# Prime vs zoom



## RGF (Mar 26, 2013)

Do you zooms or prime lens. In my case I will use a zoom if I can but I need a specialized lens 14mm UWA, Macro, long glass.

I don't have any primes that overlap with zooms (16-35, 24-105, 70-200) but have been reading how great some of the primes are.


----------



## Click (Mar 26, 2013)

Both primes and zooms.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 26, 2013)

Mostly primes, own only one zoom.


----------



## TM (Mar 26, 2013)

Having the trinity for both zooms and primes is the way to go, if you can. ;D 
Zooms for versatility and convenience, and fast primes to get those magical shots.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 26, 2013)

I own a 25-105 f/4L IS... and I'll use that if I am uncertain of how close I will be to my subject and presuming there is good light.

I had a 50mm f/1.8 and I have a 50mm f/1.4 that I use when I know there will be low light situations and 50mm on my crop sensor (60D) equals about 80mm on a full frame... and while most people will say that is too long, it isn't a bad distance for me. I used to use my f/1.8 exclusively over my 18-55mm... I really liked the depth of field and the bokeh.

I have recently been using a 100mm f/2.8L Macro for most of my sport shootings (football, basketball, track). It's very sharp, I get great shutter rates in sunlight (1/6000 of a second), at f/2.8 it is sharp and I really prefer using it. Actually I had a 70-200mm f/4L USM and I much preferred the 100mm, then I had a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and again the 100mm was my lens of choice. 

I also have a Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 fisheye that I stop down to around 8 or higher, and I tripod mount it and I'm fond of the results. 

I'm mulling over getting a 300mm f/4L IS or maybe a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii. It's really a puzzle... I buy and sell gear and right now I'm cash rich... so I have more money than I do needs...


----------



## pierceography (Mar 26, 2013)

It really depends on what I'm shooting. If I can afford to, primes all the way. However, there are plenty of conditions where you simply have to have a zoom.

If I can take my time and prepare for don't have to rush to swap lenses, I'll stick with my 50, 85, 100, or 135. However, if I'm on foot (exploring a city), I'll usually stick with my 24-70mm.

So for me, it's really a combination of both! But if I had to pick, I prefer the picture quality of my primes.


----------



## elflord (Mar 26, 2013)

I'm not a pro, so I am never under pressure to "get the shot". I also have plenty of access to my primary subjects. So it's primes all the way for me (35L/50mm f/1.4/siggy 85/135L and on a panasonic gf2 the 20mm f/1.7 and the 45mm f/1.8) 

Having said that I owned the 15-85mm EF-S lens and it was quite nice for outdoor shots -- it would make a fine travel zoom. It was very good for what I used it for (outdoor walkaround-ish shots), it's just that I didn't take these shots very often. I liked it very much as a wide angle lens (where I am more likely to want more depth of field and hence aren't bothered that it's a slow lens), I didn't use the tele lengths on it as much.

The primes: 35L : my "wide lens". Siggy 85: my "indoor portrait lens". 135L : my outdoor tele. 50mm f/1.4 -- this one's a bit of an odd duck (it was my favourite lens for APS-C and I couldn't bear to part with it) but when I have to choose exactly one lens, this is the one.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 26, 2013)

I've been using primes 20:1 over zooms.
That is about to change I think. I just bought a 70-200mm f/2.8, ordered a 24-70mmL today, and have a 16-35mmL and 100-400mmL. I'll sell my little used 70-200mm f/4 IS, and probably my 24-105mmL
This leaves me with a few primes, 15mm f/e, 17mm f/3.5 Tokina, 35mmL, 100mmL, and 135mmL. I sold my 85mm 1.8 and two 50mm 1.4's and a 50mm 1.8 MK I last week. I also have some older consumer zooms that I will sell, but they do not amount to much. A 22-55, 28-200, and 50-200 that I've had laying around. I also have three TC's.

I'm trying to reduce the number of lenses that I use, but I'm prone to buying more. I am concerned about the ability of the zooms to function well in low light, of 2704 images at a recent shoot, 1550 were greater apertures than f/2.8, and many of the others were shot by a person who had a smaller aperture lens.
what I can get aw

I typically use a pretty fast shutter because there is movement, but I'll find how slow I can go very soon.


----------



## rpt (Mar 26, 2013)

I mostly shoot with zooms. I usually do not shoot in very bad light but that could be because of the zooms I have 

Most of the time either the 24-105 or the 100-400 is on my camera. Unless I am shooting macros... There was only one evening that I shot exclusively with the 40mm...


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 26, 2013)

I prefer zooms for wide angle, but a f gets longer you can't beat primes.

