Shoot all primes, or stick with primes plus zoom?

<p>Hey everyone. So, I'm kinda in a dilemma. I currently shoot with a sigma 85mm 1.8, a canon 50mm 1.8, and a tamron 24-70mm 2.8. I'm starting to wonder if I should sell the Tamron zoom and pick up the new Sigma 35mm, and use the extra money to save toward a wide angle prime. What do you all think? I know there are many threads on prime vs zoom, but I wanted your specific input here. Is the speed and quality of the primes that much better than the zoom to justify the extra hassle? I dont find switching lenses too annoying, and I'm hoping to get a second camera body soon, so I could put a lens on the spare body too. What are your thoughts?</p>

<p>Depends on what you shoot. Both have strengths. What do you feel you are missing with the current gear? Do you like to shoot the primes wide open? Is the f/2.8 of the zoom limiting you in some way?</p>

<p>Q: Should you use primes or zooms?</p>

<p>A: Yes, definitely.</p>

<p>Both have their place. Zooms will do things primes can't, and primes will do things zooms can't. Choose your lenses according to the task at hand. If you need the shallow DoF of an f/1.4 lens, you need a prime. If you need EXACTLY a 68mm focal length to balance foreground and background size for the composition you desire, you almost certainly need a zoom. If you don't have the luxury of "sneaker zooming," you probably also need a zoom.</p>

<p>Reading between the lines, though, I think I can offer a couple of other useful perspectives:</p>

<ul>

<li>If you're handholding, not using a sturdy tripod + great technique, you probably won't notice much difference in sharpness between the two.*</li>

<li>If you're shooting at f/8 or so, you probably won't notice much difference in sharpness between the two.*</li>

</ul>

<p>*Depending on the quality of the zoom, vs. the quality of the prime, of course.</p>

<p>Yeah, I think you're asking questions that only you can answer. I use primes and zooms, and my reasons for using one or the other are based on considerations that only I and no one else could address.</p>

The Canon EF 24mm & 28mm f/2.8 IS are pretty sweet. The new EF 35mm f/2 IS should be as well.

<p>The other issue to consider is this, if you use a prime lens I find that personally I tend to take more time over framing the image to a pleasing composition within the frame of what that lens can see. Using zoom lenses I have found that I can get a bit lazier, just zooming in and out to get a pleasing composition, seeing but not really seeing, not getting the best out of the scene in front of me. Good photographers can take good images either way but there is just that little bit more of a challenge that makes me stop and think more when using a prime lens.</p>

<p>Just my personal preference but when I used medium format cameras my lenses were the full frame equivalent of 22.5, 27.5mm, 52.5mm and 100mm. I could take virtually every landscape shot that I wanted with these lenses. Sure, a little bit wider or longer would have been nice to have but I used what I did have that bit better to record what I saw. We are all different in how we see the world, use what works for you but don't be frightened to experiment with prime lenses and don't be surprised to find that they can become addictive!</p>

<p>As others have said, only you can determine which mix of primes and zooms is best for you.</p>

<p>I personally have two EF zooms and eight primes but, since I tend to carry only a single zoom while out and about, my zooms get the most use. Despite this, when I need a wide aperture prime, a zoom is no substitute. So I wouldn't want to be without both types of lenses in my kit.</p>

<p>The "should I switch to all primes" mantra is one of the most over-done and often misguided ones on photography forums. Yes, there are a very few photographers for whom it can make sense to forego zooms and only shoot primes. But one really needs to honestly look at why he/she might consider this option and what they hope to achieve.</p>

<p>If the issue is "image quality," things are not as simple as "prime better - zoom worse." Some primes are indeed somewhat better than some zooms when it comes to things like resolution, though the difference tends to be a bit more visible (if you look very, very closely) at the largest apertures and less or non-existent and smaller apertures. But what does this actually mean in real photography?</p>

<ul>

<li>If you shoot handheld, any potential IQ improvement will be swamped by blur from camera motion and, since you won't be using MLU or live view, mirror slap and shutter motion. </li>

<li>If you shoot from the tripod, in some situations the prime can be better... if the composition works perfectly at the FL of your prime. However, if you must crop in post - quite often the case - you diminish the original resolution of your shot. On the other hand, with the zoom you can precisely frame the composition at whatever focal length is appropriate and keep that resolution in post.</li>

<li>Primes are less flexible and adaptable - if the FL on the camera is not the right one, you will have to change lenses. With the zoom you <em>may</em> have to switch lenses, but this is much less likely, so the odds are that you can respond more quickly to changing and fleeting opportunities.</li>

