Zoom vs. Prime opinion question

TiCoyote · Aug 9, 2010

So I've been increasingly disappointed with my Tamron 28-70 f/2.8. It's a little soft at 5.6, and really soft wider than that. I'd like to upgrade to the Canon 24-70 f/2.8, but that's pricey and heavy.

I've been looking at the 28-105 f/4 IS. The price is more palatable, and it has IS, but it's a little slower.

So now I'm thinking about a combo of primes. I have the 50 f/1.8. I'm thinking about adding a telephoto and a wide angle. Maybe the 100 f/2.0 and the 24 f/2.8?

Any thoughts? Am I going to hate switching lenses all the time? Will it always seem that I have the wrong lens on the camera, just out of pure Murphy's Law?

btw, I shoot with a 50D, and I'm really still learning, so I do a lot of walking around and shooting. Birds, amateur sporting events, flowers, street shots, swamps, the ocean, anything that crosses my path.

dxqcanada · Aug 9, 2010

I love fixed focal length lenses.

I have a 16mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.7, 50mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm f/4.0 , and 400mm f/5.6.

I have one high quality zoom ... 28-135mm.

I wear clothes with many pockets.

skieur · Aug 9, 2010

The fixed focal length lenses seem to offer less distortion, faster f stop, and better quality than some zooms.

The disadvantages are the need for photo body cleaning every so often, the risk of dropping a lens, and missing the shot while changing lenses.

It really depends on what you are shooting. People and animals, I would go with a zoom. Studio work, products, landscapes etc. would be fine with fixed lenses.

skieur

cfusionpm · Aug 9, 2010

I like the quality a prime lens can give, but most of the type of shooting I do requires the versatility of a zoom. I hate constantly changing lenses and if I only have one body with me, I'd rather use the zoom.

Idahophoto · Aug 9, 2010

I am getting more and more into fine art and running my own shoots for them so I am working twards tossing aside my zooms for primes over the next 6 months mainly the Canon 28/1.8, 60/2 Tamron, Canon 85/1.8, Canon 100/2.8 and Canon 135/2. This I hope to have set up along with a new body I will be keeping the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Takina as I love them for scenic and may pick up the 120-400 Sigma. I still go to workshops and do things where a zoom is just more practical as I am not in control of the situation and of course Street Photography an area Im just starting to get my feet wet in. But for all the should I say serious work it has to be primes

mmartin · Aug 9, 2010

One thing to consider is the type of photography you will be doing. If you will be shooting much inside (with low light), I would give the nod to the primes as f 2.8 is sometimes not adequate. I know its expensive, but the canon 24mm F1.4L is an amazing prime as well as the 35mm 1.4L.

Robin Usagani · Aug 9, 2010

Dude, this has been bothering for months.. it is TOKINA not TAKINA! You even misspelled it on your signature.

Idahophoto said:
I am getting more and more into fine art and running my own shoots for them so I am working twards tossing aside my zooms for primes over the next 6 months mainly the Canon 28/1.8, 60/2 Tamron, Canon 85/1.8, Canon 100/2.8 and Canon 135/2. This I hope to have set up along with a new body I will be keeping the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Takina as I love them for scenic and may pick up the 120-400 Sigma. I still go to workshops and do things where a zoom is just more practical as I am not in control of the situation and of course Street Photography an area Im just starting to get my feet wet in. But for all the should I say serious work it has to be primes

Derrel · Aug 9, 2010

Schwettylens said:
Dude, this has been bothering for months.. it is TOKINA not TAKINA! You even misspelled it on your signature.

^^^ :thumbup: ^^^

Prime lenses perform pretty well. The 100/2 Canon EF is not very popular, but those who own it really like it. A guy named Dirk Vermierre on pBase used to shoot it, and the 50/1.4,and he really,really liked those two Canon primes. He did some lovely work with the 100/2.

A 24mm prime on a 1.5x or 1.6x body is a nice semi-normal kind of view...good, if you like that range...a 24mm prime of modest speed like f/2 to f/2.8 is small,light, very unobtrusive compared with a larger zoom lens.

Overread · Aug 9, 2010

skieur said:
It really depends on what you are shooting.

This I feel is a key point in choosing new lenses - what you shoot as well as where and how you shoot. Shooting anything and everything is perfectly fine, but you can choose a new lens (easily) on that basis because you've no real requirements for the lens to achieve save to allow you to shoot with versatility which makes it very hard to pick a lens out.

My advice is to get an idea of what you really like to take photos of and the environment that you currently and that you want to shoot those subjects in. Then you can start to whittle away at the lenses on offer - singling down to those that will perform for the function you need them to and giving you some basis to compare and contrast them upon.

Josh66 · Aug 9, 2010

I use mostly primes, and I don't really feel like I have to change lenses all that much... I pretty much know which lens I want before I even take the camera out of the bag.

skieur said:
The disadvantages are the need for photo body cleaning every so often, the risk of dropping a lens, and missing the shot while changing lenses.

I don't think it's very fair to say that having to clean your body is a disadvantage of using primes... Surely you still have to do periodic cleanings with zooms. Hell, the camera probably had dust in it when you took it out of the box for the first time.

Or dropping lenses ... you can drop a zoom just as easily as you can drop a prime...

...To me, the only disadvantage of using primes is that your camera bag will be a little heavier.