Why Buy A Prime Lens?

[KenC]

Zooms are more useful in the telephoto range, where the optical quality and speed are not compromised as much relative to primes, and they save a lot of weight. For example, if one had to carry, say, 135, 200 and 400 mm lenses to approximate the range of a 100-400, one would be carrying around a lot more bulk and weight than the zoom for the sake of a modest increase in speed (assuming your average telephoto lenses, not the superfast ones). On the other hand, to cover 35-105 mm, one could get away with a 35 and a 100 which weigh and cost less than the zoom. Yes, the perspective at about 45-75 is a little different than either lens, but if that bothered you, a 50 wouldn't add much weight or cost to the set.

 

[Josh66]

On the other hand, to cover 35-105 mm, one could get away with a 35 and a 100 which weigh and cost less than the zoom.

Missing a few aren't you?

I think I would throw a 50 and an 85 in there too.

But I see what you're saying...

50 is kinda close to 35, and 85 is kinda close to 100...


Interesting, lol. Never really considered that such a range could be covered with just two lenses... I think I'd still bring the others along too though, just in case.

At least one somewhere between 35 & 100... A 35, 85, and 135 would be better - IMO.

 

[Derrel]

Zooms are more useful in the telephoto range, where the optical quality and speed are not compromised as much relative to primes, and they save a lot of weight. For example, if one had to carry, say, 135, 200 and 400 mm lenses to approximate the range of a 100-400, one would be carrying around a lot more bulk and weight than the zoom for the sake of a modest increase in speed (assuming your average telephoto lenses, not the superfast ones). On the other hand, to cover 35-105 mm, one could get away with a 35 and a 100 which weigh and cost less than the zoom. Yes, the perspective at about 45-75 is a little different than either lens, but if that bothered you, a 50 wouldn't add much weight or cost to the set.

Ken's point is pretty valid about the telephoto range, and in fact, the optical quality of some of the better, professional telephoto zoom lenses is as good as many prime lenses in the same focal length range, and in the case of some of the best normal or wide-angle zooms, the zooms can actually be significantly BETTER than the manufacturer's own prime lenses. Canon's new 70-200/2.8 IS USM Mark II is an outstanding zoom lens! So is Nikon's new VR-II re-design. Nikon's 14-24mm AF-S G is actually the BEST LENS on the market at several lengths, easily bettering prime lenses from Canon, Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon, at several points throughout its range. The 14-24 AF-S G is in fact "the best" wide-angle zoom lens on the market, and is in large part responsible for the new Novoflex Nikon-to-Canon lens adapter with electronic contacts to operate the G-series Nikkor's diaphragm when it's mounted on a high-resolution Canon. Stop by the hardcore landscape shooter's web testing page and see for yourself, a zoom lens that easily beats many prime lenses, from respected makers. Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

Nikon's regular wide AF series primes, like their 14,16,18,20,24/2.8,28/2.8,35/2 are all just that: regular prime wide-angles. Small, compact, affordable, reliable. Some of their absolute best designs however, are the older Ai-S manual focus wides, which were made until the mid-2000's. There really is not much of a market anymore for wide-angle primes...they do not sell very well, unless they offer something very special, like really high speed. Most people vastly prefer the convenience of a zoom lens, and the "pro" Nikon and "pro" Canon zoom lenses are really quite good,and have basically killed off most of the interest in owning four or five or six different prime lenses.

The new Nikon 16-35 f/4 AF-S VR-G is one I am going to try out later this summer...it has a 16,18,20,24,28,and 35mm all in ONE barrel..that is SIX lenses in one barrel...with VR. Sure, it's heavier than any one of the six prime wides, but it weighs less than all of them put together.

