_ answer: It depends!

If you need a shallow DOF or are shooting in low light, a fast prime is the way to go. If your subjects will be moving, a zoom may be the best solution.

Budget and style of shooting are also important factors. In the end, the "right tool for the job" depends on _you_.


----------



## AJ (Apr 5, 2012)

The beauty of an SLR system is that you don't have to choose. You don't have to forsake one or the other. Most days I shoot zooms, some days I shoot primes. Depends on my mood + subject matter.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 5, 2012)

If it was one or the other I'd choose primes. I only own one zoom, the 24-105. It's a fine lens for what it is, but mostly I'd chose a fast prime. I'm also one of those people who opted for the 135 and the 200 over the 70-200 zoom. I could make due with my 50 and 135 alone.


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Apr 5, 2012)

each lens is a tool.. and you need the right tool for the right job.. i think it also has a lot to do with personal taste and your shooting style. 

i use both primes and zooms.. quality wise i really cant tell much of a difference.. and if i'm out and about i usually pick a zoom lens just because its easier to bring a 24-105 which will handle 95% of what i need. that being said, i REALLY prefer prime lenses and i think i take better shots with prime lenses.. i dont think it has anything to do with the quality of the lens.. or the pictures being sharper.. it just takes out a variable.. i really have ot focus on composition.. i have to really focus on where i'm standing.. (my feet are the zoom) i take shots more thought out and carefully.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 5, 2012)

A while back I was trying to find information about a vintage lens I picked up. One reference I found was from a 1963 Popular Mechanics in an article talking about the future of lenses, that before not too much longer we would all use a single zoom lens that will replace all of our primes forever.. oh and it would be f0.7...

So yeah, the 'why use prime kits when zooms exist?' is an old debate...


----------



## GavinFarringtonPhoto (Apr 5, 2012)

I'm sure you've already considered the quality and low-light capabilities of primes, but since that hasn't convinced you, I also love them because they force me to think harder about what I'm doing. Some of my most creative shots have been _forced_ out of me because I couldn't solve the problem by simply _zooming in_. Enjoy shopping!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 5, 2012)

darrellrhodesmiller said:


> each lens is a tool.. and you need the right tool for the right job.. i think it also has a lot to do with personal taste and your shooting style.
> 
> i use both primes and zooms.. quality wise i really cant tell much of a difference.. and if i'm out and about i usually pick a zoom lens just because its easier to bring a 24-105 which will handle 95% of what i need. that being said, i REALLY prefer prime lenses and i think i take better shots with prime lenses.. i dont think it has anything to do with the quality of the lens.. or the pictures being sharper.. it just takes out a variable.. i really have ot focus on composition.. i have to really focus on where i'm standing.. (my feet are the zoom) i take shots more thought out and carefully.



That is very true - except some primes are way better than some zooms. For example yesterday I took some photos with a 24-105 and then took the same with a 400 f/2.8. The ones with the 400 f/2.8 were a noticable improvement both in terms of contrast and IQ.

Quite frankly I was stunned at the quality from the 400 - the client is going to turn the shot into an advertising board - A1 size. This was using the 1Ds3 at iso 100 - even when pixel peeping I couldn't see any noise (though it was lit by 3 flash bounced off the ceiling)

I guess there is no definitive answer to this question - Primes are so much lighter, zooms are so much more flexible - but I cant imagine a 300-800 Sigma as a walkabout


----------



## SandyP (Apr 5, 2012)

weddings, fashion, beauty, portraits, lifestyle, documentary... 



14L, 35L, 50L, 45TS-E, 85L, 135L



*PURE SEX.  *


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I cant imagine a 300-800 Sigma as a walkabout



don't lie if canon made it you would be rocking it for sure


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 5, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I cant imagine a 300-800 Sigma as a walkabout
> ...



It is hard enough handholding the 600 - never mind that heavyweight 

Must be getting old


----------



## tomscott (Apr 5, 2012)

SandyP said:


> weddings, fashion, beauty, portraits, lifestyle, documentary...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



YES! Awesome combination. 

