Prime or zoom lenses -- does it even matter these days? I understand that prime lenses usually offer higher image quality. But given the fact that people use smart phones to take pics...

JZA B1

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?

BebuLamar

I use prime because when I don't need variable focal length the prime is smaller, faster and cheaper and perhaps sharper.

photoman43

BebuLamar wrote:

I use prime because when I don't need variable focal length the prime is smaller, faster and cheaper and perhaps sharper.

And I will add that the prime may be lighter too and easier to use hand held, other things being the same. I much prefer prime tele lenses over zoom tele.

User ID

BebuLamar wrote:

I use prime because when I don't need variable focal length the prime is smaller, faster and cheaper and perhaps sharper.

Likewise. Especially if bringing simply one body and one lens.

Even if I need (need ?!?) two or three FLs, where the weight of the three primes fully equals one zoom, I like that the package I hold in my hands is minimized.

---------------------------------------------

Im guessing that "does it really matter ?" concerns optical quality. To that I respond with *THE* most powerful and appropriate possible reply: NO COMMENT !!!

(Download)

btbg

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 a prime because it is faster than the zoom. My Sigma Sport 150-600 is a pretty good lens for the price, but it can't touch the Nikon Z400 f2.8. It has a built in 1.4 converter, which makes it a 560f4, and with the 2x converter it is an 800f5.6 or a 1120 f8.

Meanwhile the Sigma is f6.3 at 600mm. Speed matters in sports photography. As to the weight argument for using primes, it doesn't apply to big primes as they weigh more than the zooms.

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

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 a zoom lens, Nikkor DX 18-140mm with my Nikon Z50 as my travel/general purpose kit. Otherwise I use Primes.
As for your question, does it really matter, That is a question only each photographer can answer for themselves.

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.

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

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 still use prime lenses half or more of the time because, like you mentioned, they are usually sharper. Quality being good enough is subjective since opinions on what constitutes good enough varies. Phone cameras have been getting better but I don't feel they are as good as DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras.

EJMcD

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?

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.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I have an 18-200 that lives on my camera. and a 50 for lower light.
That's all I need. I'm not worried about any image quality difference between the zoom and a prime.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

JZA B1 wrote:

...people use smart phones to take pics these days and quality seems to be good enough...

Quality is good enough for people who use smartphones. That doesn't account for the large number of people who are willing to spend money on cameras and lenses mainly because of the quality difference. Quality is obviously more of an issue for some than for others. A desire for the best possible results drives many to spend money and also to spend time and effort learning how to get the best possible results plus developing the necessary skills.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I prefer the challenge of picking the right prime focal length for the anticipated need. And, maybe a second back-up option. Then, working with my compositions and subjects to leverage that selected prime (single) focal length. But, other times I need the zoom flexibility, particularly when just one lens is an option.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

My most used primes are various macro lenses up to 180mm, ultra wide out to 14mm and low light in 35 & 50.
My zooms are for everyday shooting where absolute highest IQ is not needed or circumstances where I am moving around and may not have time to change lenses. I will often take two bodies with different lenses.

As to zoom lenses, I have some that are standard very light lenses for out and about and other, often large and heavy, high end "L" series for my birds, bees and bugs (flowers also).

R.G. Loc: Scotland

JZA B1 wrote:

.... major disadvantage of fixed focal length....

One of the reasons why it's a good idea to work a scene is that it's not always obvious what the best composition will be. I suspect that even seasoned photographers would recognise that limitation. Sometimes we won't see the best option until we're sat down at our computer seeing the photos on our screen. In view of that possibility, and in view of how important composition can be, the flexibility of a zoom lens would seem to be an undeniable advantage.

Another point worth considering is that where composition is concerned, the zoom capability greatly encourages experimentation, far more than zooming with our legs would do.

Mark Goostree Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

For my D-7200 I only have a zoom. Several of my film cameras have standard 50mm lenses only. A couple of those have zooms. I just shoot with whatever is mounted on the camera. Nobody ever sees my photography anyway so it does not matter.

RetCapt Loc: NorCal mountains

No mas primes for me.

My principal film system before switching to digital in 2009 was Leica/Canon screwthread (LTM) rangefinder cameras. That meant primes only. If one wanted a choice of focal lengths, one had to carry the requisite number of primes. That was a lot of gear to carry if one wanted a selection of focal lengths.

My first experience with a zoom lens was with my first digital camera (still in use). I was smitten.

One of the immediate advantages was I could adjust focal length for moving objects, such as trains or cars.

I can adjust the focal length to suit my composition. I still move around on-scene to adjust my perspective. But the zoom certainly enhances flexibility.

Although I may have a lot of gear, I prefer being a minimalist in the field. I only want to carry that which I figure I will need on any given safari. Zooms facilitate that.

For me there is no going back.