Zoom vs Prime

Wheatfield · 08-20-2011, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by JHD

But they come at the cost off having only one focal length. The fact is you can't always zoom in (or out) with your feet and if you can, buy then you may have lost the shot. And unless we're talking about pancake primes, the size difference hardly matters. So whatever perceived advantages one may have with prime lenses, they are out weighed by their limitations / disadvantages.

We'll agree to disagree.

tyronfall · 08-24-2011, 04:54 PM

Hello all

Just thought I'd join in on the conversation, and lend my opinion.

For me I've sold all my zoom lenses except one and use only primes now. For me it was when I looked at the metadata on the photos I shoot generally around the same focal lenght +/- a few mm. I guess I just preferred the look of certain focal lenghts. But yes sometimes it is a pain to use my feet to walk the few meters to get to correct framing and not all the time possible, but I have found that it slowed me down so I do actually think about framing than just zooming away. That's just me, I don't do photography for commercial reasons but for the fun of it, so it works for me

The weight was the biggest issue for me. I had a sigma 20-40 f2.8 before I bought a DA 15mm Ltd, and trust me when you are walking around, that's a lot of difference in feel. Granted they two different lenses but I also had a Sigma 10-20 before and when hiking, the reduction is weight using a DA 15mm is kinder on the shoulder and legs.

Onto normal ranges, I had a sigma 28-70 f2.8. It was large too, however it did cover the ranges of the 3 primes I have, so it was convenient but the down side is that it is slower than the 31, 50 f1.2 and the 77. So it was a compromise, and for me a faster lens was higher in my priority, K&7's high ISO performance isn'tits strongest point. Generally now when I shooting I use one of my 3 lenes say 80% of the time and when I need a different look, I switch and complete the shots that I couldn't acheive with the lens that I had on.

However I have kept one zoom the Sigma 70-200 because, one there weren't a lot of primes in this range I was interested in or could afford soon, but it does offer me a chance to use the zoom for creative options that my primes can't.

Well thats my two cents, but everyone has their own preferences when it comes to shooting a different needs. I couldn't complain on the IQ from the zooms and if I didn't have to sell them for cash for the other lenses I bought I would have kept them.

Take care and happy shooting

unfocused · 08-25-2011, 03:42 AM

Some good points well made, Tyronfall. I like to travel light and I won't lug a bag around and I can't be doing with 77mm filters and massive hoods. Size and weight are important.

In the film days it usually meant my MX and fast (f/1.4) 50mm (the best lens in anyone's collection) or maybe f/2 35mm or f2.8/24mm, although over the years I have accumulated a draw-full of lenses to choose from. My beef is that the equivalent prime lenses with similar quality and speed aren't available for dSLRs. I find myself using the aforementioned K2.8/24mm with stopdown metering to plug the 35mm gap and the 2.8/35mm macro as a substitute for the 50mm but it's just not the same. An ancient K3.5/28mm does duty as the 'ideal' focal length vacated by my 1.9/43mm Limited.

C'mon Pentax, you're not giving us the right tools for the job anymore.

joshcello · 08-26-2011, 07:35 PM

Zooms are fantastic for convenience and versatility, and I've gotten some really nice shots with my walk-around zoom, but most of the shots I've loved best have come from prime lenses. When I want more control than a point and shoot can offer but don't want to deal with a giant camera, a good prime lens is really perfect. I bought a 40mm 2.8 limited for backpacking and mountaineering trips, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

UdonUdon · 08-28-2011, 10:18 PM

Well, pretty much everything has been discussed between zoom and primes. However...

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

...The days of primes are past their prime...

This is really far from the truth. For instance, look at how many prime lenses can be found across the lens roadmaps from different brands: 5/9 lenses on the 2010-2011 roadmap for Samsung's NX system, 5/10 lenses on the 2010-2012 roadmap for the Sony NEX system, and 4/9 lenses on the 2011 roadmap for Zuiko MFT system just to name a few.

Additionally, prime lenses still have plenty of room for growth and advancements. Check out the sub f1 prime lenses announced within the past two years, the recently developed Samyang prime lenses with high IQ at low costs, and the new and highly regarded APS-C mirrorless NX pancakes.

Honestly, in my mind the show has only just begun for prime lenses in the digital era, and I can't wait to see what the lens developers will come up with next.

