Primes vs Zooms Discussion

[786soul]

Okay so as in my sig I've got the 24-70L HOWEVER it's a bit of a HUGE lens. In terms of size and weight it's something I can't really take around with me if, let's say, I go on a trip. I'd be reluctant to take it with me.

This brings me to why I'm considering buying a prime. Smaller in size, but the one thing holding me back is the overlapping mm's. I've got a 24-70, is it then useless for me to buy let's say the 35L, 50 1.4 ? Those would really be the only I'd look at for a trip scenario.

Whereas the other option is to get the wide angle zoom (17-40 f4L).

What do you think. Are primes worth it for any reason with my current setup? What benefits would I find? I do studio shoots which is why I like the 24-70 for the flexibility but should I consider selling it and getting 2 primes? i.e the 35L and 85 or 135?

Thanks guys.

 

[Josh66]

Primes are usually faster, smaller, lighter, and often have superior image quality.

I wouldn't worry about the overlapping focal lengths. I have a 70-200, but I still use my 85mm, 100mm, and 135mm plenty.

In a studio, you have time to take a step or two forwards or backwards. I don't see how a zoom is giving you added flexibility in a studio setting.

 

[kundalini]

I can cover focal range from 12mm to 200mm with my zooms. But I also have 20,35,50,85,105 & 300mm primes. Having the same focal length of a prime and zooms is inherent, but not a bad thing. They are just different tools to be used.

I would avoid overlapping focal lengths with zooms though, if possible

 

[KmH]

Okay so as in my sig I've got the 24-70L HOWEVER it's a bit of a HUGE lens. In terms of size and weight it's something I can't really take around with me if, let's say, I go on a trip. I'd be reluctant to take it with me.

I guess I have different priorities.

When I go on a trip (personal or otherwise) - I take:

• D3
• D300/vertical-grip
• 12-24 mm f/4
• 50 mm f/1.8
• 24-85 F/2.8-4
• 70-200 f/2.8
• 2 speedlights w/radio triggers
• a 42" square 5-in1 reflector
• lightweight light stand w/umbrella bracket (no umbrella)
• tripod
• spare batteries for the camera bodies
• chargers for the camera batteries
• spare batteries for the speedlights
• a charger for the speedlight batteries
• gels
• lens cleaning supplies
• hand-held digital light meter
• plenty of CF memory
• and some other odds and ends, including some model releases, and a 15" laptop and it's power cable.

All the above fits in/or straps to - a single camera gear backpack that I can carry onto a commercial airplane.

 

[table1349]

Okay so as in my sig I've got the 24-70L HOWEVER it's a bit of a HUGE lens. In terms of size and weight it's something I can't really take around with me if, let's say, I go on a trip. I'd be reluctant to take it with me.

I guess I have different priorities.

When I go on a trip (personal or otherwise) - I take:

• D3
• D300/vertical-grip
• 12-24 mm f/4
• 50 mm f/1.8
• 24-85 F/2.8-4
• 70-200 f/2.8
• 2 speedlights w/radio triggers
• a 42" square 5-in1 reflector
• lightweight light stand w/umbrella bracket (no umbrella)
• tripod
• spare batteries for the camera bodies
• chargers for the camera batteries
• spare batteries for the speedlights
• a charger for the speedlight batteries
• gels
• lens cleaning supplies
• hand-held digital light meter
• plenty of CF memory
• and some other odds and ends, including some model releases, and a 15" laptop and it's power cable.

All the above fits in/or straps to - a single camera gear backpack that I can carry onto a commercial airplane.

So your the reason that the rest of us are paying those baggage fees these days. :lmao:

 

[usayit]

Only you can answer that question for yourself... Some just simply enjoy primes.. Some prefer the convenience of a zoom. It all depends on how you shoot. Its a very personal decision.


Yes.. Smaller, faster, and usually better image quality

But

If you collected every focal length prime between 24-105L (for example), you'd end up with a bulkier heavier bag anyways...


A middle route would be to get a better "walk-around" lens. The 24-105L for example, is noticeably lighter, slightly more compact, with a more useful focal range thus more practical for general photography. Its the reason why I ended up selling the 24-70L and keeping the 24-105L. Its the same reason, why my cousin ended up selling his 24-70L to purchase my 24-105L when I sold off the EOS system. Once the light went down, I would default to a prime such as the 50mm f/1.4 which is compact and even faster than the 24-70L.

On the other hand, the 24-70L and the 70-200L are the bread and butter of wedding photographers... BUT they are paid. The next time I carry that, I'd better be paid.


I personally shoot almost exclusively with primes.... really good ones. I enjoying it more than I ever did with zooms.

 

[reedshots]

I have the 24-70mm 2.8 and the 17-40mm F4 (not much lighter) they go every where with me and my camera, even if thats all I take (not often) but I find having both give me most of what I wan't to shot on trips. I bring a lot more when I am going some where with shooting in mind.

you could get the smaller (cheaper) 18-200 if you don't mind reduced image quality.