</ul>

<p>In my view, the answer to the "should I use primes of zooms?" question is almost always, "Yes." Yes. You probably want to have both. Just because primes can be better for certain things (e.g. - some types of street photography, certain situations in portrait work, occasionally for contemplative landscape work, and so on) this does not negate the utility and value of zooms for much other photography. One useful approach is to build a basic set of zooms that covers most of what you need to shoot and to then augment it with a few well-chose primes at focal lengths that are useful at the very large prime apertures and/or are useful for certain types of shooting where you might rather work with a prime or two than with zooms.</p>

<p>And what about that IQ thing in the real world? While it can be argued that, in general, primes as a breed can produce slightly better IQ than zooms... it turns out that contemporary zooms can produce extremely good IQ. To use an example from my own kit, I have the EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS and the EF 135mm f/2 L prime. There was a time when I thought that I might often use the 135 for landscape at that focal length, even when carrying the zoom. But it turns out that both lenses produce truly excellent image quality when used properly, and there is essentially no image quality difference visible in the 24" wide prints that I produce on my printer... so I hardly ever take the prime out now for that kind of shooting.</p>

<p>(I do use the prime for certain kinds of low, light work when photographing people. For example, I have a long-term project photographing a couple of professional orchestras, and I often use the 135 backstage.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Don't forget, Digital Lens Optimization software really makes a difference in zoom IQ, particularly at the wider end of the zoom range. Several softwares adjust for geometric distortion, vignetting, chromatic abberation, edge softness, etc. for every focal length at every aperture, with and without TCs attached.</p>

<p>Will bokeh be more pleasing? I think that will vary quite a bit from lens to lens, with some zooms being superior, but primes often getting the nod. For protrait shooting, particularly in the studio, a prime with a fast aperture, smooth bokeh and high IQ may be just what the doctor ordered. I shoot most of my portraits outdoors with my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, with very pleasing results, in both sharpness, bokeh and flexibility.</p>

<p>I've been shooting since the late 1950s and spent many years with primes only and longing for high quality zooms. I've only gotten into zooms in the last ten-years, but I don't really miss primes. My 500mm, of course, is a prime and represents one type of lens where the IQ difference between zooms and primes can actually be seen, even after correction. With super-teles speed is critical and being able to shoot at f/4 instead f/5.6 starts being huge. when you need SS.</p>

My take on it is the both have their uses. If I am doing studio work where I have a fixed / known distance that I can

control, the primes are ideal.

 

If you are shooting landscapes, you often don't have the choice of where you stand to take the photo. Zoom lenses allow

you to frame the shot as you want. Yes, with a prime you can crop in post, but you lose the ability to to do as large a

print. Example, if you take a 20MP pic, do a 50% crop, you now have a 5MP pic.

<p>The main reason why I use primes whenever possible (but almost always zooms for professional photography, where IQ is not that important...) is they are light to carry and easy to use and push you to be more creative. There are some other benefits in IQ not related to sharpness, contrast, color, aberration, distorsions, etc, which modern softwares correct easily; some has been said, but the most important for me is the bokeh. Not only the background is more blurred but also the quality of it is usually (not always) better with primes. Pictures look more "creamy", and digital needs it! At the end if you can avoid the zoom, two primes can do anything and in almost every situation (e.g. low light). Once I made an entire service for a marriage with a 50mm on FF. It was great at the end but I really swept alot and felt very very stressed by the possible limits of a single prime (what if you can not step back to include all the people in a photo?). This link is a report on Salento (South of Italy) entirelly shot with a 35 1.4 (and an 85mm in a few), from urbanscapes to portraits. Mybe you don't like the results, but it is possible to use only one prime: <a href="http://fotobiettivo.photoshelter.com/gallery/Salento-Report-Public-Gallery-1500px-Mare-Campagna-CittA-Persone/G0000JqCZkjJLmjU/">http://fotobiettivo.photoshelter.com/gallery/Salento-Report-Public-Gallery-1500px-Mare-Campagna-CittA-Persone/G0000JqCZkjJLmjU/</a></p>

<p>It is very possible to use one prime. Lots of well-known photographers have photographed with one or two primes. David Alan Harvey did several major articles for NG mainly using a 35 Summilux, including one on NASCAR (!).</p>

<p>http://www.magnumphotos.com/Catalogue/David-Alan-Harvey/2004/VIETNAM-Hanoi-NN110480.html</p>

<p>http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2S5RYDYBPFNQ</p>

<p>http://digitaljournalist.org/issue9910/cuba_index.htm</p>

<p>Constantine Manos used to use a 28 and a 35.</p>

<p>http://www.photoeye.com/magazine/reviews/2010/09_09_American_Color_2.cfm</p>

<p>William Eggleston in 35mm used a 35mm lens for decades before going to a 50mm. </p>