RioRico · 08-29-2011, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by UdonUdon

Additionally, prime lenses still have plenty of room for growth and advancements. Check out the sub f1 prime lenses announced within the past two years, the recently developed Samyang prime lenses with high IQ at low costs, and the new and highly regarded APS-C mirrorless NX pancakes.

I'll distinguish here between lenses for 'miniature' formats (135/FF and crop) and for sub-mini formats (P&S digicams, 8mm cine, CCTV, etc) because the sizes are vastly different.

FF and crop-sensor cams just aren't going to see pancake zooms nor superfast zooms. I have examples of each for sub-mini cameras: a tiny internal zoom in a P&S; the 15-25/1.2 zoom for an 8mm cine cam, fast but long. With our dSLRs and MILC/EVIL cams, we don't have zooms faster than f/2.8 (f/2.6 was the fastest ever made IIRC) nor smaller than the F35-70. We may debate other trade-offs; but if we want speed and/or compactness, we need prime lenses.

An argument against the need for fast primes is that as usable ISO rises, their light-grabbing power just isn't needed. A counter-argument: thin DOF needs a wide aperture. A response: thin DOF can be simulated in PP. That may be anathema to many. Compactness is still a factor: I doubt I'll ever see a 100mm zoom as tiny as the Enna Tele-Sandmar 100/4.5 that's half the size of a SuperTak 55/2, just 35mm wide and extending 40mm from the body. Oh, had I a Kr to mount it on...

Due to physical+optical+economic constraints, zooms just won't supplant primes in the foreseeable future. I think that's a safe prediction, eh?

**miltona580** · 08-29-2011, 02:53 PM

I think you sacrifice too many stops to use a zoom lens, which makes them less pratical indoors. Yes, there are some zoom lenses that are available at f/2.8, which is still decently fast. I'd still prefer a lens that was faster. So that is why I prefer to carry three fast prime lenses instead of my kit lens.

08-29-2011, 07:07 AM	#111
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by UdonUdon Additionally, prime lenses still have plenty of room for growth and advancements. Check out the sub f1 prime lenses announced within the past two years, the recently developed Samyang prime lenses with high IQ at low costs, and the new and highly regarded APS-C mirrorless NX pancakes. I'll distinguish here between lenses for 'miniature' formats (135/FF and crop) and for sub-mini formats (P&S digicams, 8mm cine, CCTV, etc) because the sizes are vastly different. FF and crop-sensor cams just aren't going to see pancake zooms nor superfast zooms. I have examples of each for sub-mini cameras: a tiny internal zoom in a P&S; the 15-25/1.2 zoom for an 8mm cine cam, fast but long. With our dSLRs and MILC/EVIL cams, we don't have zooms faster than f/2.8 (f/2.6 was the fastest ever made IIRC) nor smaller than the F35-70. We may debate other trade-offs; but if we want speed and/or compactness, we need prime lenses. An argument against the need for fast primes is that as usable ISO rises, their light-grabbing power just isn't needed. A counter-argument: thin DOF needs a wide aperture. A response: thin DOF can be simulated in PP. That may be anathema to many. Compactness is still a factor: I doubt I'll ever see a 100mm zoom as tiny as the Enna Tele-Sandmar 100/4.5 that's half the size of a SuperTak 55/2, just 35mm wide and extending 40mm from the body. Oh, had I a Kr to mount it on... Due to physical+optical+economic constraints, zooms just won't supplant primes in the foreseeable future. I think that's a safe prediction, eh? Last edited by RioRico; 08-29-2011 at 03:50 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Short zoom or prime?	Tomzee93	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	11-25-2010 08:57 PM
prime vs. zoom	a_brooke2006	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	10-23-2010 01:59 PM
are you a zoom or a prime?	nostatic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	69	09-17-2009 12:51 AM
Prime vs. Zoom	magnum1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	11-25-2008 05:12 AM
Zoom v. Prime	stafford588	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	01-14-2008 04:10 AM

08-20-2011, 06:31 PM	#106
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by JHD But they come at the cost off having only one focal length. The fact is you can't always zoom in (or out) with your feet and if you can, buy then you may have lost the shot. And unless we're talking about pancake primes, the size difference hardly matters. So whatever perceived advantages one may have with prime lenses, they are out weighed by their limitations / disadvantages. We'll agree to disagree.

