# The great battle: primes vs zooms



## SJTstudios (Dec 17, 2012)

What do you guys think is king as canon begins to upgrade.

And what do you think canon will do with their lens lineup?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 17, 2012)

That's a somewhat impossible poll for me. I would vastly prefer shooting with the second kit; the first kit is far more practical.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 17, 2012)

You should have the option for both as many, myself included, don't consider it a "battle" and own much of your selected options. I reg carry from both because that is the best option for most situ.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 17, 2012)

Zooommmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 17, 2012)

I try to use the right tool for the job, and not just buy a lens because its a zoom or a prime.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 17, 2012)

Primes but I'm warming up to zooms.


----------



## DWM (Dec 17, 2012)

Should have listed the cost of each option. That might have a big impact on which one someone would actually pick.


----------



## SJTstudios (Dec 17, 2012)

I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness

But not in total.

Ex.
14mm+24mm+35mm vs 16-35 ii

24mm+35mm+ 50mm +85mm vs 24-70ii

85mm+100mm+135mm+200mm f2 v 70-200 2.8 ii

Would you rather carry the body and the one lens, or the body, one lens, and a bag for the other lenses.

I admit I should have been more specific here, and maybe do an open topic rather than a poll, but sometimes a poll just helps me get a better idea of what people think, opinions can sometimes be confusing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2012)

None of the above. What goes in my bag is what I need for the shots I want to take that day. Some days, that's the 600mm f/4L IS II + 40mm f/2.8. Other days it's the 16-35mm f/2.8L II + TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. Still other days it's just the MP-E 65mm. For the same reason, the 'bag' is different on different days. 

It's really about using the best tool for the job...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 17, 2012)

SJTstudios said:


> I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness


You seem to miss the point of using prime lenses. Its more depth of field, and low light needs that drive users to primes. Sharpness has less to do with it.
If I'm shooting in very low light, I have little choice. Same if I want very shallow depth of field, f/2.8 might not be enough.
Many primes are as sharp or sharper than zooms, not a big issue for me.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 17, 2012)

I agree with Mt Spokane to a point. Primes used in street photography are useful stopped down for a complete telling of the scenes story. Small, inconspicuous, great for pre-focusing. It's not always about bokeh.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> None of the above. What goes in my bag is what I need for the shots I want to take that day. Some days, that's the 600mm f/4L IS II + 40mm f/2.8. Other days it's the 16-35mm f/2.8L II + TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. Still other days it's just the MP-E 65mm. For the same reason, the 'bag' is different on different days.
> 
> It's really about using the best tool for the job...



Couldn't agree more !!! Then the question also begs... which bag/pelican case. I have almost as many bags/cases as I do anything else.


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 17, 2012)

I think it's more about convenience than quality, I think if it were just as easy to carry around 5 primes as a zoom then people would never use zooms. But I prefer the look that you can only get from primes, the images I get with them just seem to have more soul than most zooms.


----------



## Badmajick (Dec 17, 2012)

For me, versatility is huge. I do a lot of work in the back country so I carry a zoom lens (sigma 18-70) as the workhorse and a 50mm prime for the low light. I can't bring the whole kit on a 16 day expedition where my gear already weighs over 80 pounds not including the camera stuff. 

Plus, swapping lenses often in the back country just leads to extra complication when I need to be focusing on more important things like not falling.

not to mention the price of the two kits (since the poll asked for price comp also) are 5,497 and 14,893 respectively. The second is a little prohibitive as I'm just getting into things.


----------



## Standard (Dec 17, 2012)

Versatility is subjective as well. I use prime lenses and consider them just as versatile, with the added benefit of stealth and lighter weight over the zooms.


----------



## PavelR (Dec 17, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> SJTstudios said:
> 
> 
> > I'm saying regardless of cost, I'm asking would you prefer to carry around one set or the other. Is the weight worth the sharpness
> ...


Sharpness and overall IQ is the main reason to use primes for me. (even in "enough light" situations)
Zoom I use only in a situation I know I do not have enough time / space / clean place to exchange lenses.
Thus "...weight worth..." - yes it is! ;-)


----------



## scrup (Dec 17, 2012)

Zooms for me but it really depends on the environment. 

Capturing the moment is part of the equation and comes before IQ. If you have to change lense then you mite miss the opportunity. A good image is better than no image.


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Dec 17, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> It's not always about bokeh.



I find this quote blasphemous


----------



## cliffwang (Dec 17, 2012)

For short range, I prefer primes. Zoom for 100mm+. Sometimes I also want to use primes because it's fast and DoF.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 17, 2012)

PavelR said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > SJTstudios said:
> ...



My 50L is not sharper than my 24-70 f2.8 II @ 50mm f2.8 nor f1.2

Better bokeh is what we looking for in primes


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Dec 17, 2012)

What am I shooting, and why?

If it's an event and I have no clue what I might be shooting, I want one or more zooms.

If it's one specific shot and I know exactly what I want, I probably want just one prime.

If it were, say, a football game, I'd want one of each: the 400 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8.

Since this is a money-is-no-object exercise, I went with the list of primes and the unstated assumption that I'd have an assistant to carry them and a half-dozen bodies so they could be switched out at a moment's notice.

But your list also missed out on some of the most important primes, like the TS-E 24, the MP-E 65, and the Great Whites....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## pwp (Dec 17, 2012)

What battle? You use the body/lens combination that suits your needs, creative requirements and financial means, whether that be as a consummate established professional, startup-professional, expert enthusiast, keen amateur or pixel peeper. Chronic gear nuts are excluded! ;D They need it ALL!