Prime lenses are,at the wider end, replaceable by the best,modern wide zooms, for most people and many shooting conditions. Prime lenses are irreplaceable at the longer end, or when you need the absolute best, widest-aperture performance at say, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100 or 105mm, 135mm, 200, 300, or 400mm. 85mm 1.8 to 1.4 to 1.2 primes are really nice tools to have for lower-light work. The 200/2 and 300/2.8 are irreplaceable by any zoom, at the same quality level; Sigma's 120-300 is a 1980's grade 300...it's not up to snuff,and it's not really 300mm either.

As to using a 35mm and a 100mm in place of a 35-105 zoom...I can see that...many people do not like the 50-85 range very well,and often do without....35 is semi-wide, 100 is medium tele...I'd like a high-speed 50 in the middle,though, since it's so small.

The "attitude" some people have toward zooms and or primes is largely a function of their age and experiences with both. I see some 1960's-1970's "attitude" here in this thread, that does not square with the reality of actual zooms on the market now in 2010...and among younger shooters, there is less experience with prime lenses. Primes have become "exotic" these days, whereas they used to be regular,mundane,and commonly used. There are myths and misunderstandings galore on this primes vs. zooms topic. There are quite a few "primes-only" old guys, and also among newer shooters, there's a primes-only snobbishness that's fashionable among a sub-set of people who are young and new to photography. Then, there's the majority of the market....you know who you are...

 

[usayit]

Nothing new...

Zooms versus primes debate can be dwindled down to flexibility or use versus. IQ.

 

[Derrel]

But the fact is, there are quite a few modern zoom lenses that are BETTER in optical quality than the prime lenses they replace...like most all of Nikon 's entire prime wide-angle autofocus lineup...the 14-24 is better than basically any of those old primes...
the new 70-200 2.8 from Nikon is optically, much better than the 180mm f/2.8 ED AF-D--the zoom focuses much,much faster AND has almost no chromatic aberration...the prime focuses slowly, clunkily, and fringes like a SOB...

The modern zoom lens is in fact, much better than most older primes..the new 24-70/2.8 models from Canon and Nikon are better than older 28,35,and 50mm lenses...same with the Tamron 28-75...it is hugely better when shot right at the sun than the Canon 50mm 1.8...

 

[usayit]

Apples versus oranges..

Of course Modern Zoom can perform better than Old Primes.. (well not all).

Compare Old Zooms to Old Primes... the zooms were not all that great
Compare Old Zooms to Modern Primes... duh.
Compare Modern Zooms to Modern Primes.. this is the only comparison worth noting.

The modern zoom lens is in fact, much better than most older primes..the new 24-70/2.8 models from Canon and Nikon are better than older 28,35,and 50mm lenses.

Not totally true... 24-70f/2.8 can't match a 24mm f/1.4L, 35mm f/1.4L, nor the 50mm f/1.4 in terms of max aperture. I'm fairly impressed with the 24mmL and 50mm I owned and you have pointed out some weak points in the 24-70f/2.8L in the past.

Simply put.....

Primes versus Zoom debate can be easily summed up as a choice between flexibility versus IQ. Its not that complicated.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

It's all been stated already, and it is down to what/how you shoot.

I'm starting to prefer midrange primes not for street cred, or because of a "that's how dad did it" mentality, but because most midrange primes do what zooms can't.

Take Nikon's or Canon's 24-70's. They're both great lenses. All have a surgical sharpness to them which is good for resolving 24mp+ cameras. However, they don't open up to f/1.4. Which for some lenses like the 24mm f/1.4, offer HUGE creative potential. Same with a 35, 50, or 85mm f/1.4. Have a lens that brings in 4 times the light and you can do anything. Not to mention if you need that surgical sharpness, generally the fast midrange primes are about perfect once they're at f/2.8.

A 24-70 at 50mm and f/2.8 cannot do this:

And a 24mm lens at f/2.8 would have required a 1 minute exposure at ISO 6400 to do this, which would have changed everything because the stars would be trails:

 

[Derrel]

Not totally true... 24-70f/2.8 can't match a 24mm f/1.4L, 35mm f/1.4L, nor the 50mm f/1.4 in terms of max aperture. I'm fairly impressed with the 24mmL and 50mm I owned and you have pointed out some weak points in the 24-70f/2.8L in the past.