08-24-2011, 04:54 PM	#107
tyronfall Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Brisbane Posts: 57	Hello all Just thought I'd join in on the conversation, and lend my opinion. For me I've sold all my zoom lenses except one and use only primes now. For me it was when I looked at the metadata on the photos I shoot generally around the same focal lenght +/- a few mm. I guess I just preferred the look of certain focal lenghts. But yes sometimes it is a pain to use my feet to walk the few meters to get to correct framing and not all the time possible, but I have found that it slowed me down so I do actually think about framing than just zooming away. That's just me, I don't do photography for commercial reasons but for the fun of it, so it works for me The weight was the biggest issue for me. I had a sigma 20-40 f2.8 before I bought a DA 15mm Ltd, and trust me when you are walking around, that's a lot of difference in feel. Granted they two different lenses but I also had a Sigma 10-20 before and when hiking, the reduction is weight using a DA 15mm is kinder on the shoulder and legs. Onto normal ranges, I had a sigma 28-70 f2.8. It was large too, however it did cover the ranges of the 3 primes I have, so it was convenient but the down side is that it is slower than the 31, 50 f1.2 and the 77. So it was a compromise, and for me a faster lens was higher in my priority, K&7's high ISO performance isn'tits strongest point. Generally now when I shooting I use one of my 3 lenes say 80% of the time and when I need a different look, I switch and complete the shots that I couldn't acheive with the lens that I had on. However I have kept one zoom the Sigma 70-200 because, one there weren't a lot of primes in this range I was interested in or could afford soon, but it does offer me a chance to use the zoom for creative options that my primes can't. Well thats my two cents, but everyone has their own preferences when it comes to shooting a different needs. I couldn't complain on the IQ from the zooms and if I didn't have to sell them for cash for the other lenses I bought I would have kept them. Take care and happy shooting

08-25-2011, 03:42 AM	#108
unfocused Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Norfolk Posts: 85	Some good points well made, Tyronfall. I like to travel light and I won't lug a bag around and I can't be doing with 77mm filters and massive hoods. Size and weight are important. In the film days it usually meant my MX and fast (f/1.4) 50mm (the best lens in anyone's collection) or maybe f/2 35mm or f2.8/24mm, although over the years I have accumulated a draw-full of lenses to choose from. My beef is that the equivalent prime lenses with similar quality and speed aren't available for dSLRs. I find myself using the aforementioned K2.8/24mm with stopdown metering to plug the 35mm gap and the 2.8/35mm macro as a substitute for the 50mm but it's just not the same. An ancient K3.5/28mm does duty as the 'ideal' focal length vacated by my 1.9/43mm Limited. C'mon Pentax, you're not giving us the right tools for the job anymore.

08-26-2011, 07:35 PM	#109
joshcello New Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: West Virginia Posts: 7	Zooms are fantastic for convenience and versatility, and I've gotten some really nice shots with my walk-around zoom, but most of the shots I've loved best have come from prime lenses. When I want more control than a point and shoot can offer but don't want to deal with a giant camera, a good prime lens is really perfect. I bought a 40mm 2.8 limited for backpacking and mountaineering trips, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

08-28-2011, 10:18 PM	#110
UdonUdon Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 90	Well, pretty much everything has been discussed between zoom and primes. However... Originally posted by Jewelltrail ...The days of primes are past their prime... This is really far from the truth. For instance, look at how many prime lenses can be found across the lens roadmaps from different brands: 5/9 lenses on the 2010-2011 roadmap for Samsung's NX system, 5/10 lenses on the 2010-2012 roadmap for the Sony NEX system, and 4/9 lenses on the 2011 roadmap for Zuiko MFT system just to name a few. Additionally, prime lenses still have plenty of room for growth and advancements. Check out the sub f1 prime lenses announced within the past two years, the recently developed Samyang prime lenses with high IQ at low costs, and the new and highly regarded APS-C mirrorless NX pancakes. Honestly, in my mind the show has only just begun for prime lenses in the digital era, and I can't wait to see what the lens developers will come up with next.

08-29-2011, 02:53 PM	#112
miltona580 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 309	I think you sacrifice too many stops to use a zoom lens, which makes them less pratical indoors. Yes, there are some zoom lenses that are available at f/2.8, which is still decently fast. I'd still prefer a lens that was faster. So that is why I prefer to carry three fast prime lenses instead of my kit lens.