But TBH I think there is room for both all the time! I love using both, sometimes when im feeling lazy I will just stick a zoom on, sometimes I feel more creative so instantly go towards primes. I think its more of my mood and also the subject. But I like using both! I cant believe the views toward the 70-200mm I think it is my fav lens! Think its quick, very useable, great results and not that cumbersome, im guessing my opinion is quite universal which is why they are so popular.


----------



## koolman (Apr 5, 2012)

For the fast pace pro - who needs to grab the shot - the versatile zoom is the only way.

For the patient amateur/hobbiest/or pro slower paced work - the primes are smaller, lighter, cheaper, and often better IQ.

Note: This is not always true - as some of the better L zooms - especially mark 2 versions designed for digital, will outperform legacy primes from days of old.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> Seriously though you can often get two sharp primes for less than the corresponding zoom eg an 85/2 and an 200/2.8 instead of the cumbersome 70-200 f2.8 which handles like a brick!



Except that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is actually sharper than botht he 85mm f/1.2L II and the 200mm f/2.8L II, and it has IS. I use the 85L when I need thinner DoF than I can get with f/2.8, but else the zoom is the way to go for that matchup.

I agree that they are both tools, and I like having a selection of both zooms and primes.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 5, 2012)

I started out like most, buying a 24-70. Then I picked up a 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. Month later found a 35L/50L for a good deal, so I picked those up. Then I got the 16-35L II, 100L Macro, and 135L. Then I traded my 35L and 85 1.8 for a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Sold the 70-200, got another 35L and the 85LII. Sold the 24-70 and now my only remaining zoom is the 16-35mm, which I'm now looking to replace. 

I still wish I had a 70-200 and I'll probably get the new 24-70 when it comes out. The convenience of zooms is just too much to pass up at times and there are plenty of moments that it would be nice to not have to swap out lenses. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS performs incredibly well and the mark II even better, if all zooms performed like those I might be able to live without primes. But my 50L/85L/135L produce images that would be tough to get out of zooms, and it would be tough for me to get rid of them. 

Then again I do shoot video 90% of the time so primes definitely have an advantage in that realm, so for me:
Primes > Zooms


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Except that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is actually sharper than botht he 85mm f/1.2L II and the 200mm f/2.8L II, and it has IS. I use the 85L when I need thinner DoF than I can get with f/2.8, but else the zoom is the way to go for that matchup.



Is the 70-200 that much sharper than your 85? Seriously? Even wide open? My 85 is insanely sharp, I don't see how a zoom could be significantly sharper....
I saw you left the 135 out, I guess that edges out the 70-200 in sharpness? And is the 200 2.8 really that bad? I figured it would be pretty damn sharp.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Is the 70-200 that much sharper than your 85? Seriously? Even wide open? My 85 is insanely sharp, I don't see how a zoom could be significantly sharper....
> I saw you left the 135 out, I guess that edges out the 70-200 in sharpness? And is the 200 2.8 really that bad? I figured it would be pretty damn sharp.



In the center, they're similar - but away from the center, the 70-200 II wins, and the same is true for the 135L and 200/2.8L. The 70-200 II is simply an exceptionally good zoom lens, quite possibly the best zoom lens available. It's certainly possible that an updated 135L would be even better, with a tweaked design and the newset coatings. But really, the reason I use my 85L and 135L is for the faster aperture, not better IQ.


----------



## bp (Apr 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> some primes are way better than some zooms. For example yesterday I took some photos with a 24-105 and then took the same with a 400 f/2.8. The ones with the 400 f/2.8 were a noticable improvement both in terms of contrast and IQ.



Uh... OK, wait - you're comparing an $1100 f/4 zoom to an $11,000 f/2.8 prime? ... $10K difference in price and 295mm difference in reach? Interesting.

