Prime Time

[Bill Pierce]

There are folks that use prime lenses, folks that use zoom lenses and folks that use both. If you are as old as me, you saw a zoomless time and then a time when zooms were never as good as primes. Those times have passed. In general, zooms are bigger and slower than primes. If, in some cases, wide open image quality may drop slightly at certain focal lengths, usually one of the extremes, that usually unnoticeable downside is often a more than acceptable trade off when you have no choice but to work from a fixed position and/or with a minimum of gear.

And yet, zooms get a bad name. They can be deficient in micro contrast, the subtle difference in closely related tones that gets lost when you have lots and lots of elements bouncing light inside of your lens. And so can some of today’s many element primes when compared to some of the primes of yesteryear. These multi element monsters are found on today’s digital cameras, and, therein lies the solution to the problem. In the digital processing program up the clarity slider. (You may have to reduce the overall contrast when you do this. How individuals work in their digital darkrooms is certainly highly individual. I leave the specifics to your experimentation.)

Now we can get back to the real differences between primes and zooms and not just say, “Primes are better than zooms.” They’re not. As a rule primes are smaller and faster, but they don’t zoom (and often don’t need a boost from the clarity slider).

I know the is me sort of lecturing rather than starting a conversation, but any of your thoughts are most welcome.

 

[charjohncarter]

Good and clever title, and a simple question. But I'm sorry even though I like your debating point I can't participate: I've never used a zoom lens.

 

[CMur12]

Hi Bill and John -

Smaller, lighter, and faster are important considerations for me, and my approach to photography never required a zoom. (Also, the purist in me whispers into my ear that the simplest optical formulation that will meet my needs is better than an overly complicated one.)

I tend to think in terms of discreet focal lengths, so I prefer to mount a prime and explore my possibilities from that perspective. When I have tried zooms, I have found composing by zooming to be distracting, and I end up not liking anything I see.

I could probably get along better with a zoom - once I got past the additional weight and darker image in the finder - by choosing a focal length, then looking through the lens, and just trimming the final framing a bit. As I recall, Doug has proposed this approach, as well.

- Murray

 

[Oscuro]

Darling Bill,

I am a woman of "a certain age" and have similar experience to you. But I think the zoom for me has become a tool for compression, not reach. Sometimes yes, it is the solution for where they make you stand but I can look at something up close and shoot wide and I can step back and frame the same but I am flattening the field.

When I shoot the big Nikon it was always with the zoom. 20-35 or 70-300. But lately in the last 5 or 10 years with 28-300. Superb!! I am loving the elongation and the foreshortened. But every once in a while I sometimes put the 50 on and I love it also.

This is why I am making more with the little Fuji. Different. The same.

We work to the limitation of the medium but our eyes and our hearts are not constrained by the medium. We are prisoners of the camera. But we are outside the gaol and we capture something in it.

Be careful out there!

Mme. O

 

[Doug]

Zooms seem like an attractive idea. I've bought several, used them and became largely disenchanted. Often my dissatisfaction is due to optical performance, usual with kit zooms. But one other zoom is just too big and heavy to pack around, though performance is great... a 55-100mm f/4.5 for Pentax 6x7.

It’s a pack of compromises to be balanced: Size, weight, max aperture, constant or variable aperture through the zoom range, optical performance in all its variations, and cost. Also, whether or not you are willing to expose your camera sensor to ambient dust during a lens change. An earlier compromise was whether the vari-focal lens maintained focus through the zoom range. Don't know if any recent or current lenses need to be refocused after zoom adjustment but this was a factor back in the 1960s.

I put extra importance on optical performance at the cost of max aperture and zoom range. Zooming seems more useful at the short end of the focal lengths, for instance my 20-35mm f/4, and also at the longer focal lengths. IMHO both short zooms and longer ones are useful where you have limited range of movement.

And Murray's right... I prefer to set the focal length to what I know will get the framing and perspective I want when I move into position. With a prime, I'm able to "adjust" my seeing to the angle of view of the lens I'm using, and with a zoom I struggle to do the equivalent!

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

I have the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC "Art" zoom lens. I use it on my Sigma Sd Quattro camera. The images this lens produces are incredible. One small (big) problem is that this lens is big and very heavy. It’s like having a large diameter lead pipe mounted on the front of my camera. So, despite the outstanding performance I rarely use it. Same goes for my old Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG lens. The thing is optically perfect and it’s as heavy as a bowling ball. Another no-go simply because it weighs so much.