10-20 is just irreplaceable
17-55 is very nice.... I borrowed one and it will probably be my next lens purchase....
The 70-200's (any of them) are sharp, but the 100L is SHARP!

I like the 400f5.6 more than the 100-400 or the Sigma 120-400.... whenever Canon updates it, I'll add one to my kit.

and for drooling after but can't ever afford, 600F4.0. OMG THAT IS SOME FINE GLASS!!!!!


----------



## rpt (Mar 26, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I like the 400f5.6 more than the 100-400 or the Sigma 120-400.... whenever Canon updates it, I'll add one to my kit.



Don, thanks for the idea. That is what I will do too! Well, if it does not cost an arm and a thumb...


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 26, 2013)

Predominantly primes as I like travelling as small, light and unobtrusive as possible. But I do have a 70-200 and 17-40 that come out occassionally.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 26, 2013)

Mostly primes.

For that matter, the zoom I've been reaching for the most recently isn't even really conceptually a zoom...the 8-15 is really just two fisheye lenses in one, the one full-circle and the other 180° diagonal, with convenient markings for those who use it on APS where it's just a 180° fisheye.

I haven't touched the 16-35 in a while. The 24-105 I'll grab as a walkabout when I have no clue why I have the camera in my hands. It also makes for a good viewfinder to decide which prime to use. The 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) I'll use for telephoto landscapes, especially with the Moon in the frame...being able to recompose quickly as the Moon moves about the scene is nice.

But I probably use the TS-E 24 more than any other lens, and I'm not afraid to stick on the 1.4x on it, either. Basically, if I can think of an excuse to use the TS-E 24, I do.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Radiating (Mar 26, 2013)

TM said:


> Having the trinity for both zooms and primes is the way to go, if you can. ;D
> Zooms for versatility and convenience, and fast primes to get those magical shots.



Agree 100%

though I do

2.8 & 1.4 trinity


----------



## MathieuB (Mar 26, 2013)

For street photography, the convenience of my 28-70mm 3.5-4.5 is hard to beat, but I prefer the pictures that I get from my primes, the 40mm 2.8 and the 85mm 1.8 (especially for portraits). If you're on a restricted budget, primes are the way to go in my opinion, if you want to achieve those magical shots.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Mar 26, 2013)

I manage very well with a 35mm and an 85mm - especially for travelling. Must be a throwback to film
days when zooms weren't so very good.


----------



## Cosk (Mar 26, 2013)

I used to shoot zoom (and had a couple primes)... until one day I started looking at all the framed photos on my walls and realized that all but one or two were taken with the primes.

Zooms may have been 80% of my clicks... but all the keepers came out of the smaller set of prime shots. 


Now I shoot all prime... which caused an unintended consequence that led to a very tricky and expensive problem: I'm out of walls.


----------



## RGF (Mar 26, 2013)

dickgrafixstop said:


> I manage very well with a 35mm and an 85mm - especially for travelling. Must be a throwback to film
> days when zooms weren't so very good.



I remember the Nikon 43-86 zoom, real dog of a lens


----------



## ecka (Mar 27, 2013)

Zooms for work, primes for pleasure!


----------



## c.d.embrey (Mar 27, 2013)

Ninety-five % of the time I'm shooting with an 85mm f/1.8. The other five % with a 90mm f/2.8 TS-E. No zoomz needed.


----------



## Leejo (Mar 27, 2013)

Zooms mostly - especially where no primes exist for an EF-S  [Sigma 8-16mm]
or when simply as a walkabout (15-85 & 70-300)
but 24&35&50mm Primes when I need low light performance - seeing as the above are rather slow -
or I have the time ...
The Lensbaby and 500 T2-Mirror lens are just for fun.

Next lens(es) could be either a prime 100mmL Macro or zoom 70-200Lis2.8 or even possibly a 70-300L to replace the 70-300...


----------



## vlad (Mar 29, 2013)

If I know the ballpark focal length I need ahead of time - primes. If there is ambiguity - zooms. But not all or nothing, typically my bag will have at least one of each. 

And it's not always about getting that magical prime look or creamy bokeh or whatever - sometimes it's about size and weight.

Why haul around the 70-200 II if a 135L will do (and IS is not needed).
The 16-35 has a great range, but the 24 1.4 is much less obtrusive.

I will admit that with the 5D III the dominance of primes when it comes to low light has been compromised by the higher usable ISO range.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2013)

vlad said:


> I will admit that with the 5D III the dominance of primes when it comes to low light has been compromised by the higher usable ISO range.



