[yozza]

Just looking to get a general opinion on primes versus zooms for shooting portraits. With zooms covering various ranges now such as 24-70 and with good quality, for what reason would you purchase primes? From my understanding is primes still for sharpness/image quality, mixed reviews for out of focus edges on zooms, more involvement with composition, weight, low light, bokeh. Zooms more so for landscape, general daily use, sports etc?

Does anyone shoot portraits with zooms at all?

---

Last edited by yozza; 11-06-2016 at 06:54 AM.

[wissink]

I certainly prefer primes. However, I've been using zooms when I'm working for someone (even unpaid) as it removes one of many stresses I face while doing so. Specifically, I've been using the DFA 28-105 and Sigma 100-300 F4 for portraits. Note that I like the resutls better when I'm having some control over lighting (flash). I'm curious to see what the upcoming primes will be like though. I've never tried an 85 or 77 prime. I have used the DA 70 ltd, * 55, 50 1.8, F 50 1.7, 35 2.8 ltd, FA 43 ltd, FA 100 2.8 on K3. The F 50, F 100 2.8 (not FA), and maybe the 35 ltd on the K1. I can't wait to fix my *55 to try on the K1. So far thats my favourite.

[alamo5000]

Just looking to get a general opinion on primes versus zooms for shooting portraits. With zooms covering various ranges now such as 24-70 and with good quality, for what reason would you purchase primes? From my understanding is primes still for sharpness/image quality, mixed reviews for out of focus edges on zooms, more involvement with composition, weight, low light, bokeh. Zooms more so for landscape, general daily use, sports etc?

Does anyone shoot portraits with zooms at all?

It depends on what kind of portraits you're taking. Not all portraits are the same. I've taken portraits on the streets of Istanbul and in the back country of Africa all with a zoom and no planning.

Another friend of mine took a bunch of REALLY good portraits with a FF camera and a 70-200 lens.

That said I personally love prime lenses as do a whole bunch of other people. Fast lenses in low light with a camera that has good ISO, low noise capabilities makes other things possible.

As a general rule there is no right or wrong answer so if you're looking for that you won't find it. Basically in my opinion everything is situational.

After I did an around the world trip I've become a huge believer in zoom lenses. When you are out in a place with swirling wind and dust or dirt, or salt water or whatever sitting there swapping lenses when you only have 10-15 seconds to get a shot in the first place isn't the way to go. In other circumstances primes lenses are better.

It boils down to 'which screwdriver is better for me? Phillips head or flat head?'

Well that depends on what you are working on.

Just looking to get a general opinion on primes versus zooms for shooting portraits. Does anyone shoot portraits with zooms at all?

Yes, constant aperture zooms and I get paid for it. I think lighting, posing and customer rapport are more important than a specific lens. If I have room, my 50-135. Smaller spaces, Tamron 28-75/2.8 or DA 17-70/4. The 17-70 is a good small studio lens

[mikeSF]

it's preference, of course and for portraits, a zoom gives you the convenience of not having to move in or out as you might with a single focal length.
For IQ and my landscape work, I can say with confidence I have never found any zoom that can out prime a good prime.

And generally speaking, a well tuned prime is generally sharper, has less internal reflection/fewer elements for flaring, and they are often faster than a zoom.

[Kerrowdown]

Portraits primes or zoom?

Do you want my unbiased answer?

It could prove to be a difficult one, let me see...

[biz-engineer]

Does anyone shoot portraits with zooms at all?

It depends how much time you have when shooting. Zooming in and out with your feet does not work quite as a zoom because perspective is defined by the focal length and not by the shooting distance, usually selecting a specific focal length for wanted perspective, means swapping primes lenses if time allows or zooming in/out with a zoom. For amateurs of background blur, f2.8 is wide enough for portraits. Often the background is chosen not to distract from the subject, f1.4, F1.8 fast lens not critical here. Added some lighting with flash and using base ISO is not an issue at all. For example, a cheap flash GN40 you can shoot ISO100 f10 at 4 meters of a studio with a slightly dark / neutral backdrop, fast lens not needed at all. For all those reason I much prefer the convenience of a zoom, typically 70-200 f2.8 on FF.

[kenspo]

If you know what you, it doesn't matter. The new zooms on K-1, is just as sharp as any primes. I use mostly 24-70 in studio.

[bigdavephoto]

It boils down to 'which screwdriver is better for me? Phillips head or flat head?'

.

We are Pentax users so the choice should be Torx head or Square head. We are different.

[LensBeginner]

get-the-shot-get-the-shot-get-the-shot
= AF zooms

think, compose, frame, check aperture, check iso, (check lighting), think again, recompose, reframe, focus, shoot
= prime, even MF

[Alex645]

Just looking to get a general opinion on primes versus zooms for shooting portraits.
Does anyone shoot portraits with zooms at all?

If I had to guess, most portraits these days are shot with zooms. However, if you want my opinion, I only shoot portraits with primes, primarily because of the larger apertures. For example on APS-C using a 50mm or 55mm f/1.4, on FF a 77mm or 85mm f/1.8, or on MF a 90mm f/2.8. It gives me the shallow depth of field and bokeh background edge over using a zoom that I prefer.

The smaller the sensor, the bigger the difference, but then shooting wide open with a bigger sensor will really show the limits of lens and youʻll want to stop down enough to where the prime again is giving you an advantage.

The best is to do a side-by-side comparison. With this said, there are plenty of successful and satisfied portrait photographers that never use primes.

[lithedreamer]

get-the-shot-get-the-shot-get-the-shot
= AF zooms

think, compose, frame, check aperture, check iso, (check lighting), think again, recompose, reframe, focus, shoot
= prime, even MF

This is the correct answer.

[malinku]

I use both it all depends on the conditions.

Most of my digital outdoor shoots have been done using a 70-210 or 28-135mm lens.
Indoors with digital I use a 28-85mm with flash. Primes when I do not use flash.
For the most part I go for convenience when I shoot digital so zooms make more sense.

With film I always use primes. But that is due to using system that have no zooms.

[automorphism]

Like some others here I also like faster than f/2.8 sometimes. So that's one reason. Primes are also often lighter than zooms and the camera thus is very compact. The viewfinder is very bright with a fast prime as well.

[lithedreamer]

Like some others here I also like faster than f/2.8 sometimes. So that's one reason. Primes are also often lighter than zooms and the camera thus is very compact. The viewfinder is very bright with a fast prime as well.

I think people underestimate the effects of weight. Take the D FA* 70-200 f2.8, for example, at 1755g. Instead of slinging that zoom around for a casual walk around, you could take all of this gear:

• FA 31mm Limited f1.8 (345g)
• FA 43mm Limited f1.9 (155g)
• FA 77mm Limited f1.8 (270g)
• D FA 100mm f2.8 (340g)
• D FA 28-108 f3.5-5.6 (440g)

Even with all those lenses in your bag, you'd still have 205g to spare before you're even weight-wise with the constant aperture zoom (according to Wolfram Alpha, that's more than half a can of soda).