Prime or zoom lenses -- does it even matter these days? (Page 12): Replying to no one in particular, YAK, YAK, YAK, WABOS. So many pretenders thinking zoom lenses are for cropping when...

Chopper Bill Loc: East Tennessee

Replying to no one in particular, YAK, YAK, YAK, WABOS. So many pretenders thinking zoom lenses are for cropping when controlling perspective is their zenith. How far from the foreground should the background be. If you're talking F 2.8 zooms by any major camera manufacturer, the resolution is outstanding. You should be more worried about the camera you are mounting them on.

Nikonman2014

I use prime lenses in the home studio, where I am generally doing portrait work. My go-to prime lenses are the 50 mm and the 85 mm Nikon lenses. When I am shooting outdoors, I use my Nikon 70-200 zoom lens.

ken.toda

Yes, I noticed that Vivitar, Tamuron, and others aftermarket pieces are as good or superior quality than major boys as Canon and Nikon's. Thank to advanced technology. It was sad and pity to see (when I saw in 1960's) a photo that taken as a camera mfg engineers near black board (with number do math writing) and holding sliding scales,
twisting to make ZOOM lens elements. They usually have several components and over dozen lens pieces? Famous TESSOR prime lens has 3 elements and 2 group? Our eye ball has only one lens?

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

Nikonman2014 wrote:

I use prime lenses in the home studio, where I am generally doing portrait work. My go-to prime lenses are the 50 mm and the 85 mm Nikon lenses. When I am shooting outdoors, I use my Nikon 70-200 zoom lens.

Studio work lends itself to prime lenses. There's not a lot of changing of perspective in portraiture.

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

ken.toda wrote:

...Our eye ball has only one lens?

Yes, but the sensor is connected to a continuously active computer.

ken.toda

YES, XXX made software, human A.I. still thousand miles away!

JZA B1

BebuLamar wrote:

And thus zooming with your feet isn't the same as zooming with your lens. Depending on what you want you may have to do one or the other.

This is exactly the point I was thinking of.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

I use prime when I want to refine my composition. Make me see different. To walk around rather than sit there and zoom in.
You would be surprised how that improves your photography.

Mwilliamsphotography Loc: Royal Oak Michigan & Palm Harbor Florida

Primes offer faster maximum apertures. This provides more control over subject isolation from the background, or to highlight a specific part of the image.

Primes are smaller, even fast aperture telephoto primes are often smaller than zooms. A 70-200/1.4 zoom would be gigantic, and prohibitively expensive if it could even be built.

btbg

Mwilliamsphotography wrote:

Primes offer faster maximum apertures. This provides more control over subject isolation from the background, or to highlight a specific part of the image.

Primes are smaller, even fast aperture telephoto primes are often smaller than zooms. A 70-200/1.4 zoom would be gigantic, and prohibitively expensive if it could even be built.

You are not necessarily correct. My 400 f2.8 weighs more than my 150-600 Sigma sport. My 105f1.4 weighs more than my 70-200f2.8. So, no primes may not be smaller. As to primes being faster that may not be correct either. The Sigma 100-300f2.8 zoom weighs slightly less than the old Nokon 300f2.8. Just because it is true of small primes does not make it true for all primes.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Mwilliamsphotography wrote:

Primes offer faster maximum apertures. This provides more control over subject isolation from the background, or to highlight a specific part of the image.

Primes are smaller, even fast aperture telephoto primes are often smaller than zooms. A 70-200/1.4 zoom would be gigantic, and prohibitively expensive if it could even be built.

""Primes offer faster maximum apertures."

Not always. Specifically, I used to own a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM | Art crop sensor lens which had an f/1.8 maximum aperture throughout the focal range. It was also extremely sharp edge to edge. It was like having a bagful of fast, high quality prime lenses, including a 20mm, a 24mm, a 28mm, and a 35mm... and, of course, everything in between! It had internal zooming and internal focusing and was built like a tank. It was not small or light, but its size and weight were extremely reasonable considering its capabilities and professional build.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

If everyone simply said “generally”, half the responses to this post would have been rendered doubly redundant.

gwilliams6

mwsilvers wrote:

B ""Primes offer faster maximum apertur... (show quote)

mwsilvers I agree with you here.

For E-mount and L-mount mirrorless cameras, Sony, Panasonic, Leica, Sigma (yes they make fullframe mirrorless cameras too) there are both Tamron 35mm-150mm f2- 2.8 zoom and Samyang 35mm-150mm f2-2.8 zooms that equal primes in sharpness and IQ, all tests have shown that. They are not tiny lenses, but way smaller than a bunch of primes they can replace, all in one fast, sharp zoom lens. They have become favorites of many photographers, pros and hobbyists alike, and especially wedding photographers.

Optical designs and lens quality of the best modern zooms has advanced so far from the past.

Cheers and best to you.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

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?

If I had my "druthers" -- and the required extra discretionary funds -- I would have at least a 400 or 500mm prime. I don't see any need for more than that, but there have been many times when my usual 70-300, fully zoomed out at 300, wasn't quite enough. IF the image is sharp enough -- which does occasionally happen with that lens -- cropping can be sufficiently done to give the appearance that a longer focal length lens was used. But, I'd rather have the prime.

I did obtain a 200-500 zoom and find that the majority of the images taken with it are at 500mm. Therefore, it would make more sense for me to have a 500mm prime. However, the cost difference is substantial. The 200-500 zoom is about a third the cost of a 500 prime. I'm not a professional. I cannot make a purchase like that and call it a business expense.

Additionally, I have 105mm and 180mm primes. The 105 is the older AI-s and is probably one of the sharpest lenses ever made. Great travel lens as well. The 180 is razor sharp and, being a f2.8, great at less-than-optimal lighting. Some day I do plan on getting that 500.

xposure

Occasionally I use prime lenes. Usually for speed or for big telephoto 400mm or over. My prime lenes have a faster aperature than my zoom lenes and my 100mm macro gets much closer than zom macro's.