+1

I'll still use my 85/135 lenses for subject isolation in portraits, but the 35L was my go-to lens for indoor ambient light shooting and nighttime walkaround, and I wonder how much I'll use it in those situations now that I have a 24-70/2.8 II.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> vlad said:
> 
> 
> > I will admit that with the 5D III the dominance of primes when it comes to low light has been compromised by the higher usable ISO range.
> ...



The obvious question is...how often do you shoot faster than f/2.8 not because that gives you the depth of field you desire for the shot but because it's the only way to get the shutter speed you want, and you really wish you could shoot at f/2.8 or slower to get more depth of field?

If the answer is, "not often," I predict you'll rarely reach for the primes. Of course, if the answer is, "all the time," then it's the 24-70 that'll gather dust....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## PhotographerJim (Mar 29, 2013)

I'm about equal using both. Although the shots taken with the 24-105L I have seems to lack the 'feel' of those shot with my primes.

I must be old fashioned, I still prefer Ilford Delta 100 & my 50 f/1.4 & 100 f/2 primes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > vlad said:
> ...



With the 35L, the answer is 'often' for indoor ambient and 'sometimes' for nighttime walkaround. Regardless, I'll hang onto the 35L for a while. It's not a fair time to evaluate indoor ambient usage with DST begun and days getting longer. I'll see what happens next winter...


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I recently shot a boys basketball game in response to a last minute request from a friend, who was the young boys' coach. I'd never been to the court before, so I brought a few lenses. Well, the gym was not much larger than the court, and I was shooting near the baseline near one of the corners. I had hoped to use the 135L but it was too long and I had to use the 24-70 instead. A large percentage of the shots were wide open at ISO 3200 for shutter speeds near 1/500. The zoom saved me that day because most of the pics were from 35-60mm from under the basket. The pics were good and I was impressed how well the 5D3 + 24-70 II's AF worked.

The next day, I shot a birthday party at a beginner's gymnastics gym in even dimmer conditions. The gym had a large bank of windows on one side, which made a lot of the pictures strongly side or back lit. I started with a 85mm prime close to wide open but it couldn't track the kids erratic movement, so out came the 24-70, which delivered so well for the basketball game. Most of the pics with the 24-70 were at ISO 5000 near 1/500. What surprised me was that the basketball pics were a lot better than those from the birthday party. I know it's not any one thing, but the higher ISO (and noticeably worse DR/increased noise), worse lighting, and smaller, more erratically moving kids, all had their parts for why the images were worse. The prime missed a lot, but it was better at taming the harsh side/back light due to the natural vignetting and dimmer/more defocused background due to the larger aperture (plus it allowed me to drop down to ISO 1000). In the end, I chose the zoom over the prime in both cases (IQ drops with higher ISOs but missing the shots because they're blurry is even worse), but I sometimes wish I had a fast-focusing 35 or 50 prime instead.

For more stationary subjects indoors and for use at night, I'll opt for the primes almost all the time. For shooting kids sports where I have access to the sideline (not focal length limited), zooms are great. Did I mention how impressed I was with the 24-70 II's focusing abilities??


----------



## bycostello (Mar 29, 2013)

both, depends what i am doing


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 29, 2013)

Definitely both for me too. Football my standard gear is a 400 f/2.8 on one camera and a 70-200 f/2.8 on another. Gotta have both. Soccer I can run all around the edges of the field so I use a 300 f/2.8 but I still use the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom on a second camera.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Mar 29, 2013)

bycostello said:


> both, depends what i am doing



+1


----------



## FTb-n (Apr 1, 2013)

"Standard" kit for me was a 60D with a 17-55 f2.8 and a 7D with a 70-200 f2.8L II. For a while, I used a 35 f2 for low light, but I had better success with the 17-55 even with slower shutter speeds (down to 1/30). Now I've added the 40 for those times when I want to travel light(er).

With a recent acquisition of a 5D3/24-105 f4, I'll be shuffling lenses between this body and the 7D more often, but still relying on zooms. But, I can see myself using the 5D3 with the 40 for short work in lower light.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 1, 2013)

Primes and zooms


----------



## kbmelb (Apr 1, 2013)

I shoot primes whenever I can. I love shooting f/2 and under. I shoot with two FF cameras so most of the time I have the 50L on one and either the 35L or 85L on the other. I also have the 135L for longer range event work and head shots.

During event work I sometimes slap the 24-70 on one cam and either the 135 or 85 on the other. I try hard to avoid the zoom though.

