Prime vs Zoom 28mm, 50mm, 85mm vs 24-70 2.8

[goodguy]

Here is an interesting question that probably say a lot about your style of shooting

Assuming money is not an issue if you could choose either these 3 nikon prime lenses

28mm, 50mm 85mm

Or Nikon 24-70mm 2.8

What would you choose ?

I am really enjoying my new Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G but still have a long way before I will feel like I know it inside and out, I am also loving my 2 prime lenses and I feel I got the best of all worlds.

Prime produces sharper images but the 24-70mm images are plenty sharp, prime is faster and that is a big plus and so is the much smaller size of these lenses and lighter weight but on the other hand you do get the flexibility of the zoom.

I think both scenarios have the potential to make amazing pictures and is more up to the indevidual taste of the user.

BTW I chose the 28mm and not the 24mm lens because the 24mm is insanly expensive and I dont feel most people will get it unless this person is rich.

 

[sk66]

The 24-70...
The only primes I own are specialty tools...

 

[Derrel]

The 28/50/85 f/1.8 AF-S G are part of Nikon's new, G-series primes, with the "new look". That would be a nice set. I'd have to add the 28mm G to make the set, and they ARE adding a new 35/1.8 G for full-frame very soon.

The 24-70 AF-S is very big, and heavy. I'm really NOT a fan of that type of 40-44-48 ounce, HUGE lens for "social photography situations". I feel like regular, normal people feel self conscious when a massive lens like the 24-70 or the older 28-70 AF-S is pointed at them at the distances those focal lengths are actually USED AT indoors. My go-to indoor set is a 24/35/50 trio, which is three very small, light, and non-threatening lenses. I think "regular people" react much better to the SMALL 24/35/50 trio than the "big glass stuff".

It's different when shooting people at events, or at weddings, or in modeling sessions. I mean when you aim a smallish, 52mm filter sized lens, like my 24,35, or 50 1.8 AF-D, at a person from five to ten feet away, they do not "freeze up" the way they do with the 28-70 AF-S, or something equally huge and big. I don't want the attention from a massive, oversized, 44-ounce, coffee-can-sized zoom lens in the situations where "I" use those focal lengths, so for me, I prefer the low-profile of the smaller primes.

Other peoples' mileage may well vary.

 

[vipgraphx]

IF money was not an issue I would shoot with them all.

I have seen excellent images results with the 24-70 some people say that primes are sharper and faster but really most people that shoot primes stop down to 2.8-4.5 for sharpest image result or the DOF is very shallow. I have seen excellent shots with primes and I have seen horrible shots with primes. It comes down to knowing the lens and how to use it. When I had the 70-200 2.8 I did not know how to use it very well and many of shots were blurry. I was afraid to crank up ISO and tried to keep it as low as possible and keep the 70-200 at 2.8 so it was fast. But now I understand the importance of higher ISO and adjusting the shutter speed and shooting at 3.5 -4.5 for super sharp images.

I like beef big lenses makes me feel like a super hero paparazzi pro photographer hahahahaah. Really though I do like them but I also not sure if they are best for an every day only one lens thats it for the camera…but, I also am not a huge fan of switching lenses all the time either.

but if money was not an issue I would just have them all!

 

[bc_steve]

I don't know about yours, but I'd say my 70-200 is super sharp at 2.8!

Back to the original post. I kinda agree with Derrel. I really like the lightness and especially inconspicuousness of primes.

 

[PaulWog]

In an ideal world, give me a 24-70 f2.8 with vibration control and in a compact size, with miniscule/no bokeh drawbacks, and I'll rarely ever touch a prime lens! But that's definitely not a reality at the moment.

I look at the Nikon 24-70 as a professional's tool. It's meant for someone who needs a fast aperture and quality that rivals primes, but can't switch between primes without that getting in the way of the workflow. I suppose if someone is comfortable lugging it around on a day-to-day basis for a hobby, then all the power to you -- but I definitely am self-conscious of what I'm hauling around.

Regular primes are great for a number of reasons: Compact/discrete, quality is excellent for the price, and it's easy to start collecting primes slowly. For now, the type of photography I do doesn't really leave me feeling the need for a zoom lens. I'd absolutely prefer to be able to switch my primes back and forth instantaneously, but I'm really happy walking around with one fixed focal length.

 

[sashbar]

I am really enjoying my new Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G but still have a long way before I will feel like I know it inside and out,

I know one of my lenses inside and out. Problem is, I can not put it together again.

 

[Braineack]

I prefer zooms cause I'm lazy and allow more stationary on-the-fly composing. A 24-70 + 70-200 covers a lot of range in two, fastish/sharpish, lenses.

Primes produce much sharper images, in most cases, with better bokeh to boot.

and the weight/size thing, really is a thing; my camera doubles as a bludgeoning weapon.

 

[goodguy]

Primes produce much sharper images, in most cases, with better bokeh to boot.

Primes indeed makes sharper images but I think saying much sharper is a bit exaggeration, the 24-70mm is really very sharp, comparing with my 60mm and 50mm the differences are almost negligible.

 

[randyphotoforum]

i prefer the 24-120 unless I know I will have bad backgrounds and then it's the the 50 or 85 1.4
for landscapes I have no use for primes

 

[Dao]

I do not like heavy lenses as well. I'd rather use a smaller, lighter lens if I can get the same result with it.

Sometimes back (maybe back in 2008 or 2009), a forum member post a thread here with 3 photos and with 100% crop, asking us to match the photos with the lenses. If I remember correctly, the photos were shot with Canon 50mm f/1.4, Tamron standard fast zoom and Canon standard fast zoom L lens. When just look at the photos, it was hard to determine which one is which. But after looking at the 100% crop, it is quite easy to know which one was shot with the prime. (the sharpest one). And the other 2 was very close, and I think the Canon L produced a better bokeh than the Tamron.

That test really show one thing, if you are not pixel peeping, you may not be able to tell the difference between prime and high quality zoom lens.

 

[Braineack]

The corner-to-corner sharpness of my 24-70 is not as good as the corner-to-corner of my 85mm. or the distortion, or vignetting, or CA...

 

[Rick58]

I've always been a big fan of Primes. While the zooms require a smaller bag, I personally think it's a sacrifice.

 

[Don Kondra]

The corner-to-corner sharpness of my 24-70 is not as good as the corner-to-corner of my 85mm. or the distortion, or vignetting, or CA...

You should try the Nikon versions

Cheers, Don

 

[Braineack]

It wasn't worth the extra cost to me, I was willing to sacrifice that in order to get OS, save a bit of weight/size and a lot of $$$. The Nikon still suffers from the same in comparison to a prime, it's like science or something.