amehta Loc: Boston

Really???
Other photographers think you're a novelty.
To non-photographers, size mattes! :-)

Patw28 Loc: PORT JERVIS, NY

:thumbup:

rizer Loc: Long Island, NY

I am sure that ESPECIALLY for photography, it's not the size that counts, but how you use it!! ;-)

Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

Isn't that true in all scenarios? :roll:

amehta Loc: Boston

If you know what you're doing, then size matters even more. If you know about depth of field and bokeh, then a wider aperture is good. If you have good technique, then a longer focal length lets you do more. And if you're pushing your ISO, then a bigger sensor is a useful tool. ;-)

amehta Loc: Boston

In all scenarios, the idiot will accomplish little, and the master will create something great, so it's a waste for the idiot to have the best tools, but the master should have the best equipment. :-)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Besides the light gathering and DOF advantages of primes with wide apertures ranging from f/1.2 to f/2, the best ones at any given focal length and price range tend to have less distortion, less chromatic aberration and less vignetting (or some combination) than the best zooms. Note the words best, price and tend. There are always exceptions depending upon which primes and which zooms you are comparing. While zooms do have more versatility, primes can force you to be more creative and not just machine gun shots. I love my zooms, but when I'm out and about with a 30mm prime I'm forced to think about the composition of each shot much more carefully and often enjoy the process of photography more than when I have a zoom mounted.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Very Zen! :)

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I do not doubt that, on paper, a good prime is probably better than a good zoom. But I also think that a good zoom will usually result in a better final image than a good prime. That is because the most important decision in composition is perspective, or camera position. Once perspective is established, if using a good prime, more PP cropping will often be necessary. If using a good zoom, the cropping can be done in camera.

I want my feet, not a prime lens, to dictate perspective.

masonmike Loc: Vancouver, Washington

My photography instructor prefers the 70-200 F2.8 for most of his portrait shoots & have read that this is the preferred lens of many wedding photographers.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

The ONLY thing that determines perspective is camera-to-subject distance. Changing focal length will vary the field of view, but perspective will not change if that distance stays the same. You are correct that using your feet determines perspective, but not about the lens affecting it.

If you are say, 50 feet from your subject, perspective will be identical with a 35mm, 50mm, 105mm, etc., you will just see progressively tighter views. It is easy to prove.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Hi Captain, I agree 100% and I thought that's what I was saying. I don't want to have to change the perspective by backing up or going forward just to get the in-camera cropping right using a prime lens. I want to determine the perspective (camera location), then use the zoom to crop in camera. The perspective does not change that way.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Prime lenses are typically faster and have fewer problems that you see on zooms. (picture quality) Most amateurs can't see the picture quality differences but trust me, there are differences. Prime lenses are zoomed with your feet. You walk closer or farther from subject. Many people, including myself, use zooms lenses. I have 2 zooms and 3 prime lenses. I have special uses for the primes that I can't live without. I use the zooms when I need something between 24-200mm but I"m not sure exactly what I'll need or want.

Dave Johnson Loc: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Zoom vs Prime really comes down to engineering. A prime lens is built with just one focal length in mind so fewer compromises have to be made. In designing a zoom lens it is necessary to make small concessions to achieve a balanced quality across the entire zoom range. As a result of the simpler engineering in a prime lens they can also be made smaller and lighter with wider apertures.

I love my Canon zooms but I can see myself investing in more primes as I go. In fact my Sigma 105 macro is the sharpest lens in my bag.

So many lenses... So little disposable income... :)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

"Better" is very subjective and is not easily quantified. A good zoom can be a powerful tool, and while I respect your right to your opinion, I don't think there are any facts to back up your assertion that using one will usually result in a better image. There is nothing inherent in any lens that will result in a better image from a compositional point of view except that some focal lengths are more appropriate then others in specific situations. You wouldn't want to use a 30mm prime to capture deer in the distance unless of course the surrounding landscape is an intended part of the final image. A great photographer with an iPhone can capture "better" images than an unskilled amateur photographer with the best equipment in the world. Whether a zoom or a prime will result in better (or more satisfying) images is dependent on a variety of factors. Perhaps you usually get better images from a zoom rather than from a prime, but my experience is just the opposite. Having said that, I have a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on order. That zoom seems to have many of the best qualities of several fast primes wrapped up in one package.