Amateur Question: The Lowdown on Lenses

[KelSS90]

For the last couple of months as I have began shooting in manual mode, I have focused on the exposure triangle and other settings (metering, wb, etc) and truly understanding them before moving on to the the various other aspects of photography. I recently picked up a Photography 101 type book and am currently reading through the chapter on lenses. It explains macro, telephoto, zoom, etc. in depth... Here's what it doesn't explain so I thought I would turn to the pros here...

Why choose a single fixed lens over a zoom lens? What is the benefit in having a 50mm lens over a 50-200mm zoom lens? It certainly seems like more bang for your buck to go with the zoom lens. I assume it is a difference in quality between to two?

(For what it is worth, I am still using the kit lens that came with my D3200. I don't foresee myself in the market for a new lens in the near future, as my current lens fits all of my needs for now. Regardless, I would like to understand the topic here a little better.)





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SnappingShark]

The fixed lenses are usually less expensive.
The fixed lenses are usually faster in terms of relative aperture... where as the zoom lens will probably have a range of apertures available to it depending on what length you have it set to - so you can't have the f/2.8 when it's all the way at 200mm for example, you will be forced to use the f/5.6 (example)

There are probably more pros / cons, but those are the pros of fixed length from top of my head

 

[SCraig]

Prime (fixed length) lenses are normally SLIGHTLY sharper than comparable zoom lenses although modern zoom lenses have narrowed that gap significantly. There are a lot of compromises in lens design, especially with zoom lenses, and they usually show up as distortion and/or loss of sharpness (especially at the limits of the zoom length).

 

[astroNikon]

These are fun to watch

5 Reasons Why Zoom Is Better Than Prime

 

[astroNikon]

and

5 Reasons Why Primes Are Better Than Zooms

 

[robbins.photo]

For the last couple of months as I have began shooting in manual mode, I have focused on the exposure triangle and other settings (metering, wb, etc) and truly understanding them before moving on to the the various other aspects of photography. I recently picked up a Photography 101 type book and am currently reading through the chapter on lenses. It explains macro, telephoto, zoom, etc. in depth... Here's what it doesn't explain so I thought I would turn to the pros here...

Why choose a single fixed lens over a zoom lens? What is the benefit in having a 50mm lens over a 50-200mm zoom lens? It certainly seems like more bang for your buck to go with the zoom lens. I assume it is a difference in quality between to two?

(For what it is worth, I am still using the kit lens that came with my D3200. I don't foresee myself in the market for a new lens in the near future, as my current lens fits all of my needs for now. Regardless, I would like to understand the topic here a little better.)





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well BBN pretty much covered this, but a fixed lens is usually a lot cheaper than a zoom, the other thing about a fixed lens is it generally going to give you much better results at that focal length than a zoom will because it is optimized for that particular length.

Zoom lenses, like say an 18-55, have to make some compromises so they can give you reasonable quality from everything from 18 mm out to 55 mm. A fixed length lens, like a 50 mm prime - doesn't have to make those compromises. It only has to be good at one focal length, 50 mm - so generally speaking if you compare a shot taken at 50 mm with a prime lens against one taken at 50 mm from a zoom lens the prime lens will give you a sharper, clearer image. A lot of pros use primes for that reason.

The disadvantage being of course if you want to change your angle of view you have to move forward or backwards yourself - so if your shooting portraits or landscapes this is not usually a big issue, if your shooting wildlife it can be pretty difficult.

 

[hirejn]

There are many advantages to prime lenses. The main thing for me is the specific looks they enable, the stories that you can tell with them. The way each lens is designed gives images a specific look. For example, the 85 1.4 enables amazing portraits with minimal distortion and ideal compression and sharpness, with the ability to create soft portraits at the wide open aperture if you understand how to use it. You don't buy a 50 mm to tell a close-up story about a deer or a woman's face, for example. That's not to say you can't, but each of the primes has different storytelling strengths. These lenses are also engineered to be sharper and better at transmitting light than zooms or less expensive versions. They also usually have wider maximum apertures, from 1.8 to 1.2, enabling completely soft and blurry backgrounds or soft portraits of the face. The difference between f/4 and f/1.2 for storytelling purposes is huge. This is also why the 85 1.8 is much cheaper than the 85 1.4; that extra opening has a specific soft look in portraits that pros want.

There's no single purpose for each lens. For example a 50 is often looked at as a landscape or street lens, but in reality you can use it for anything you want. Likewise, a 70-200 is commonly seen as an action or sports lens, when in reality it can create fine art portraits just as well. Therefore, while I like an 85 1.4 for portraits, someone else may like it for flowers. The key is how you use the characteristics. There are no rules to good photographs; there are only good photographs (Ansel Adams). This isn't to say you can't get good portraits with a 50-200, but when you're at a professional level you'll notice and appreciate the differences.

In addition to primes, there are also constant aperture lenses, where the focal length may change but the aperture doesn't throughout the zoom range. This is especially handy when you're in aperture priority, especially in manual flash where aperture affects the flash exposure.

 

[Overread19 7]

The differences can vary a fair bit and it can be hard to give overall answers as there will always be some exceptions; but in very general terms:

1) Prime lenses can allow for a wider maximum aperture (smaller f number). For light gathering, low light shooting and creative effects as well as Af performance in dim lighting this can be an important consideration.

2) A prime lens will typically be lighter than a zoom lens which offers the same maximum aperture; because the prime only has to have the glass for one focal length.

3) A zoom can have a variable aperture; by which the maximum aperture changes as it goes through its zoom range. Typically the widest aperture is at the shortest focal length and the smaller aperture at its longest focal length. Constant aperture zooms are more expensive and heavier (due to increased glass requirements and complexity).

4) Primes can offer features zooms can't - far as I know there are no zoom lenses on the market that can give a 1:1 magnification ratio (ergo true macro) whilst there are multiple macro prime lenses that offer this feature (macro on most zooms is a marketing title and typically they get to 0.5:1 at best)

5) Primes offer increased image quality - however as mentioned earlier modern zooms often do very well. In the past the difference was much more distinct with zooms being considerably poorer performers.


In general those are the rules; there are some exceptions. For example the only 500mm f2.8 lens on the market is a Sigma 200-500mm f2.8 and not a prime lens offering.

It's generally best though to get a budget in mind - an intended use or situation for the lens and then see what is on offer in the market for those criteria.



edit - and that's what happens when you leave the net for 10 mins - everyone else replies before you ;P

 

[KelSS90]

Thank you all! It seems that there are definitely pros and cons for each. Right now I take pictures of pretty much anything and everything, but as my photography continues and I gravitate towards certain subjects or styles, it seems that will help me choose a lens when the time comes. Thanks again!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[djacobox372]

For comparison:

Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 = $1800

Nikon 50mm 1.8g = $200

So for 1/9th the price you get a lens that is more than a stop faster and has less distortion.