I do know what you mean though. The other day, I took a picture with my 5yo son's LeapFrog 1MP camera, and then took the same pic with my 5D3 and 85 1.2 II, and I was stunned at the difference.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2012)

bp said:


> I do know what you mean though. The other day, I took a picture with my 5yo son's LeapFrog 1MP camera, and then took the same pic with my 5D3 and 85 1.2 II, and I was stunned at the difference.



Just goes to show...you should have used an iPhone, and then they'd be harder to tell apart.


----------



## bp (Apr 5, 2012)

Yeah, you're probably right.

Back to the original topic though - honestly, before I picked up the 70-200 MK2, I woulda just checked the "Primes" button in the poll without a second thought. Longtime prime freak - you just couldn't get the same level of IQ (+contrast, color, everything) with ANY zoom. I owned the 70-200 f4 IS (which, despite the limitation of f4 is VERY sharp), and I'd rented the 70-200 2.8 IS mk1 a couple times, trying to convince myself that I needed it, but frankly, the MK1 was always soft. I was utterly in love with my 100L and the 85L II 

Then the 70-200 MK2 came out, I rented it, and was completely blown away. It was as sharp as my 100L in side by side tests, and the 100L is a VERY sharp lens. 

At this point, I only use the 100L for macro (rarely), and probably rely the most on my 70-200 II. It's truly an amazing piece of glass. For wide stuff though, primes all the way. 35L is great, and the 24L II is my sweet sugar momma.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 5, 2012)

Having made two huge zoom purchases last year I'd sayrimes. If I had to do it over again I'd get 3 primes: 35mmL, 85mmL and 135mmL. 

BUT, I can't complain about the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. I think it's probably the greatest thing on Earth. I actually don't think it's too heavy. I love taking it around.


----------



## girod199 (Apr 5, 2012)

It is up to each individual and what they shoot. My vote could have gone either way. I recently traded my 70-200mm 2.8 non IS for a 135L. I found the 70-200mm to be sharper than the 135L at f/2.8 but at f/4 they were about the same. The 70-200mm was too big to take everywhere and it got heavy carrying it all day. The 135L is much smaller and lighter. That's the main reason I traded for a prime. Versatility was not worth the weight for me. The ability to open up to very large apertures is also another reason I voted primes over zooms. Especially the 50mm primes. At 1.2-1.8, there is no zoom that can compare and 2 of the 50mm's are very affordable. Some zooms are just as sharp or even sharper than primes, like the 70-200mm 2.8 lenses, but most primes are small, light, and are a couple stops faster than 2.8.


----------



## RichATL (Apr 5, 2012)

I just recently got my first Zoom, (that wasn't a kit lens).

I've been shooting rebels for years, and putting the cash into glass...primes specifically.
20mm 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.2, 100, 2.8

I recently bought the old 28-70mm 2.8, to replace my EF-s kit zoom that came with my rebel.

It's an amazing lens, and covers my "walk around" needs. But, I'm so used to stopping and switching lenses, that I'll probably continue to use my primes, particularly in the studio, the most. But having the speed and versatility available in my bag is nice though.


----------



## lol (Apr 5, 2012)

I've got a mixed bag (see sig) but as the overwhelming number of shots are taken with zooms, they'd get my vote.

The main reason I have primes is for those rare occasions where I need the bigger aperture for a reduced depth of field in a given field of view. Normally I'm fighting the other direction, not having enough depth of field.

Over the years zooms are getting better. I doubt they will ever catch up with primes in aperture terms, but they're certainly no slouches in image quality. I just got the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS this week. While I haven't done much field testing on it yet, my impressions so far it's at least equal to the Canon 300mm f/2.8 (non-IS) in sharpness, and easily superior in vignetting characteristic.

The only lens(es) that would be hard to replace with zooms would be macro lenses. I like the ability to have easily variable focus distance which would be lost if I had to use a zoom with either extenders or close up filters. I guess to a lesser degree you might add other exotic lenses like tilt-shift too, but in that case I think there is more potential of a TS zoom than a 1:1 macro zoom.


----------



## JR (Apr 5, 2012)

I generally prefer prime over zoom. The only exception to this is with the 70-200 II IS but there again i end up using my 135L more often then this zoom. I hope the new 24-70 II is good and may make me switch to use zoom again for their flexibility...