 

[Formatted]

If your buying topic quality lenses, zooms or primes the matter of sharpness and IQ are so similar that it doesn't matter. The only difference these days is aperture!

(Is this a sweeping generalisation, yes but from my experience my 200-400 VR 2 is just as sharp as my 600 f4)

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Never owned a zoom and although they have gotten much better I still feel they are a compromise and I doubt I will ever own one.

If you're going to carry a body or two or three around all day as I often did once upon a time, you'll be a lot less tired at the end of the day, and your neck and shoulders will thank you, if you were using primes.

 

[Formatted]

and your neck and shoulders will thank you,

Your legs might not though...

 

[gsgary]

My 24-70 is light maybe you need to go to the gym the only lens i have lighter is a 50F1.4

 

[786soul]

I have the 24-70mm 2.8 and the 17-40mm F4 (not much lighter) they go every where with me and my camera, even if thats all I take (not often) but I find having both give me most of what I wan't to shot on trips. I bring a lot more when I am going some where with shooting in mind.

you could get the smaller (cheaper) 18-200 if you don't mind reduced image quality.

I've actually been considering this option. If going on the trip I'd use the wide 17-40mm for some landscapes but the 24-70 would be for lower light IF needed. I looked at the 16-35mm also but can't justify the $$ for the faster glass yet.

I may stick with my zooms for now, till I can afford a good quality prime (looking more at the 85L or 135L) to really decide. Maybe a rental or in store test is in my schedule soon.

 

[Derrel]

If you want to get away from large, heavy, high-profile lenses like the 24-70 2.8 L series Canon, then it makes very little sense to be considering large, heavy, high-profile L-series Canon primes like their 35mm f/1.4-L or 85mm f/1.2-L; both of those lenses are high-profile, and draw plenty of attention when used around 'regular people'. The 85/1.2-L is also a rather slow focuser. Canon needs to update its 35/1.4-L series lens anyhow; their smaller,much lighter, 35mm f/2 might be the kind of prime lens you want if what you want is a light,small, unobtrusive lens that packs easily, and does not leave people pointing at you and asking, "Hey, who is the perv with the big lens?" For example--the Canon 85/1.2-L is a high-profile lens, but their 85/1.8 EF lens is quite compact by comparison.

I grew up carrying using four out of roughly nine primes on assignment. Among the ultra-compact were the 24/2.8,28/2.8,35/2,50/2,85/2, among the somewhat larger were the 135/2.8 ,180,200/4,300/4.5 or f/4. The smaller, more-compact lenses that use 52 to 58mm filters are all pretty much "compact" or "low-profile" lenses. Once a lens gets into the 72,77, or 82mm filter diameter, it's a big, honking lens and it can in some ways interfere with the whole process of candid or social photography.

 

[gsgary]

If you want to blend in with crowd like me get the 300mmF2.8L great walk around, i sling it over my shoulder and off i go

 

[Sw1tchFX]

It's totally a matter of preference and style. If you're getting paid for your work you need to shoot according to your style. Alot of people, include pro photogs say that you need to shoot with the Holy Trinity. That as a working pro, you need to shoot with the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200, and those are going to be your bread-and-butter lenses. Horsesh*t.

Shoot with what you want. You're the pro, you're being hired to shoot how you shoot.

I think Nikon's 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 are awesome lenses, don't get me wrong, but I don't particularly like the 24-70 or 70-200. They're sharp, sure, but their big and boring. I don't like the new 70-200VRII because i think the ergonomics are a disaster and it's way too heavy, and too damn expensive for what it is either, it needs more plastic in it(!) I'd much rather carry and shoot a 24, 35, 50, and 85mm all at f/1.4 than the 24-70. If i'm shooting midrange, at least make it interesting. There are many pro photogs who echo that idea too.

When I shoot weddings, my primary lenses are a 24mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4. Gimme a D700 and I could shoot an entire day with just those two lenses, in any light, screw the flash.

This guy here in portland shoots damn near EVERYTHING with a 35L on a 5DII wide open, and his pictures are effin' gorjus:
Brandon Witzel Photography Blog » Portland, Seattle, Wedding, Editorial, Fashion

It's all a matter of style and need. I guess some people need 14-200mm absolutely covered at f/2.8 with zoom lenses. I'm almost done building my personal kit, which is just going to be 5 lenses: 24-120 f/3.5-5.6VR, 24 1.4G, 35 1.4G, 50 1.4G, and Sigma 85 1.4. When i'm on assignment, it's 2 D700's with a 24/35 on one, 50/85 on the other. When i'm just dickin' around or the weather gets crappy, time to pull out the 24-120.

I'll rent everything else because i'd hardly use it.