Simply put.....

Primes versus Zoom debate can be easily summed up as a choice between flexibility versus IQ. Its not that complicated.

Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

PHOTO:Canon 24mm f/1.4-L c24l_f5_zcn.jpg

at f/5.6, the corners look like crap. Total crap. Some premium 24mm 1.4 lens,eh?

Nikon 14-24mm zoom at f/5.0--even wider-open PHOTO
nik1424_24mm_f5_zcn.jpg looks excellent

Canon makes some pretty horrible wide-angle lenses, and has for years. Same with wide-angle zooms. Nikon has a clear edge over Canon and has for years...I was being charitable above and including the 24-70 Canon along with the 28-70 AF-S G Nikkor, which is newer, and better. The Canon 16-35-II is streets below the 14-24 Nikkor... Canon's "regular" 28,35,and 50mm lenses are optically not all that great,and those are the ones I am comparing with the "pro" 2.8 zooms in the 24-70 category above...the Nikkor primes in the above AF category are also not as good as the 24-70 AF-S G, and the zoom is like 20+ years newer in design that the oldest of the 24-50mm Nikkor primes most people have...

Make any sense now? Do you need it spelled out lens for lens for lens for lens for lens?? Again, look at that hand-picked 24mm f/1.4 Canon L prime and see how crappy it really is compared to a newer Nikon 14-24mm zoom...and that with the zoom wider-open too! AND both images were SHOT ON THE SAME Canon BODY,with a lens adapter!!!

 

[Derrel]

And a 24mm lens at f/2.8 would have required a 1 minute exposure at ISO 6400 to do this, which would have changed everything because the stars would be trails:

Sw1tchFX: If you had shot that night-time star shot with the Canon 24mm f/1.4-L prime, the edges of the frame would have been absolutely riddled with coma...you happen to own one of the most well-corrected, newest, best-designed 24mm lenses in existence...the Nikon 24/1.4 AF-S G.

Here is a seriously,seriously hard-core Canon shooter's review of the 24/1.4-L from Canon...Castleman is one of the people whose opinions on Canon gear one can take to the bank. As he points out, the 24 1.4-L from Canon is very soft, and bad at the corners, until it is "significantly stopped down." So much for the L-myth...

Review of the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM Lens

 

[usayit]

Derrel.. I don't mean to be harsh here.. but simply put .. get a life. Everything with you is nikon versus canon. ITS really tiresome. grep through my post... do you see anything "nikon"?

You missed my point... The post I replied to is simply stating that comparing a modern zoom to an old prime is an apples versus oranges comparison. Two... you can't shoot any of the zooms you rave about at f/1.4 aperture.

I believe Sw1tch said the same. Furthermore, for any lens you can find raves and rants online.


Do you sleep with your overrated equipment? I hope you do because you LOVE them. that's all well too.

 

[table1349]

Anybody want to bet which is sharper. My 70-200 f2.8L at 200mm or my 200mm f1.8L or 200 f2.8L. I know, that's why I own both the 200 f1.8L and the 200 f2.8L along with a 300 f2.8L and a 400 f2.8L.

 

[Overread]

Anybody want to bet which is sharper. My 70-200 f2.8L at 200mm or my 200mm f1.8L or 200 f2.8L. I know, that's why I own both the 200 f1.8L and the 200 f2.8L along with a 300 f2.8L and a 400 f2.8L.

Darn it you just made me soooo jealous! :greenpbl:
you know with all those fine sharp 200mm lenses and that nice 400mm do you really ever get to use that 300mm? The poor thing must be starving for use - and I know a good home for it

 

[Derrel]

Derrel.. I don't mean to be harsh here.. but simply put .. get a life. Everything with you is nikon versus canon. ITS really tiresome. grep through my post... do you see anything "nikon"?