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 5, 2012)

It USED to be common knowledge that primes were sharper than zooms but zooms offered the flexibility that zooms didn't. Zooms are speedily catching up to primes in the primes and gotten to the point where quite frankly If I can get away with fewer lenses at a pro shoot, I will without thinking twice. There are times when I need the F Stop of a prime given a certain situation, and that's cool... Also with the better ISO capabilities of these new cameras, it opens doors also for zooms and primes alike... As it has been mentioned before, it's all about using the right tool for the task at hand.


----------



## sawsedge (Apr 5, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> The _*definitive*_ answer: It depends!
> 
> If you need a shallow DOF or are shooting in low light, a fast prime is the way to go. If your subjects will be moving, a zoom may be the best solution.
> 
> Budget and style of shooting are also important factors. In the end, the "right tool for the job" depends on _you_.



+1

I could not vote, I use both. It is always a matter of the best tool for the job. I have an equal number of each.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2012)

sawsedge said:


> I could not vote, I use both.



Pity this isn't like a _real_ election, where you can vote more than once...


----------



## FarQinell (Apr 5, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> FarQinell said:
> 
> 
> > A Canon prime will always beat a zoom!
> ...



Sorry but have to disagree.
The 70-200 f2.8 is heavy - front heavy.
By comparison the other two are lightweight and well balanced.
If anybody wants a 70-200 then go for the f4 which is very sharp wide open unlike the f2.8 - very light and light on the pocket as well!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 5, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> Sorry but have to disagree.
> The 70-200 f2.8 is heavy - front heavy.



The 70-200 f/2.8 II + 1D4 are well balanced


----------



## FarQinell (Apr 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> FarQinell said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but have to disagree.
> ...



That's a heavy combination to carry around?
Better balance with a heavier body - I agree.
Poor balance with APS-C body.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 5, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > FarQinell said:
> ...



This is my default setup and hold them all day - dont even use a strap as the hand holds spread the weight well


----------



## JR (Apr 6, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> FarQinell said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Still, I would not call that walking around material for me for sure! You must be a strong man  Brian...

Seriously, I have always found the 70-200 2.8 on the heavy side but I must admit that I am getting use to it now and the wait is bothering me less and less. I would hold it for the whole day, but dont mind using it with a flash for a while...


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 6, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > FarQinell said:
> ...



So you're saying that the 85 and 200 primes can track moving objects as well as the 70-200? I don't recall commenting on weight at all.


----------



## dunkers (Apr 6, 2012)

If I had a preference, I would use primes. I just love moving about to take my shot rather than standing still and twisting my wrist. 


It really depends on what I'm shooting. My 70-200 f2.8 IS II is for sports. My 100L is for headshots, portraits, etc.


----------



## FunPhotons (Apr 6, 2012)

I'd prefer primes but for the following reasons ...


Canon puts most of their R&D into zooms
Primes require more lens changes and hassle

I've been using zooms long enough now (converted over seven years ago) that I'm pretty much used to them and OK. Bigger, heavier, but they do have more flexibility. 

Given that, I do have a fantasy of having a all Zeiss prime kit.


----------



## zim (Apr 6, 2012)

Back when I started photography it was a no-brainer, primes were clearly sharper with better IQ. I had a set of primes and loved using them. Now I’m on the cusp of building a new collection and I have to admit I’m finding the choice difficult. My heart is telling me to go back to what you know and are comfortable with, SandyP, your list looks like pure heaven to me. My head is telling me to get a couple of zooms that cover the range plus probably one wide prime at the bottom end. 
Sounds like some are married to their 135 (maybe mistress is a better analogy lol) Is the 70-200 f2.8 really that good that it matches it! I wish Canon would give the option for a black casing though.
If I was a pro I’d have both but it’s just not a realistic budget, damn this being poor malarkey.

One question, do prime users end up with noticeably dirtier sensors that zoom users?


