Prime or zoom lenses -- does it even matter these days? (Page 2): I have one prime lens 100mm rest and zoom. Choose lens for what I am photographing. Using Canon R5 Raw post editing it...

brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL

I have one prime lens 100mm rest and zoom. Choose lens for what I am photographing. Using Canon R5 Raw post editing it does not matter to the eye. Chart and graph people can prove prim lens are better.

JZA B1

EJMcD wrote:

Never underestimate the quality and versatility of today's zooms.

This is my thought too. Modern zoom lenses provide quality that's definitely good enough for any scenario I could think of with photography.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

For my landscape work, I aim for the highest achievable quality and use only fast and heavy primes. Clearly not all will agree. For my nighttime astro & northern lights images they are essential. My approach is not for those interested in "good enough".

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

JZA B1 wrote:

I understand that prime lenses usually offer higher image quality. But given the fact that people use smart phones to take pics these days and quality seems to be good enough, does it even matter that primes offer slight advantage while having major disadvantage of fixed focal length?

Do you still use primes at all? For what purpose?

Primes are still sharper for their focal length than a zoom. The difference in sharpness is not nearly as much as it was in the film days. Of course, one has to "zoom" with their feet with a prime to get closer to the subject. And if one is already at the edge of the cliff with a prime, the photographer standing next to them with more zoom gets the shot. I still will use my long prime. But when I win the lottery and have an extra $8K, I will get my sharp, fast, long zoom.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

JZA B1 wrote:

I understand that prime lenses usually offer higher image quality. But given the fact that people use smart phones to take pics these days and quality seems to be good enough, does it even matter that primes offer slight advantage while having major disadvantage of fixed focal length?

Do you still use primes at all? For what purpose?

I use both. Depends on the circumstances. Each is the best at what it does.

bwa

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

wdross wrote:

Primes are still sharper for their focal length than a zoom. The difference in sharpness is not nearly as much as it was in the film days. Of course, one has to "zoom" with their feet with a prime to get closer to the subject. And if one is already at the edge of the cliff with a prime, the photographer standing next to them with more zoom gets the shot. I still will use my long prime. But when I win the lottery and have an extra $8K, I will get my sharp, fast, long zoom.

I wonder how many and often people are standing on the edge of a cliff trying to take a picture.

Dennis833 Loc: Australia

I prefer primes because they feel better on a mirrorless camera body.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

R.G. wrote:

One of the reasons why it's a good idea to work a ... (show quote)

Yes it’s an advantage but can also be a crutch and actually limit the photographer if they just rely on a zoom to “work the scene”. Even if I have a zoom I’m often moving around and zooming with my feet.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Orphoto wrote:

For my landscape work, I aim for the highest achievable quality and use only fast and heavy primes. Clearly not all will agree. For my nighttime astro & northern lights images they are essential. My approach is not for those interested in "good enough".

Your choice.

zarathu Loc: Bar Harbor, MDI, Maine

Few people print anymore. I print to 13 x 19 on metal paper. My zoom lenses do a job as good as my one prime lens.

BACK IN THE 70’S AND 80’S, we would have killed for prime lenses that are as good as current zoom lenses.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I have a pile of lenses. I think there are about 10. 2 of them are primes. The zooms get probably over 95% of the use. The only prime I use regularly is the 105 Micro, which gets used for closeup shots. I bought an 85 a while back due to GAS but it gets very little use.

I can tell the IQ difference between some overlapping lenses. My 28-300 is not bad and produces perfectly acceptable casual images for family and vacation use. It gets used because it's convenient to have the wide range of focal lengths. A one-lens solution for casual shots. When IQ is important I use my 12-24-70-200-500. That needs the camera bag to carry all the stuff. Were it not for the 105 Micro, I would be happy with all zooms.

User ID

Mac wrote:

I have found that zoom lenses make me lazy. With zooms I tend to find a subject and zoom to fill the frame instead of looking at it from different perspectives.

Lazy ?!?? Oh ... you must mean lazy of mind. Cant be too physically lazy if one loves toting them mega-lenses !

But assuming you mean lazy in the head, I look at what most Hawgsters produce with their "Holy Trinity" and their "Birder" lenses and can see mind numbing pix of grandkids, stray "wildlife", sunsets, auto shows, etc etc. Mostly stuff best done by phones. The long term trend seems to be, the bigger the gear, the duller the pix.

IOW its waaaaay too easy to see what you mean about lazy photography. Some folks collect cars, coins, baseball cards, tinfoil, or whatnot ... so why not collect zooms ? and boring snapshots ? Hobbies is a humongous big bidnez !

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

User ID wrote:

... Cant be too physically lazy if one loves totin... (show quote)

It is probably true that zoom lenses are heavier than prime lenses, but you need fewer of them to cover the range you might want.

And considering the number of ancestors I can count up and the number of family photos I can find from them, it is definitely true that we take* a lot more photos these days of the family. Two reasons come to mind: Todays photos are better than most of the old family photos taken by the family and todays photos are cheaper than the photos of old. The fact that most people have a camera in their pocket at all times adds to the number of photos that pile up. It's a lot easier today than it was in 1902. The tripod isn't always necessary.

* although it's possible that it's just fewer photos have survived the interval, I suspect the inconvenience of waiting for a print and the overall cost contributes to the scarcity.

btbg

Mac wrote:

I wonder how many and often people are standing on the edge of a cliff trying to take a picture.

There are millions of photos taken of the Grand Canyon every year, so I'm assuming that a lot of people do stand on the edge of a cliff to take photos.

I know that I have on occasion.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

btbg wrote:

There are millions of photos taken of the Grand Canyon every year, so I'm assuming that a lot of people do stand on the edge of a cliff to take photos.

I know that I have on occasion.

Some people ham it up

1961