Primes vs. Zooms

[Montana]

How about this one?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/200-500mm.htm

Whoa! That thing is enormous! Butt ugly too!

Derrick

 

[Antithesis]

Primes are sharper, have larger apertures and tend to be much cheaper. I've also found they make you consider your composition a little more than a zoom, resulting in better framed images. Not that you can't do that in post, but when working with a lot of images, cropping and rotating and all that can get pretty tedious.

As was said above, most people who use a lot of primes will have two bodies. A lot of sports photographers will throw a 70-200 on a body over the shoulder and then have their long (preferably white ) prime lens on a monopod.

 

[ksmattfish]

I've also found they make you consider your composition a little more than a zoom, resulting in better framed images.

I hear people attributing supernatural powers to prime lenses all the time, but I'm not buying it. The photographer is lazy or not; don't blame the gear.

Which is better for composition depends on whether you compose with an emphasis on angle of view or an emphasis on perspective. Assuming cropping in-camera is important then using a fixed focal length lens will encourage composing by angle of view. Using a variable focal length lens encourages composing by perspective. I've noticed many photographers concentrate on angle of view, while painters and other 2D artists often concentrate on perspective. I guess you can't have a photo without both, but I usually consider perspective first.

 

[Dmitri]

Don't forget this baby:
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-2600mm-Definition-Telephoto-Canon/dp/B000HGK80Y/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1220148668&sr=1-6[/ame]

Only 269.95 for a 650-2600mm! No way that can go wrong.


I joke, I joke.

 

[Garbz]

I can't believe people still believe primes are sharper. Sorry but all they are is cheaper because of their simple design, and often available in larger apertures.

All of my zooms (including the kit zoom) outdo my primes (50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.2, and 105mm f/2.8 macro) in terms of sharpness and chromatic aberration. The only time the primes beat the zooms in image quality is in the distortion figures.

Definitely in the past primes were the last word in sharpness, but these days they are only good for large apertures on the cheap, and are pretty much equalled and often bettered by some quality zoom lenses on the market.

 

[Kent Dunne]

I was reading an article in Sports Illustrated that said that sport photographers usually keep 2 bodies around their neck. One with a super long lens for most of the action probably around 400 or 600 prime. You need to get that super shallow shot for sports.

Then they keep another body around their neck with something around the 135-200 range for when the action gets close to the endzone- Like a receiver catches a pass in the endzone. They allready have the lens prefocused so the hyperfocal distance will have the endzone in focus, and when the action comes, their able to quickly pick it up and snap away.

I really like my prime lenses, I have a Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 and a Nikkor 55mm f/2.8. They are real beautiful lenses.

Like you said though, I wouldnt want to use them as my walkaround lens- but when I'm going somewhere specifically for photography, I bring my primes because the image quality is just so much better. I use my feet to adjust my distance as I need to.