<p>His aunt, Maud Schuyler Clay, also an accomplished photographer, uses mostly a Rolleiflex with a fixed lens.<br>

http://www.maudeclay.com/</p>

<p>Ernesto Bazan used a 28mm for over a decade for his pictures of Cuba and other assignments.</p>

<p>http://www.bazanphotos.com/</p>

<p>Having said all that, I use both primes and zooms. The latter sometimes at a fixed focal length when needed. Zooms do something fixed focal length lenses can't: They allow you to divorce perspective from framing (within the range of the optic). For many, this is a useless advantage, others don't have a clue as to what it means and erroneously think "foot zooming" can do the job (it can not), but for some, this is an valuable ability. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Zooms do something fixed focal length lenses can't: They allow you to divorce perspective from framing (within the range of the optic). For many, this is a useless advantage, others don't have a clue as to what it means and erroneously think "foot zooming" can do the job (it can not), but for some, this is an valuable ability.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think I've ever seen this stated so succinctly. "Divorce perspective from framing" -- Very nicely put, Luis!</p>

<p>+1 that both primes and zooms have their places in the bag. Example: our son-in-law and I both shot the putting up and decorating of our family's Christmas tree. We made a slide show from our results. He shot mostly with a 35/1.8 prime, I with an 18-105 zoom, needing flash because it was really slow. Both lenses were represented in our slideshow, having different strengths: his: speed and out-of-focus backgrounds, mine: fast composing through use of zoom. We liked them all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I don't think I've ever seen this stated so succinctly. "Divorce perspective from framing" -- Very nicely put, Luis!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1<br>

The quote of the year for me - here at Photonet.<br>

I have printed it and put in on my pin-board.<br>

I will take it and use it next week at the tutorials I ma giving<br>

Bravo Luis!<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16625732-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>To Sarah, Howard and William W., thanks, guys.</p>

<p>Wow, thanks for all the responses and input everyone. I didn't expect to hear from so many of you. It's really great to hear each persons own perspective on an issue. I'm still considering moving to primes only. For me, I really love using the primes wide open (I just like the look), and I have been stuck in some dark venues before. I also do have experience using only primes. For a period I had a digital Hasselblad with an 80mm lens (50mm equiv.), and I shot several weddings that way. Other than wanting a slightly wider and longer FOV at times, I enjoyed the simplicity of having a prime lens, a camera, and no other worries. I know now that I need backups and all that, but I truly did enjoy using primes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wanted <strong><em>your specific input</em></strong> here . . . I dont find switching lenses too annoying, and I'm hoping to get a second camera body soon, so <strong><em>I could put a lens on the spare body too</em></strong>. What are <strong><em>your thoughts?</em></strong> . . . I'm still considering moving to <strong><em>primes only</em></strong> . . . I enjoyed the simplicity of having a prime lens, a camera, and no other worries. I know now that <strong><em>I need backups</em></strong> and all that . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dual Format Kit: APS-C and 135 Format.<br>

Three Primes: 24/1.4LMkII; 50/1.4 (or 1.2) and 135/2L<br>

The x1.4MkII (or MkIII) EF tele-extender.<br>

Cameras – 7D & 5DMkIII.<br>

Set of Three Kenko Extension Tubes<br>

Two 580MkII, or similar.</p>

<p>WW </p>

 

<p>Brent - "Other than wanting a slightly wider and longer FOV at times..."</p>

<p>All of this hinges on your definition of 'slightly'. WW's suggestions would work well as a system and maximize flexibility.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"The main reason why I use primes whenever possible... is they... push you to be more creative...."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No they don't.<br>

<br /> If I read one more post claiming that primes make you a better photographer or more creative, I think I'm going to scream. Or puke. Or something... ;-)<br /> <br /> This is basically utter nonsense, and unsupported by any photographic evidence. There is wonderful work being done with zooms and wonderful work being done with primes. It is the <em>photographer </em>who determines the creativity, not the gear.<br /> <br /> For the record, I shoot both. I own more primes than zooms. For some kinds of work I tend toward using the zooms more. For other kinds of work I lean toward the primes. Sometimes I use both.<br /> <br /> Dan</p>

<ul>

<li>If you're handholding, not using a sturdy tripod + great technique, you probably won't notice much difference in sharpness between the two.*</li>

</ul>

<p>If you're hand-holding with a fast shutter speed (i.e. 1/1000s ... 1/2000s) - the sharpness will be very close to what the lens is capable of, provided you can focus it correctly. Often if the subjects are moving anyway and your camera has a high pixel count you need these speeds to stop movement and the tripod won't do anything to the subject movement.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>If you're shooting at f/8 or so, you probably won't notice much difference in sharpness between the two.*</li>