----------



## elflord (Apr 6, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> With all this new equipment being released by canon offering great ISO performance. Is an all prime kit seem outdated? I see most opt for pro-zooms than for primes, And some don't own any primes at all. Instead going for 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 combo.
> 
> If you had to forsake zooms or primes, which would it be and why? I could do 80% of all my work with just the 50mm and I'd like to read the varied opinions on primes vs zooms.



I started with the 15-85mm and the 50mm f/1.4 on APS-C. The zoom did very little for me -- max aperture is f/5.6 at the long end, that's a lot of dof on APS-C. In contrast, I loved the 50. So now I have: 

35L, Sigma 85mm, 135L, 50mm f/1.4 on 5DII.


----------



## pwp (Apr 6, 2012)

Good quality L zooms have been gods gift to busy photographers working in dynamic environments where a lens change may mean lost shots, a barely perceptible improvement or a dirty sensor. I wouldn't mind betting that by far the greater percentage of reproduced images both commercial & editorial are shot with zooms by very satisfied photographers for very satisfied clients.

Other than when I need 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/2.8 I'll be using zooms. About the only time I'll reach for a short prime is when I am after a specific look that f/1.4 or f/1.8 may deliver, or when I'm battling against the light and am reluctant to go higher on the iso, usually because of personal & client expectations for IQ. 

There are good, valid reasons for shooting with zooms or primes, but I think the zoom/prime debate has skewed way out of balance towards L primes being perceived as some sort of holy grail. But unless you are making good money from your photography, there is scant justification for spending up big on expensive, comparatively limited primes. Few viewers are going to swoon over the quality of the bokeh, what turns people on are powerful, gutsy images that COMMUNICATE. As my first picture editor kept reminding us, content is king.

Paul Wright


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 6, 2012)

My first three lenses I had were the kit 18-55, a 50mm f/1.8, and a 55-250mm (I'm not considering the POS 75-300 I had for a year). And I used the prime 80% of the time, and the 55-250 20% of the time. 

I now have a 24-105mm f/4 L and a 50mm f/1.4 and I use both relatively equally. I love both equally, so I'm not quite sure. I think I like to have the flexibility of a zoom when I'm hand holding, but if I am tripod mounting, I'm more than happy enough to use the prime (because I can take my time setting up the composition of the shot). 

So it is a hard question... but I do think I prefer the prime over the zoom... but it is by a small margin.


----------



## elflord (Apr 6, 2012)

pwp said:


> Good quality L zooms have been gods gift to busy photographers working in dynamic environments where a lens change may mean lost shots, a barely perceptible improvement or a dirty sensor. I wouldn't mind betting that by far the greater percentage of reproduced images both commercial & editorial are shot with zooms by very satisfied photographers for very satisfied clients.



If you're prepared to change lenses when necessary, and you don't have to get every shot -- why not just use primes ? I understand if a pro comes to a wedding and only delivers one shot to their client, that would be a failure, regardless of how good the shot is. 

With a hobby shooter however, they are free to deliver as many or few images as they like, and usually have the access to their subjects that eliminates the need to work quickly. I'll add that I generally deliver much fewer images than the number most pro photographers would be required to deliver. 



> There are good, valid reasons for shooting with zooms or primes, but I think the zoom/prime debate has skewed way out of balance towards L primes being perceived as some sort of holy grail. But unless you are making good money from your photography, there is scant justification for spending up big on expensive, comparatively limited primes. Few viewers are going to swoon over the quality of the bokeh, what turns people on are powerful, gutsy images that COMMUNICATE. As my first picture editor kept reminding us, content is king.



I find primes are a good tool for getting powerful images. I don't really feel the need to "justify" this choice to anyone, it's just my preference.


----------



## jordanbstead (Apr 6, 2012)

It's far less about the technical result of primes vs. zooms and more about the way my work "looks" after shooting with a 35/135 combo for years. Every bit of the frame is exactly where it should be; there's no shooting-to-crop or cranking it to 16mm to get in the whole scene. 

