prime vs zoom

[metalshredder]

Not much left to say here, but agree with these guys. I picked up my 50mm/1.8 from KenW, as it turns out, after a camera-bag-unzipped mishap left my brand new 50mm/1.8 in pieces. I would just say to choose your primes carefully; to carry 25 lenses with you would just be rediculous...

[venchka]

Originally Posted by SCone

A best lens, like the best camera, can be debated. But the one in your hand at the right moment in time will always yield the perfect shot.

Amen!

Originally Posted by metalshredder

... I would just say to choose your primes carefully; to carry 25 lenses with you would just be rediculous...

Hey! Have you been looking in my camera bags?????????

Back in the Time Before Zoom, this conversation wouldn't be happening. Some of us learned with a 50mm f/3.5 lens on a light tight box. Guess what? It worked! Guess what else? Nearly 60 years later, it still works!

Fixed focal lenses have their place. Zoom lenses have their place. Your mission is to figure out which works best in a given situation.

[tikaldogos]

so why not get the canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L? you would have the 35mm and the 50mm covered. and with it being an "L" lens you have the good glass. id not having the is a big issue

[jfoureyes]

Originally Posted by tikaldogos

so why not get the canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L? you would have the 35mm and the 50mm covered. and with it being an "L" lens you have the good glass. id not having the is a big issue

Your post ask about prime vs zoom lens...

[mmuhlenkamp]

Originally Posted by tikaldogos

so why not get the canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L? you would have the 35mm and the 50mm covered. and with it being an "L" lens you have the good glass. id not having the is a big issue

You could, but that lens is way heavier and doesn't let in as much light as a 35 f/2.0 or a 50 f/1.4.

Camera and lens weight affect my pleasure in shooting quite a bit. I'm much happier to carry around my Rebel and 50 or 28 prime for casual shooting rather than lug around my 5D and 24-105L. Both good set-ups, but the lighter weight is certainly nice.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by venchka

What Tom said.
Smaller and lighter are HUGE advantages when you are acutally using the lens.

Originally Posted by mmuhlenkamp

You could, but that lens is way heavier and doesn't let in as much light as a 35 f/2.0 or a 50 f/1.4.

Camera and lens weight affect my pleasure in shooting quite a bit. I'm much happier to carry around my Rebel and 50 or 28 prime for casual shooting rather than lug around my 5D and 24-105L. Both good set-ups, but the lighter weight is certainly nice.

BINGO!

You can play that "what if" game all day long. Why not the 24-105? Or 24mm, 50mm & 100mm lenses? There are too many choices available. It gets bewildering in a hurry.

[mmuhlenkamp]

Also, I find I compose shots better with a prime as opposed to a zoom lens. I know what cropping will look like before I even put the viewfinder to my eye. It's much easier for me and even cheap primes are exceptionally sharp. To each his own.

[crbeveri]

Originally Posted by tikaldogos

so why not get the canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L? you would have the 35mm and the 50mm covered. and with it being an "L" lens you have the good glass. id not having the is a big issue

Also, the IQ of the 24-70L is soft compared to the primes it covers. I only have 3 Primes in my bag, 24mm t/s, 100mm, and 300mm 2.8 and have to say the IQ of all is amazing. I was working with my 24-105 and switched over to the 100mm and there was a noticeable difference on the first shot. Both lenses were being shot at ISO 100, 1/200sec, f/10, @100mm using studio lighting.

TC's points for primes are right on. I will say however, my 70-200 never leaves my bag. I also find myself using my 24mm t/s more than my 24-105 for landscape work because it really is just a great lens.

There is nothing wrong with zooms though I still use them but primes are typically, faster, better IQ, lighter, quicker AF.... and everything else TC said.

[metalshredder]

Well, all things are relative, right? the L series zoom will likely destroy the kit zoom lens, but if you compare it to an L prime, well the prime should beat it every time. Figure if the prime is razor sharp at the middle of it's focal range, then it's got to fall off at least a little bit at either end...

[JWCustomPhotography]

I personally like both, but they each have their own use. For example, shooting concerts, I can snag two different crops of an image from the same spot and have 2 different images completely.

When I have a prime out, I tend to think more creatively and use that fixed focal length to find views that I might not have sought out with a zoom.

Other than that, what everyone else said.

And pick up the 50 1.8, I think its a good introduction into understanding if you even want a prime. You may hate it, you may love it and you may get addicted to a wide aperture.

[dmora]

Tools for a job.
Learn to use ALL the tools so you know what job they are best used for.

I'm not going to try to shoot kid's sports with a 50mm if i have access to a 70-200, and i'm not going to try to do street photography being discrete with a 70-200 hanging off my camera.

Derpy thread is derp.

[rkee]

I have several zooms and primes, but my primes exp my 85mm is my go to for portraits. I love the images I get from this lens

[iCe]

The 70-200 f2.8L is a very versatile lens. That said, I shoot about 98% primes. Everyone's covered the positives of shooting primes and in addition to being a tad soft (ok for portraits I suppose) the 24-70 is a macro lens so that makes it "kind of" versatile.