Prime or zoom lenses -- does it even matter these days?
Feb 4, 2024 14:49:58 #
Dean37
Loc: Fresno, CA
Delderby wrote:
Do you see a difference in sharpness between the 28-70 and 35-70?
Not really, I use them both and I really like the 35-70 D lens better, but I can't tell which lens I used for the photo. I got the 28-70 because it had a bigger range and found it is only a bit faster in auto focus.
I have a 35-70 non D lens, but I only kept it because of sentimental reasons
Feb 4, 2024 15:30:42 #
victorII
Loc: Sonoma County, CA
I try to go as light as I can. My Canon 6D, a 24 - 105 L zoom, a couple of batteries, a polarizer and a few ND filters. In my OM-1 days, I ran around with a 28, 50 and 135 until I found a good 24 - 135. I like the zoom. IQ is very good and no dust in the body from changing lenses.
Feb 4, 2024 15:44:07 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
Some people ham it up
1961
1961
Halfway up Half Dome. Ricoh P&S 35mm lens. Kodachrome 64.
Feb 4, 2024 16:44:21 #
spaceytracey
Loc: East Glacier Park, MT
RetCapt wrote:
No mas primes for me. br br My principal film sys... (show quote)
My feelings exactly. I'm not a large person so the less weight I have to carry out into the wilderness, the better. I do have a couple of primes that I use for portraiture or still-life work in my studio.
Feb 4, 2024 16:52:24 #
Periwinkle Annie
Loc: Annapolis
I agree largely with Mac for the reasons cited though I never go anywhere without my 60. I try minimizing the number of lenses by taking a zoom on travel but it rarely gets used at home. I prefer a light kit when traveling so too many lenses drive me nuts. I do prefer faster primes at home.
Having said all that, I had a semi crusher last month. I took a trip to Bangkok and Hawaii that meant so much to me. The first day in BKK realized I had taken my zoom out because I thought (not paying attention has a cost….) it was my flash. So, all I had for three and a half weeks was my 14, 23, and 60 for macro. I know that sounds nuts since I said I don’t take many lenses but thank goodness I did, for some unknown reason, pack the 23. I just wished I had the 50-135, though I got ok shots. I just was anxious I could have done so much better….FOMO, I suppose.
Having said all that, I had a semi crusher last month. I took a trip to Bangkok and Hawaii that meant so much to me. The first day in BKK realized I had taken my zoom out because I thought (not paying attention has a cost….) it was my flash. So, all I had for three and a half weeks was my 14, 23, and 60 for macro. I know that sounds nuts since I said I don’t take many lenses but thank goodness I did, for some unknown reason, pack the 23. I just wished I had the 50-135, though I got ok shots. I just was anxious I could have done so much better….FOMO, I suppose.
Feb 4, 2024 16:53:20 #
Feb 4, 2024 18:35:34 #
Spirit Vision Photography wrote:
Halfway up Half Dome. Ricoh P&S 35mm lens. Kodachrome 64.
The shots have already kicked my vertigo into low gear
Feb 4, 2024 19:52:10 #
EJMcD wrote:
Never underestimate the quality and versatility of today's zooms. My 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 80-400, and 200-500 get much more use than my primes. My primes are limited to a 50 1.4 and a 105 Macro.
____________________________________________________________________________________
I have a very similar kit except I also have a 14mm 2.8 prime that is dusty now because of the Tamron 15-30 2.8. I used to love my Nikon 50 1.4 because of low light performance but my 24-70 2.8 does as well as the 50 prime, in fact my 24-120 f:4 is good enough most of the time. The low light performance was important with my older cameras but with my Nikon D850 and Z7 my high ISO performance is so good that I don't need as much speed. When I do get a little noise Photoshop noise removal is just remarkable enough that I don't worry any more.
I have attached an example. A picture of a couple grandkids and their mother sitting at the piano. No special light just the room lights. ISO 2200 on the Z7 at f:8. When I took it it had noticeable noise but Photoshop Camera Raw Noise Removal took care of it.
Feb 4, 2024 22:07:10 #
joecichjr wrote:
The shots have already kicked my vertigo into low gear
Feb 5, 2024 02:37:55 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
I have a pile of lenses. I think there are about 1... (show quote)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
I totally agree except I would hate to lose my 85. Goodness but that lens is so wonderful for portraiture. Yes the 105 is ok for portraiture, it's a pretty good length but I only use it for macro. I can cover the 85mm range with a couple of my zooms but the overall quality of the Nikon 85 (I use the very inexpensive 1.8 Nikon version) is impossibly wonderful. I have attached a quick snap with the 85 1.8, it was literally an unexpected candid shot of a friend sitting in my living room. I wonder how cool it would have been if I was trying to get a nice head shot. Quality wise I don't see how I could have done any better in a studio with lights and tripod. I know this isn't a flattering shot but it is perfect quality.
Feb 5, 2024 03:34:02 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
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?
Do you still use primes at all? For what purpose?
I use fast manual focus wide angle prime lenses most of the time. They are tiny and sharp with great contrast and a lot of character. Using primes lenses forces me to frame my images much differently than I would if I used zoom lenses which I love..
Feb 5, 2024 06:32:26 #
Flickwet wrote:
Doesn’t matter what the facts are, people believe that somehow the mundane is made glorious by esoterica
Free speech is surely a wonderful thing and the great thing about OPINIONS is that they are just OPINIONS and we can all be right!
Feb 5, 2024 07:12:04 #
whfowle
Loc: Tampa first, now Albuquerque
Until recently, prime lenses were sharper than zooms. Today, they are nearly the same in optical quality. On my old cameras that load film, primes are a lot better with few exceptions. When I'm looking for a one lens solution, such as travel and family get togethers I use my modern zooms.
Feb 5, 2024 07:26:36 #
whfowle wrote:
Until recently, prime lenses were sharper than zooms. Today, they are nearly the same in optical quality. On my old cameras that load film, primes are a lot better with few exceptions. When I'm looking for a one lens solution, such as travel and family get togethers I use my modern zooms.
Primes will never be less sharp than zooms!
I would guess that a zoom greater than 10x could not match a prime. Ten years ago that would be have been 3x.
Feb 5, 2024 07:33:39 #
Delderby wrote:
Primes will never be less sharp than zooms!
I would guess that a zoom greater than 10x could not match a prime. Ten years ago that would be have been 3x.
I would guess that a zoom greater than 10x could not match a prime. Ten years ago that would be have been 3x.
Although modern zooms are very sharp they tend to have more geometric distortion like barrel or pin cushion distortion.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.