I also have the 16-35II for wide work and the 100-400 for tele stuff. This stuff is the lesser of my work so I don't feel compelled to own primes in the range. I do occasionally wrestle with the thought of the 14 2.8II though.


----------



## RGF (Apr 3, 2013)

kbmelb said:


> I shoot primes whenever I can. I love shooting f/2 and under. I shoot with two FF cameras so most of the time I have the 50L on one and either the 35L or 85L on the other. I also have the 135L for longer range event work and head shots.
> 
> During event work I sometimes slap the 24-70 on one cam and either the 135 or 85 on the other. I try hard to avoid the zoom though.
> 
> I also have the 16-35II for wide work and the 100-400 for tele stuff. This stuff is the lesser of my work so I don't feel compelled to own primes in the range. I do occasionally wrestle with the thought of the 14 2.8II though.



I have the 14 and think it is a great lens.


----------



## insanitybeard (Apr 3, 2013)

Mostly zooms, but I only own one prime at the moment. I aim to get another wide-normal fastish prime as a compact walkaround lens in the future.


----------



## Zv (Apr 7, 2013)

Depends on what I'm shooting. I prefer zooms for outdoors, walking around and events. If I have the time and I'm working indoors or doing something specific like a headshot or products then primes are the way to go. 

If I had the money though I'd have the 24-70L II and 70-200L II with a 5D III and be done. Two lenses that pretty much do it all would be awesome. 

I feel like I have too many lenses and too much overlap.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 7, 2013)

I'm mixed on this topic. Outdoor sports with sideline passes or golf courses, track meets, etc. where you aren't limited where you can go, you really can use the 400 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8 and 200 f/2 quite easily. Indoor sports it's not so trivial. Weddings it isn't trivial at all and is actually worse. So I think it is very smart to use both, each where they are maximally useful.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Apr 7, 2013)

I use both.
Coming from the 80s: the 35-70/4 (?) wasn't a lens with real good IQ, and there was a 3-stop gap, with the highest ISO of 3200 of the T-MAX 3200. So I used the FD 50/1,4.
Today I still use primes although I have zooms with now satisfying IQ.
Using f 1.4 to 2.0 sometimes gives the extra kick on 35mm, or the holographic look of the 135L wide open.


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 7, 2013)

I dunno. I think the super wide aperture effect is a little overused. Arty folks or lens guys love a super shallow DOF In more situations than do average viewers of photos. At least for people photos. My wife really dislikes shots where one eye is in focus but the other eye, and the ears and maybe even the mouth, and most of the hair are blurry. And this is 1.33 stops more true on a FF body. Plus your keeper rate plunges with a razor thin DOF.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 7, 2013)

I use Both, depending on what is needed.

For Underwater Photography it's primes, 14f/2.8 L II, 24f/1.4 L II, & used to be the 15f/2.8 but the newer 8-15f/4 @ 15mm kills the older 15 prime, almost the only case I see in My photography where a Zoom beats a prime.

For my Wildlife Photography, done mostly in Africa, Antarctica & The Arctic, almost exclusively Primes, 200f/2 L, 300f/2.8 V2, 400f/2.8 V2 & my latest addition, the 600f/4 V2, only Zoom I pick up, which is a cracker by the way, the 70-200f/2.8 L II.

Most used Lens overall for me is the 300f/2.8 V2, best Lens Canon make I believe.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 7, 2013)

TM said:


> Having the trinity for both zooms and primes is the way to go, if you can. ;D
> Zooms for versatility and convenience, and fast primes to get those magical shots.



Is there a fixed agreed-upon trinity for primes and zooms?


----------



## wayno (Apr 7, 2013)

Landscape and architectural work: zooms
Portraits/events. primes (usually)

Conveniently aligns with aperture needs for both, too


----------



## pwp (Apr 7, 2013)

Primes and zooms...they're not opponents. 
They're tools for jobs. You choose the right tool for the job. Your choices will be different to mine.
It's not a competition. 

I have and use both on a daily basis. In my work, zooms tend to be a first choice because of their flexibility, the primes come out for special needs and 300+mm work. The next photographer may choose primes first. Both are valid positions.

-PW


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 7, 2013)

Zooms and primes have a "peaceful coexistence" in my bag.

Usually I prefer primes because they have something I do not see from zooms:
- I think the images are more radiant, a little bit more contrasty especially in contralight situations (there is a difference between 15 or 6 lens groups!)
- with primes I take a lot more care in composition.
That's the reason why I prefer to have two identical bodies: one with the 2.8 40 and the other with the 5.6 400 or (if with zooms) 3.5-4.5 10-22 and 4.0 70-200.

