Does One Really Need a Prime Lens (Page 3): Depends on the prime...depends on the zoom. But overall...a prime will beat a zoom at the assigned focal length. Why not? The prime lens has...

Canisdirus

Depends on the prime...depends on the zoom.

But overall...a prime will beat a zoom at the assigned focal length.

Why not? The prime lens has one job. The zoom has many.

The best prime will beat the best zoom.
The average prime will beat the average zoom.

At the assigned focal length...the rest is convenience.

I forgo the convenience...and plan around zooming.

I own only two zooms. One long one 200-600mm and one short one 18mm-35mm.
Long one for BIF...which I don't do much of.
Short one because it is an f/1.8...which I don't use that much. Still nice to have for video.

To each his own.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

bkwaters wrote:

Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?

primes are usually lighter

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

we all (mostly) need exercise. I find that primes force me to walk more:)

BebuLamar

I have the 24-85 which I do use often as a zoom. But I almost never use my 70-300 as a zoom. I almost always use it at 300mm focal length. So I think it would be good for me to have a 300mm prime.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I have a 300mm f4, which I compared to a zoom at a daylight soccer match and strongly prefer the prime.

neillaubenthal

bkwaters wrote:

Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?

Yep…zooms are at least some of the time as are primes. My Z 400/4.5 is better than my 100-400…and a bit faster as well so higher speed and or lower ISO. It is definitely visible at peeping levels but at screen display levels the major difference is the different DoF it provides…so is it worth it? It is to me because I can afford both and one is lighter and faster but the other is more flexible…so both get carried along with the prime normally being on the 1.4 TC for reach.

But…the 400 is my only prime because I value the flexibility…although I am considering the 85/1.8 at some point for street use…but that’s a not that often for me so might not be worth buying.

neillaubenthal

CHG_CANON wrote:

Primes make you 'think', me at least. What focal l... (show quote)

Rare for me to agree with you I know…but that’s a good point even though I only have 1 prime the 400. A single prime forces you to think both before and during the street walk about or outing…but usually I stick to zooms because of flexibility…although that doesn’t mean I never zoom with my feet to get a different view or perspective for the shot. Mostly for me it is a how much do I want to carry thing though.

anotherview Loc: California

Ditto: "usually I stick to zooms because of flexibility."

neillaubenthal wrote:

Rare for me to agree with you I know…but that’s a good point even though I only have 1 prime the 400. A single prime forces you to think both before and during the street walk about or outing…but usually I stick to zooms because of flexibility…although that doesn’t mean I never zoom with my feet to get a different view or perspective for the shot. Mostly for me it is a how much do I want to carry thing though.

neillaubenthal

Canisdirus wrote:

But overall...a prime will beat a zoom at the assigned focal length.

Still depends on the prime and zoom…and the intended use of the image. For many purposes the output will look the same even if peeping reveals one to be slightly better…and if the output is the same then better is the enemy of good enough. But there are flexibility vs size and weight decisions as well…so like another reply choose the best lens for the job from the lenses you have…and then just don’t worry about it.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

bkwaters wrote:

Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?

Too late, I already own more Prime Lenses than Zoom Lenses. 30+ Lenses. But "speed" is not the primary reason for my Primes. Simpler optical design and weight are. Yup, of course I don't shoot my F1.4 at f/1.4, more likely f/4 to f/8.

ThreeCee Loc: Washington, DC

bkwaters wrote:

Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?

If you are happy with Zooms you should use them. They are convenient and get good results. If you are a pro you should use primes for a more unique look. Primes tend to have higher micro contrast that add dimensionality and depth to an image. Especially fast f1 2 and f1.4. It’s the reason older Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, and Canon L series lenses are so coveted.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

bkwaters wrote:

Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?

Generally NO for pure light gathering - especially on a full frame sensor, but as regards better focusing - yes. And, for action stopping shutter speeds in lower light - YES.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

My primes are a nifty 50 and a 100 macro. Most of my shooting is with a 24-70. I’d have to hunt to find the 50 f/1.8.

photoman43

bkwaters wrote:

Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?

For me, the answer is "It all depends." On the zoom les used; at which focal length the lens is set to, etc. I own and use both primes and zooms. I prefer primes for longer focal lengths; zooms for shorter focal lengths. And some longer zooms where focal length flexibility might trump sharpness.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

The real answer here is "It depends". I've got the usual zooms and some long primes along with many shorter and faster primes. Each has it's place in my work, or I wouldn't own it. Best of luck.