Some people have asked me why I use m-mount prime lenses on my Sony A7 cameras. For me it’s simple, they provide outstanding quality and are small and lightweight. The older I get, this small/lite combination becomes increasing important to me.

All the best,
Mike

 

[Dogman]

The only reason for prime lenses these days--I'm speaking for myself only--is lens speed. Zooms are just as good optically on a practical basis but they are slower, bigger and heavier. The size and weight are also factors but mainly it's the speed for me. I like to shoot at wider apertures a lot. It's for the look, not necessarily for the ability to shoot in low light. While most zooms have stabilization, there's still a considerable difference in the look of the picture based on aperture.

In the whole scheme of things, I'm happy with the quality of all the lenses I've been using in recent years. Even the lower priced variable aperture zooms are far superior to some of the primes I used back in the 70s.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I would say "second round".
And as Marygoround I could add known and not from Nikon F3 era compare I also did ten or so years ago.
I took second mark of nifty fifty and 70-200 f4 L and compared @f4.
100 usd plastic mount prime was sharper than 450 usd pro graded L zoom. But L lens was always winning in colors. This is why I eventually moved on to 50L, which is not sharpest lens @f1.2, but here is no any other lens with such colors and colors I'm aware of. And here is no f1.2 zoom either.
Maybe different brands are different, but only with R mount, Canon was able to significantly improve sharpness of lenses. Zooms and primes of same L series, which are used by very many professionals.
So, mary go round. 🙂

 

[Larry Cloetta]

The only reason for prime lenses these days--I'm speaking for myself only--is lens speed. Zooms are just as good optically on a practical basis but they are slower, bigger and heavier. The size and weight are also factors but mainly it's the speed for me. I like to shoot at wider apertures a lot. It's for the look, not necessarily for the ability to shoot in low light. While most zooms have stabilization, there's still a considerable difference in the look of the picture based on aperture.

In the whole scheme of things, I'm happy with the quality of all the lenses I've been using in recent years. Even the lower priced variable aperture zooms are far superior to some of the primes I used back in the 70s.

This seems about right. I generally use primes, for the reasons that people use primes, but there are occasional times (traveling with spouse who doesn’t think that every trip out of town needs to be nothing but a concentrated photowalk) when one body and a 24-70 zoom is more appropriate.
Some modern zooms like the Leica SL zooms and the Nikon Z zooms are nothing short of spectacular. And there are some times, for some people, in some venues, that a 50 really isn’t “all that you need.”

 

[zuiko85]

Almost all the zooms I’ve owned, used and discarded have been in the short tele to moderate tele range. As many have already stated, too big, too heavy, (for me anyway).
For digital my choice is M4:3 (again, my choice for my reasons, that may or my not apply to anyone else here).
And then there is money, you know, that stuff that buys food, shelter, and covering. Sure, everyone puts on the poor mouth but.....well, if we have a hobby then we have a hobby budget. Since, at least from the specs, the only zoom that would seem desirable to me is the Olympus 12-40 f2.8
That is Out of budget, which should be written in all caps. I’m getting by with my old mid 60’s Pen F lenses and a occasionally one of my OM Zuikos. All manual focus with real aperture rings! All these lenses have been owned by me not shorter than 15 years and were obtained when I could find a deal.

Edit; Yes, I suppose I could just sell off most of these lenses and perhaps come up with 60% of the price of the modern zoom. Bad idea as the Pen F lenses are also used on my Pen F.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I have to confess that my use of zooms is limited to specific situations. (1) When I have to shoot from a specific position and can not move from there. This happens all the time at a certain type of staged news events where press photographers are given a position and can not move from it. The same is true when you are shooting plays and an audience is present or when you are shooting film or television stills and moving would distract the performers. In those situations zooms are practical, but you will be using the higher aperture ones, and they will be big and heavy. You will be glad you don’t have to move around with them. (2) I prefer a zoom when I am working with a very long focal length. I use a 100 to 400mm lens on an APS-c camera quite often, and the great majority of time it is set at 400mm, the equivalent of a 600mm lens on a full frame camera. That’s obviously a very narrow perspective on the world. I zoom to a shorter focal length, not so much to take pictures at a wider angle of view, but just to see what’s happening in the world just outside of my picture’s frame lines. It’s sort of the equivalent of a bright line finder with a very long lens - and extremely useful in certain situations.