But: Zooms are flexible. I tend to see 135mm (in terms of 35mm equiv) a "normal lens" so the 70-200 is a great walkaround lens with great quality (except contralight).
So I am not shure if it was the right decision to choose the 5.6 400 instead of the 100-400 zoom ...


----------



## Dick (Apr 7, 2013)

I use both, but will most likely be done with zooms soon enough. I tend to grab a zoom for convenience, but then I usually end up unhappy with the results. I think that I also want to use shallow DOF in quite a lot of shots and zooms don't offer the possibility. I guess my ideal setup would be a 35mm + a 85mm, but without another 5D3 it'd be quite annoying to work with that setup.


----------



## Zv (Apr 7, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> TM said:
> 
> 
> > Having the trinity for both zooms and primes is the way to go, if you can. ;D
> ...



Zoom trinity is 16-35 II, 24-70 II and 70-200II

Prime trinity is 35, 85, 135 L lenses.


----------



## Xaaav (Apr 7, 2013)

I started with zoom but prefer prime. It depends of the project I am shooting. (event, sports, arts, wildlife, landscape, portrait, packshot)


But at end of day, when it require quality, I use prime...

Best prime I love to use, 85 1,2L, 100 Macro 2,8 IS L, 300 mm 2,8 IS L II.

Zoom I am using quiet a lot, 17-40 4 L, 24-70 2,8L, and 70-200 2,8 IS L II but do ot have lot of fun with it

This is difference, I love to use prime, and it s ok with zoom.

Mounted on 5D3 and 1dx.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 7, 2013)

Zv said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > TM said:
> ...



Actually, it's a matter of preference.

The classical trinity is 35 / 50 / 85.

The classical alternate trinity is 24 / 50 / 100.

But any mix-and-match of wide, normal, and telephoto that works for you is your own personal holy trinity.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> The classical trinity is 35 / 50 / 85.



First time I've heard that. The 50/1.2L isn't old enough to be part of something called 'classic' and I hope you aren't suggesting the 50/1.0L was ever part of such a trilogy. No...the 'classic' trinity of primes is as stated above: 35L, 85L, and 135L.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > The classical trinity is 35 / 50 / 85.
> ...



I'm not referring to a trinity of Canon L primes, but a trinity of focal lengths for a set of primes -- especially from the days before zooms.

In classical portraiture, you'd have the camera on a fixed tripod 10' - 15' from the set. You'd use your 35 for the group shots, the 50 for full-body shots, and the 85 for head (plus torso) shots.

The same trio works very well for all sorts of other types of photography, especially where you have some control over where you are and where your subjects are.

A somewhat more flexible alternative that a journalist might prefer is 24 / 50 / 100. You can easily crop the 24 to the field of view of the 35 and still have plenty of quality for the newspaper, and the 100 can similarly crop to the field of view of a 200.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 7, 2013)

like many here, using a mix of prime and zooms. Right now its the trinity of zooms and a 50mm 1.4 and an 85mm 1.8. I have found that the 24-70 is becoming my least used lens. Trying to figure out now whether to take the plunge on the 24-70 v2, or go with at 24 or 35mm prime


----------



## pwp (Apr 7, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> like many here, using a mix of prime and zooms. I have found that the 24-70 is becoming my least used lens. Trying to figure out now whether to take the plunge on the 24-70 v2....


It's little wonder the 24-70 is one of your least used lenses. Most copies of the Series-1 lenses were shockers, almost certain to disappoint. I had five of them over a number of years. No keepers among them. Although I'm willing to believe that good copies do exist.

The new 24-70 f/2.8II is in another galaxy altogether. Myself and others are disposing of primes that fall in the 20-70 zoom range because the new lens renders them obsolete. It's just that good. It makes that high price tag completely valid.

Like you say...take the plunge! It will be the best equipment decision you'll make this year.

-PW


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2013)

Since getting the 24-70 II, I haven't used the 35L...


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 8, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...



I also vote for 35 85 and 135 for prime trinity  although sigmas take the first 2 spots in mine


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 8, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



Ok, nice to know. I am basically there already in focal lenght, except the 24-70 II, but untill that, the 24-105 will do


----------



## Zv (Apr 8, 2013)

A prime trinity is down to your own preferance really. The idea is to have a wide, standard and tele. I don't really see how in this digital age a 35, 50, 85 combo would be that useful. You might as well spend the money on a good standard zoom. 24, 50, 100 is a nice spread and would be awesome with a 100 macro at the long end. Portrait photogs generally pref the 35, 85, 135 which is what most people regard as the Canon holy trinity so I guess it's the most agreed upon.


----------