</ul>

<p>I take exception with this claim. There are many primes which are superb at these small apertures and take a clear lead to zooms at f/8-11. E.g. some Zeiss primes are typically with this kind of a characteristic. Of course, at wide apertures fast primes typically are better than zooms also. You may of course have to pick a separate prime for small apertures than for large apertures, but nevertheless lenses can be found for each purpose. So that leaves the zooms most competitive at mid apertures, or when you don't have the optimal prime for the situation available.</p>

<p>My most significant issues with zooms are not with sharpness but with their typically busy and unappealing rendition of out of focus areas especially at longer distances (10m +; I'm mostly talking about telezooms here). Also, the <em>good</em> zooms tend to be very big, heavy and expensive for the focal length and speed. Speed - by the way zooms are not fast. Just today I photographed the opening of the Christmas Street in Helsinki - I started at f/1.4, ISO 800 (85mm) and ended up at f/2, ISO 6400 (at 200mm) before the precession had finished. No way I would have wanted to touch a zoom in these kind of conditions. And this darkness prevails for the next month or two.</p>

<p>But, as has been said above, zooms do allow easier control of the relative sizes of foreground and background objects in the frame than primes. The question then is how much weight the photographer gives to having access to this compositional control vs. lighter weight in use (for the same speed and focal length), larger apertures, much better quality out of focus blur, less intimidating appearance, the macro / tilt/shift options, availability of longer focal lengths etc. These are decisions for the photographer to make. </p>

 

<p>For those living in Helsinki in the winter, then an extra stop is a big deal, but shooting at night, at f/4 with a zoom is not a big hardship. I spent decades stuck at one focal length at a time and prefer the flexibility of a zoom. Today's cameras are so fast that it's seldom an issue.<br>

<a title="Celtic dancer at Raglan Road Pub with live music by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7142/6582142357_6ee673e99c_b.jpg" alt="Celtic dancer at Raglan Road Pub with live music" width="800" height="533" /></a></p>

<p>When I started with a DSLR with the 20D, I had all zooms. Gradually I got primes. I liked the speed, the bokeh, the look and I found I was using the zooms at their widest or longest. I sold most of my zooms. None of them really did it for me creatively.<br>

Primes suit my style of shooting now. I have one zoom left, the 16-35, which just does things none of my primes can do. I just added the 200 F2.8L which is cheap, light, black and sharp.<br>

I often go out with a 35+100 or a 50/40 +200 and I have the range I need. I sold my 24-105 as F4 wasn’t doing it and I barely picked that lens up in four years.<br>

Unless you are a pro catering to a certain customer set like weddings/events I think lens choice is a very personal thing. It depends on your own personal creativity, preferences and skill set.<br>

90% of my shots are with the 50/35 combo. It would be tough to do a wedding with just those two. There is no right or wrong answer here, it’s down to you, your style and professional needs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dan wrote: If I read one more post claiming that primes make you a better photographer or more creative, I think I'm going to scream. Or puke. Or something... ;-)<br /><br />This is basically utter nonsense, and unsupported by any photographic evidence. There is wonderful work being done with zooms and wonderful work being done with primes. It is the <em>photographer </em>who determines the creativity, not the gear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I'm afraid we zoomers are completely uncreative, due to our laziness. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion">Proof by assertion</a>, my friend! (And I'll be puking right along with you...)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ilkka wrote: If you're hand-holding with a fast shutter speed (i.e. 1/1000s ... 1/2000s) - the sharpness will be very close to what the lens is capable of, provided you can focus it correctly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But this forces you to larger apertures where sharpness is not as good. Or perhaps it forces you to faster ISOs, at which noise and diminished dynamic range are more significant issues. There's no free lunch.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ilkka: I take exception with this claim. There are many primes which are superb at these small apertures and take a clear lead to zooms at f/8-11. E.g. some Zeiss primes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, of course. However, these are very exotic lenses. Furthermore, I would say their clear lead is not so clear as you represent. In place of "clear," I would use the word "slight."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My most significant issues with zooms are not with sharpness but with their typically busy and unappealing rendition of out of focus areas</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a flaw both of cheap zooms and cheap primes. The very fastest primes tend to exhibit more than a bit of spherical aberration and yield a buttery background bokeh at their intended large-aperture use. Most non-cutting-edge primes, along with most higher quality zooms, have a more neutral bokeh. This is not to say the bokeh is "bad" or "busy." Rather, it's just not as creamy. And then there are some fast zooms that have rather creamy bokeh, but which exhibit spherical aberration and possibly a bit of field curvature. Again, there's no free lunch. A creamy bokeh is the result of optical imperfections. A neutral bokeh is the result of a tight optical formula, but might yield a bokeh you don't particularly like.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The question then is how much weight the photographer gives to having access to this compositional control vs. lighter weight in use (for the same speed and focal length), larger apertures, much better quality out of focus blur, less intimidating appearance, the macro / tilt/shift options, availability of longer focal lengths etc. These are decisions for the photographer to make.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a prime/zoom photographer, here's what I've decided for myself: I don't give a whit about a lens' bokeh at smaller apertures where I'm trying to get everything in focus. All I care about are sharpness, CA, flare and ghosting. AND I care very deeply about composition, where a zoom helps me to frame up the perspective I desire. That's when I prefer zooms</p>

