SteveR Loc: Michigan

have all been shot with prime lenses. There are a few photographers that I know who take great photos who I wish shot with primes.

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

Zooms are jack of all trades, master of none lenses. But very useful though.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Too much work. I have a good number of lenses, 10 of which are primes. Each year on Amazon's "Prime Day", I grab a few and go shooting. It is probably different in Texas but where I live finding a place to stand to take a photo is problematic (Private Property, no road shoulder/parking, etc). Zooms give me the ability to create images without getting run over or my butt shot off. Don't know how long you have been a photographer but today's zooms are a whole lot better than when I first started 40 years ago. I would still say that a quality prime is sharper than a high quality zoom at a specific FL. But printed and hanging on a wall or, certainly, viewed on a PC screen the difference really doesn't present itself.

Bill_de Loc: US

If "they" take great pictures, maybe you should do what they do instead of the other way around.

How do you know that the best photos you've seen were 'all' taken with primes?


---

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

If I could afford primes or want to carry around a load of lenses' I might consider it I have 1 prime (a Tamron 45mm) and hardly use it.I wonder how many shots you might miss because you didn;t have the right reach or were too close.

par4fore Loc: Bay Shore N.Y.

There was a time when many photographers on carried only the 50mm lens their camera came with. Put your 45mm on and leave everything else home once in a while, you will surprise yourself.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If this has been your experience then you have not seen enough great photo's. The debate between with is sharper, a zoom or prime, has been going on for a long time. Nikon's first mass produced consumer zoom lens, the 43-86? was a dog. But todays zooms hold their own very well, for instance, I own and use three zooms for Florida Wildlife photography, the Nikon 200-400 f4, and the Sony 200-600 are both exceptionally sharp zoom lenses. I also own the Sony and Nikon 600 f4 prime lenses.
To be honest, I do not see much if any difference in sharpness between the Sony 200-600 and the Sony 600 prime.
If used properly by a competent photographer, zoom lenses produce excellent results. I have won several best in shows using zoom lenses.
The argument can be summed up this way, it's the photographer that makes the difference, not exactly the lens. IMHO, both my zoom and prime have produced excellent results.
To pigeon hole or delegate zoom lenses to a lesser status than primes today is just not taking into account the excellent results obtained by zooms.
Below is an old shot of mine using my Nikon D4s and a Nikon 200-400 f4 lens. It has won local and state competitions and remains one of my older stock images that sells well over the years.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Bill, I wish you had checked the download box for this photo. Without seeing it at its best I cannot compare it to the photos that I have seen from the photographer that I have in mind who shoots with a D5 and primes. They ARE, without a doubt, the best photos that I have seen. She is a professional photographer who does well enough to be able to own the best equipment with many prime telephotos including the 800mm. Her works can be seen by pulling her up under Abi Warner Photography in Facebook. She posts primarily nature photography found in and around her hometown in Scotland.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I was thinking the best images always seem to come from mirrorless cameras ...

On a more serious note, the 24MP and larger sensors make having the wrong prime mounted less of an issue. Even at 24mm, many times there's plenty of pixels to crop an excellent image even if you couldn't get closer to the subject. My goto lens is / was the 35L, and then last year, I seemed to use more often a manual focus 24L adapted to a mirrorless. I found the next time I had the 35mm mounted that my 'perspective' had changed, and I had a hard time framing from 35mm. And the next time I had a 50mm on, I kept having to step back from the subject, again because my mind seemed to have changed to seeing the world from wide and close of 24mm.

On the long end, the primes will tend to be both longer and faster at fixed wider apertures. I fear too many people assume they need the 'flexibility' of a zoom, and then end up shooting only at the maximum focal length. They'd be better served with a prime at that maximum focal length, a lens that might even include extending options.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have not seen the photos you are referencing, of course, but suspect that if there is a difference, it has a lot more to do with the skill and discipline of the photographer than it does with the choice of lens. Today's zooms are very good. My best zooms today are quite a bit better than the professional-grade prime lenses I was using in the 1970s and 1980s. And the kit-level primes I had back then didn't measure up to today's intermediate level zooms.

It is true that some zoom lenses just aren't very good, relative to other lenses. The Nikkor 18-70mm DX zoom that I started digital photography with was quite a "stinker" in many ways, even on a 10 MP camera. But the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX that I replaced it with is great lens, and has been for more than 12 years. Some here really denigrate it, but I find that their supposed complaints just don't hold up. The 18-200mm DX Nikkor is a lens with some really strange behaviors, but it actually renders quite nice images when used with care on a D500.

Some respected folks here don't particularly like the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom. They claim all sorts of distortion and other problems. I use this lens regularly to do stitched panoramas of the night sky with beautiful results. There is no way it can be as bad as claimed...the images would never stitch together if distortion was as claimed.

Also...don't overlook the fact that a photographer who is willing to expend the extra time and energy to get in just the right spot with their prime lens is also probably willing to spend the extra time and energy to learn and apply the best and most effective post processing effort. So you can't really ever know how much of the result is the lens and how much is the processing and how much might be something else altogether.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Put it this way. I've seen a lot of photos posted in various forums and groups. Obviously Abi is a professional photographer. Perhaps that is the difference. A professional using the best of professional equipment. BUT, look what she chooses to use, and it's not zooms.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Your quote may be correct, but price prohibitive for many many photographers.
"I fear too many people assume they need the 'flexibility' of a zoom, and then end up shooting only at the maximum focal length. They'd be better served with a prime at that maximum focal length, a lens that might even include extending options."

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

You said it best, she is a "professional", using a $16,000.00 + lens, if she wasn't good, there would be a problem. How many here have $16,000.00 + to spend on one lens?
Do we have the same "choice" as she does?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918849-REG/nikon_2205_af_s_nikkor_800mm_f_5_6e.html

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Many of her photos are taken on her daily walks around her hometown, which would obviously not be taken with her 800mm. Have you looked at her photos? I messaged with her about equipment and she indicated that a 500mm prime would be a good place to start for wildlife photographers, esp. the Nikon 500 fl.

User ID

The elevate what’s already “great” (your term) to a level even “more greater yet” (my term). Is that the result you would anticipate if your wish came to pass ?

It’s not meant to be a loaded question. I’ll confess up front that for me “great” needs no elevation to further realms of greatness. “Great” is perfectly adequate (sounds funny, but not joking).