Coming out of a news/media background, and continuing with clients that require a high percentage of location work, and moving around a lot on the locations, a light manageable bag is crucial to success. I carry a mix of zooms & primes, but I have no doubt that if circumstances required me to set up from scratch again, I'd have the 16-35 f/2.8II, 24-70 f/2.8II plus the legendary 70-200 f/2.8isII as my first three lens purchases. No question. There is very little you cannot do with these three lenses.

So zooms constitute my core kit, and primes flesh it out to cover narrower specific needs. So add in the 24 f/1.4II, 100 f/2.8L macro, 135 f/2L and the 300 f/2.8. Day to day, the primes get far less use than the zooms. Zooms rule...and in 2012 they're just so GOOD!

-PW


----------



## PavelR (Dec 18, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> PavelR said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


Than go and buy a better prime... I do not prefer the whole picture blurred against sharp isolated subject.
+ all my primes used for stills are sharper @ 2.8 than [email protected], F2.8...
PS: Your 50 is only acceptable in the center, but I usually do not prefer center composition...


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 18, 2012)

I went through the phase of collecting the key primes...over it now. Once I looked at what I was actually using, zooms usually came out on top. Versatility is key. Granted, I am still partial to a few primes and other primes I loath. Indoors, ambient light, primes are called for... Outdoors street photography, I would pick a zoom and not the 35L.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 18, 2012)

PavelR said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > PavelR said:
> ...



I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II? 

How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp


----------



## SJTstudios (Dec 18, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> I agree with Mt Spokane to a point. Primes used in street photography are useful stopped down for a complete telling of the scenes story. Small, inconspicuous, great for pre-focusing. It's not always about bokeh.


Don't worry, I get your point, I probably should have further evaluated on this topic, I'm just advertising one of those "would you rather situations.


----------



## PavelR (Dec 18, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?
> 
> How do you recomp....f1.2 lens at 1.2? not saying you can't with crop in pp


Yes, I did - with my hands and my eyes. 24-70 II is sharp @ F3.5. But, 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2 are far better @ F2.8 than 24-70 II @ F2.8.
I do not recompose with any lens, because the right moment of a shot is lost and sometimes correct focus is lost too.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 18, 2012)

PavelR said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm assuming you already compared(hand-on) your primes Vs 24-70 f2.8 II?
> ...



24-70 II can only reach up to 70mmm and you compared to 85, 135, and 200mm? 

What I'm seeing in my 24-70 II is extremely sharp at f2.8....I haven't shoot at f3.5 or smaller yet.

Pic below was taken inside a pre-school classroom. I cropped nearly 70%, no flash of course @ f2.8. You have any pic at f3.5 on your 24-70?


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Dec 18, 2012)

pwp said:


> What battle? You use the body/lens combination that suits your needs, creative requirements and financial means, whether that be as a consummate established professional, startup-professional, expert enthusiast, keen amateur or pixel peeper. Chronic gear nuts are excluded! ;D They need it ALL!
> 
> Coming out of a news/media background, and continuing with clients that require a high percentage of location work, and moving around a lot on the locations, a light manageable bag is crucial to success. I carry a mix of zooms & primes, but I have no doubt that if circumstances required me to set up from scratch again, I'd have the 16-35 f/2.8II, 24-70 f/2.8II plus the legendary 70-200 f/2.8isII as my first three lens purchases. No question. There is very little you cannot do with these three lenses.
> 
> ...


Hmm, I fit in somewhere around keen amateur doing my best to move closer to expert enthusiast. I also can't see a battle here. Personally I shoot with zooms mostly, I have one prime, 35L, but it doesn't get as much use as it deserves.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 18, 2012)

I carry a 24-105 and a 50 around more than anything else. Now that I have a 135 I might lug that and the pancake for a nice combo.


----------



## PavelR (Dec 18, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> PavelR said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


Yes, I'm comparing because OP asking to compare primes vs zooms and I choose primes 98% of the time.
I do not usually shoot architecture, thus I can use "feet zoom" and pick up 85,200 anytime against 24-70 + 70-200.
I tested new 24-70 taking several shots and difference between 2.8 and 3.5 was clearly seen on the camera display...
So, there is no FF AF prime wider than 85 matching the IQ 85+ (only TS24II w/o AF), thus I use 85+ 98% of the time...


----------



## sanj (Dec 18, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> That's a somewhat impossible poll for me. I would vastly prefer shooting with the second kit; the first kit is far more practical.



so true


----------



## Danielle (Dec 18, 2012)

I voted primes. I would prefer to carry that set over the zooms, however I don't see myself needing all of those mentioned.

In reality, I'm sure a lot if us carry a mix.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 18, 2012)

I'd love all the primes but I'll not carry everything. I'll think first on what to carry depending on the situation. Maybe a 3 lens combination.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Dec 18, 2012)

The 2nd might be best for my bag, but I just don't have the $ to buy all those primes.


----------



## PavelR (Dec 18, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> PavelR said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I'm comparing because OP asking to compare primes vs zooms and I choose primes 98% of the time.
> ...


I do not need to convince anybody to use any lens, I'm only saying what I found out and what I use the most...
You can try yourself and if you do not see the difference, you will be happy - carrying less weight and keep zoom versatility...
BTW: http://the-digital-picture.com/ database of the lenses is pretty good - I usually compare the IQ here before buying lens and than my test shots confirm almost all the time match the conclusion I did online. (DB is correct at least for Canon and Sigma, some Nikkor lenses I own are better than seen there...)


----------