You missed my point... The post I replied to is simply stating that comparing a modern zoom to an old prime is an apples versus oranges comparison. Two... you can't shoot any of the zooms you rave about at f/1.4 aperture.

I believe Sw1tch said the same. Furthermore, for any lens you can find raves and rants online.

Do you sleep with your overrated equipment? I hope you do because you LOVE them. that's all well too.

Here you go usayit...I don't mean to be rude, but you sir need to get a life...I don't even know you and I have seen MULTIPLE photos of your collection of Leicas, 4/3 cameras, your Lenny Kravitz-owned Leica 90mm, and on and on...all you and your camera gear porn pics.... do you sleep with your overated Leicas and min-cams??? ....we've all seen your desk, your camera collection, and your "gear porn" snaps. Many times...

Grep through my posts above: I am comparing MODERN ZOOMS with MODERN primes. Can you not see that? Can you not get a clue? You say the Canon 24/1.4-L is a great lens, but it sucks, mostly. According to one of the web's single largest Canon shooters and lens testers...Castleman! The truth really must sting when it comes from a well-respected, capable Canon shooter like Castleman that one of "your own personal lenses" sucks, and sucks badly...and that your "modern" prime gets blown away by a "modern zoom" and a modern prime from a company that YOU do not happen to shoot with. Ouch..that's gotta' sting...

Again, sorry to bring facts into the discussion, with actual examples...but please, get a ,life yourself usayit...you made an allegation that the 24-L was "faster" than an f/2.8 zoom, but in reality, its optical performance falls short of modern zooms, and modern primes....so much for the L-myth...but, again, you're an owner of the 24/L, so you have an axe to grind...I get that.

Here's a photo for you, usayit...it was shot with a Canon Digital Rebel at 25mm by LCARSx32. He gave me permission to modify it and post it. I slapped on the logos yesterday. You can be the goat on the left, the Canon goat.

 

[usayit]

Here you go usayit...I don't mean to be rude, but you sir need to get a life...I don't even know you and I have seen MULTIPLE photos of your collection of Leicas, 4/3 cameras, your Lenny Kravitz-owned Leica 90mm, and on and on...all you and your camera gear porn pics.... do you sleep with your overated Leicas and min-cams??? ....we've all seen your desk, your camera collection, and your "gear porn" snaps. Many times...

Yeh... sure... Here's more about me

Earning a good income while posting (desk job managing computers)

Buying small cameras that fit my life rather than the other way around

No time to post pages and pages of Nikon vs Canon B.S.

No time to troll the internet looking for more MTF graphs and useless reviews

No time to write pages on yet another useless blog. Much less pages directed against you nemesis, inTempus.

If I did have a blog, it would contain more than just photography.

I have a post count that you'll pass up in 2-3 years that took me nearly 10 years.



The only reason why all you know about me are through quick snaps of my own gear pertinent to the topics I respond to is because.... I do have a life.



You need to replace "Canon" with "Leica" on that goat... I'm a Leica shooter. YOu didn't know that because I don't go ranting "Leica is the best" in 9/10 of my posts like you do with "Nikon". See my avatar... idiot.


[EDIT] Thanks the PM... you had time to write a couple screens worth with links to your blog? Wow... I'll read through it when... you guessed it... my life allows me to. Excuse me.. time to head out to enjoy the weather with my Son.

 

[OlyNikonLearner]

I use a Nikkor 35mm F/1.8 regularly. At $150 (or less) street, you can't beat the price (and at this price bracket there's no reason NOT having the 35mm in your bag, unless of course you have decided you don't need it). I shoot portraits, interiors, and cityscapes with it. It handles everything with aplomb. It gathers light like no other. People get surprised when they see me shooting nonstop indoors without the flash gun going pop,pop,pop. The results are always excellent. Recently, I went through a museum with the 35mm and shot some 130 pictures. Almost ALL of them came out as planned. Little post processing and a happy (amateur) photographer. You can't lose, really. Use the 35mm to your heart's delight!