<p>Sometimes I'll take one of those large-aperture, fuzzy background shots, in which I want to isolate the subject. In that case, I could care less about perspective issues and instead place great importance on both the magnitude of the blur and the bokeh. That's when I pull out a prime, which has a clear advantage.</p>

<p>I'm usually not interested in much inbetween -- somewhat soft, but not fuzzy enough to be fuzzy -- almost like I didn't focus well or made a poor aperture selection. Sometimes this is unavoidable, of course, and sometimes a slightly fuzzy element can even be used compositionally. However, I've not really found much difference here between a quality zoom and a quality prime. If I did, the zoom would still trump the prime for me, because foreground/background relationships again come into play.</p>

<p><em>shooting at night, at f/4 with a zoom is not a big hardship.</em></p>

<p>I don't like the look that comes out of using such small apertures in low light- too much noise, muddy blacks, cluttered appearance in depth, no obvious point of focus, no obvious main subject, and some motion blur (I'm not talking about close-ups in which case f/4 may be the largest aperture that can be considered for a normal appearance of a head shot for example).</p>

<p>Ignoring for the moment my geographical location, people spend much of their time interacting with each other and working indoors. To photograph them there, with minimal distraction (i.e. not a production with flash etc.) primes like 35/1.4 etc. come in handy. Zooms can be used but the primes offer more options regarding shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. The primes are usually smaller, too, making the photographer less of a distraction when working with a wide angle at very close proximity to the subject than if they had used a 24-70/2.8.</p>

<p><em> I spent decades stuck at one focal length at a time and prefer the flexibility of a zoom. </em></p>

<p>I spent many years stuck not being able to photograph people in most of the situations where I would have wanted to photograph them, because of slow speed of film and relatively poor quality of lenses at wide apertures at the time (the ones that I could afford). Now I'm very happy as by combining high ISO with large apertures I can shoot in any light in which I can see the subject with my own eyes, stop the movement at any focal length from about 24mm to 200mm. As a result I'm much happier and more productive.</p>

<p>Regarding the composition of elements at different depths, I have used a 70-200 in this way, carefully juxtapositioning elements with each other but I rejected this kind of photography as too controlled and staged looking. I feel that imperfections in the image, such as the seemingly random out of focus background, add a breath of life into the image, the feeling that it is a real image of a real situation instead of something carefully arranged by the photographer. When I do landscape or architectural photography I do carefully arrange elements and the perspective to my preference. However whenever I photograph people I avoid the look which results from carefully arranging elements in frame at different depths. You might suggest that I am making excuses for the limitations of primes, but I <em>do</em> own a full set of zooms and use them when I want to. It is a matter of style I guess. I think the perfect harmonious background kind of images ... are more static and harmonious, whereas the images I make with primes breathe life through their imperfections. This isn't something I intended to see, obviously, but it is nevertheless what I have discovered when I review my images.</p>

<p>Of course, using primes, one does miss shots. Sometimes I don't get as many options for the establishing shot as I'm shooting with an 85mm or 200mm prime a lot of the time and the wide angle shots require lens switching and extra effort. But even if I used a 70-200 I would still have to switch to the wide angle, so it doesn't cut down lens switching that much. A 28-300 could do both the establishing shot and the close-ups of individuals (in some extraordinary situations where there is enough light) but I would be unlikely to be happy (with any of the images). I <em>like</em> a clear point of focus and the gradation of unsharpness as a function of depth. The bigger contrast between the two, the better. Not for everything, of course, but it is to me an important option to have available (at all times, not just at one or two focal lengths, or to be used as a special effect). I also like the less obvious contrast reduction and flare that the simpler designs of primes usually afford. There is a sense of cleanliness and freshness about the images. Of course, this isn't true universally for all primes but is typical.</p>