Over the years, the way I approach photographs has improved drastically since relying on a solely prime-based kit. I just know that 35 so well that by the time I bring it up to my eye, the picture has already been made in my mind and I've "seen" it. By then, it's only the shutter that's left to trip.

There's a whole lot to be said about knowing and understanding the limits and power of your kit. Everyone goes through a period of intense gear swapping - hunting to find the "right" focal lengths that suit their shooting style - but it settles down at one point when something just plain works for you. 

My belief is if you force yourself to shoot with a "normal" prime or primes (a 35 or 50) for six months, you'll see a massive improvement in your composition, your use of depth of field and a move toward improving your photographic skill rather than a reliance on visual gimmicks.


----------



## Thorne (Apr 6, 2012)

I got a 50/1.4 with my 10D in 2004, and the 24/2.8 a week later (both for model photography, my emphasis then). Then I got my 100 Macro shortly after my 400D in 2008, when I'd moved on to more scenic and nature photography. This year as I'm getting into architecture, I finally acquired my years-long dream of a 24mm TSE II L, and then a 7D to focus it more accurately, and then my first zoom, a 24-105 IS L, for travel (with the 70-200/4 IS L and a 5DIII next in the queue). So lately on "casual" jaunts, I've been carrying just the 7D and both Ls. 

Point being, I'm digging the versatility of the zoom (and especially the IS), but it seems I'll always be a prime shooter - the TSE is on my camera 90% of the time. And when I had to do some event photography recently (not normally my thing), I found swapping between the 7D and Rebel with the 50 and 100 mounted on them handier for dealing with the low light than I likely would have found the zoom. But I'm not saying one type is better than the other, just my own inclinations and practical needs. (Besides which, shifting with the TSE is just a whole new joy of photography.)


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 6, 2012)

I am going to do a pano with the 400 f/2.8 tomorrow


----------



## Danielle (Apr 7, 2012)

Im very biased towards primes. I think they create better shots in some situations, for one has to frame the hard way as opposed to crop in with a damn zoom which I see as a hideously bad habit if you program your brain to do it.

Plus of course, primes are faster by a LOT. And I do also love shallower depths of field, and or at least the ability to choose to use a shallow depth of field if the situation calls for one.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 7, 2012)

I am biased for primes too.
But as tools are just a helper to get what you want, I try to take the best of both worlds.

Basically I love shooting with two equal bodies which left me choose two 40Ds instead
of one 50D: Fast change of focal lengths and focal length ranges.

My tool combinations vs. application (for APS-C):

ApplicationLensesWalk around (macro, closeup and landscape)EF-S 60mm or EF 100mm MacroLow lightEF 24mm(2.8) AND EF 100mm(2.0)Ultra flexibilityEF-S 10-22mm AND EF 70-200(4.0) PLUS EF-S 60mmLong reach (industrial landscapes)EF 400mm(5.6) + 2xTC AND EF-S 60mm or EF 100mm Macro as backup for other situationsTowns, ArchitectureEF-S 10-22mm AND EF-S 60mm or EF 100mm Macro

I use both but I like primes more for having
- macro functionality
- less lens elements => usually higher flare resistance
- their educational function by letting me think about framing
(but ... usually I set a zoom to the focal length I need and start framing afterwards!)
- compactness (the EF 100mm(2.0) is tiny compared to the zooms!)


----------



## keithinmelbourne (Apr 7, 2012)

zim said:


> Back when I started photography it was a no-brainer, primes were clearly sharper with better IQ. I had a set of primes and loved using them. Now I’m on the cusp of building a new collection and I have to admit I’m finding the choice difficult. My heart is telling me to go back to what you know and are comfortable with, SandyP, your list looks like pure heaven to me. My head is telling me to get a couple of zooms that cover the range plus probably one wide prime at the bottom end.
> Sounds like some are married to their 135 (maybe mistress is a better analogy lol) Is the 70-200 f2.8 really that good that it matches it! I wish Canon would give the option for a black casing though.
> If I was a pro I’d have both but it’s just not a realistic budget, damn this being poor malarkey.
> 
> One question, do prime users end up with noticeably dirtier sensors that zoom users?



I use primes almost exclusively now, and I won't lie by saying it's an easy option. Frequent lens changes can be a nuisance at times, especially when you're on the move. Similarly, your sensor does get a bit dirtier. I clean my sensor more now than when I used the 24-105 (which I left on most of the time). These days, I try to forecast which lens will be the one I'll use during a session and try to stick with that. Usually it's the 50L, but more and more I'm using the 135L outdoors. Indoors, at parties and events, I stick with the 35 and 24Ls. The results from all these lenses is worth a bit of extra inconvenience or sensor cleaning.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 25, 2012)

Another valid point for me is that a prime kit is lighter than a zoom kit. 

A 70-200 2.8L IS II and a 24-70 2.8L is about 90 ounces. 

A 24mmL II, 50mmL and a 135L is around 65 ounces. Give or take a few steps forward or backward to get the same results. 

Just another thought.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 25, 2012)

Not all primes are better than zooms. For instance, the 24-70L zoom is actually slightly sharper than the, yes, the member of the holy trinity, 35L prime, when stopped down. I've seen it myself and Bryan Carnathan noticed it as well. It depends on how high quality the zoom lens is. No sane person would say the 85 f/1.8 is sharper than the 70-200L II IS zoom lens at 85mm, at f/8. There are a lot of factors. Personally, for sports, I NEED the flexibility of the zooms. A missed shot is worse than a slightly less saturated shot, for example.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 25, 2012)

FarQinell said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > FarQinell said:
> ...



I find the 70-200 2.8II pretty sharp wide open. I'm sure they are both fairly close @f4.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 13, 2012)

The final Prime I need to obtain is the magical 200mm F/2.


----------



## charlesa (Jul 13, 2012)

Common misconception nowadays that primes are sharper than zooms, but they give versatility in composition and are sharp.... ask a photojournalist if he works with a prime or prefers that god 70-200 f/2.8...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 13, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The final Prime I need to obtain is the magical 200mm F/2.



Get in line at B&H. July 31 estimated availability if you are hardy enough to spend the money


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 13, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Another valid point for me is that a prime kit is lighter than a zoom kit.
> 
> A 70-200 2.8L IS II and a 24-70 2.8L is about 90 ounces.
> 
> ...



.... and the 200 is twice the weight of the 70-200 as is the 400 twice the weight of the 100-400


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I am going to do a pano with the 400 f/2.8 tomorrow



it would be interesting to try this with the gigapan, the epic pro i have says its rated up to 10KG so should be fine with a 1D body hanging off a 400


----------



## felipey (Jul 16, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Not all primes are better than zooms. For instance, the 24-70L zoom is actually slightly sharper than the, yes, the member of the holy trinity, 35L prime, when stopped down. I've seen it myself and Bryan Carnathan noticed it as well. It depends on how high quality the zoom lens is.



I beg to differ:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Even at f/2.0, the 35L is sharper than the zoom at the center. Plus, the distinct look it gives subjects at f/1.4-2.8 is something the zoom can't even come close to in my opinion.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 16, 2012)

elflord said:


> With a hobby shooter however, they are free to deliver as many or few images as they like, and usually have the access to their subjects that eliminates the need to work quickly. I'll add that I generally deliver much fewer images than the number most pro photographers would be required to deliver.



It all depends on the situation you are shooting. I'm no pro but shooting something like a concert or dance recital, you have no time to change lenses, it's just bang-bang or you've missed the shot. A good zoom does have it's purpose.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 17, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > With a hobby shooter however, they are free to deliver as many or few images as they like, and usually have the access to their subjects that eliminates the need to work quickly. I'll add that I generally deliver much fewer images than the number most pro photographers would be required to deliver.
> ...



There is definitely room for both. 

I usually have 2 bodies, one with zoom, one with prime.

An example might be the 70-200 f/2.8II and the 135/f/2 or 200 f/2


----------