Outside of that, the higher speed and smaller size of fixed focal lengths appeals to my inner laziness, and, perhaps more important, the absence of one less camera control lets me spend a little more time paying attention to the subject.

 

[pvdhaar]

I wish my shooting skills were as good as even my cheapest kit zoom lens is..

 

[Gregm61]

These days I take my Digital CL and 11-23mm f3.5-4.5 over the M262 and 21/3.4 and 35/1.4 prime combination virtually 100% of the time.

Smaller, way lighter and great results.

 

[Rayt]

I shoot primes because of film and I need the speed but that can change with digital.

 

[FranZ]

I started off with all primes on my Praktika's as no zooms available at that time. Later on I switched to Canon and used a lowly Tamron 28-200 zoom whilst participating in multi days hikes/climbing tours in the mountains where changing primes whilst climbing a glacier was highly unpractical.
At that time I also possessed a Contax G2 with beautiful glass like the 21 Biogon and the 45 Planar prime lenses.
When I showed slides of both combinations at the evenings of my local photo club, even those keen amateurs could not tell me which slides where taken with which combination, and that was ± 20 years ago.
Then 400 ISO was about the max you could go, now one can safely photograph at ISO 3200 or even 6400 which widens the playing field of the slower zoom options.
Zooms and primes have there own (dis)advantages and my choice what to use is based on the event.
When I shoot portraits, I use my Batis 85mm, environmental portraits call for a 35mm and in some events primes are cumbersome and I use my 24-105mm F4.
As walkaround lens this 24-105 is hard to beat, but sometimes I choose for lightweight and take my RX1M2 and 'limit' myself with its beautiful 35mm Sonnar.
So my choices are practical (based on the balance of need and characteristics) and not based on dogma.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I don't have a problem using both. The last two years, I've been using the Fuji XF 2.8/16-55 in the narrow alleys and busy markets of Saigon where, more often than not, there is limited space to position yourself with your feet. No OIS but since I am using it with the Fuji X-H1, which has IBIS, that's not a problem. On a beside, most professional photographers I know use zooms most of the time. Cheers, OtL

 

[Alberti]

Of course I had to have a 80-200 mm zoom, on my Minolta or Canon (I forgot which)only finding out I never used it. Too large. A friend used his as a binocular (monoculair that is).
Later I bought a great 24-50mm Canon zoom, thought, hey great for traveling. Used only the extremes, no composition use. So that went in the drawer too.
No I like primes. Yes I did switch three to five times on my M8 per hour or more. I liked that more. On my M240 I switch less (but that has to do with the bad viewfinder - you can’t see the 35mm lines with glasses).
So I think ZOoms are a bad investment.
The last time I like small f4 - f8 lenses. Great on the street, invisible. Great on the shoulder too.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I've used primes forever. I enjoy their smaller size, their 'look' on the camera body. But I've never compared their image quality to zoom lenses. But lately I begun to enjoy zoom lenses on my Fuji X-T4. Image quality seems fine to my eye. and I like having the convenience of multiple focal lengths immediately at hand, especially at the wide (XF 10-24mm) and tele (55-200) ends. In the middle I still enjoy using the primes (XF 27 and 35).

 

[farlymac]

I started out with a low budget for lenses back in the early '70s, so zooms were an essential part of my first kit. However, they weren't the best of lenses on the market at that time (Sears branded Ricoh camera, and who knows the manufacturer of the lenses). But it was a start, and when I switched to a Nikkormat, zooms were actually starting to be expensive. So I stuck with using primes until I got an FM and the zooms from third party brands got better. My N90 kit was mostly Tamron zooms, and a couple of Nikon primes (50/1.4 and 20/4)

Still, rangefinder usage kind of demands the use of primes. SLR zooms have gotten better over the years, so I'm not averse to using them, especially for events like car shows and Highlander games (you don't even want to be close when they start flinging stones around).

So I determine when I need to use zooms based on the situation, not because I particularly prefer them over primes.

PF

 

[David Hughes]

...Still, rangefinder usage kind of demands the use of primes. SLR zooms have gotten better over the years, so I'm not averse to using them, especially for events like car shows and Highlander games (you don't even want to be close when they start flinging stones around).

So I determine when I need to use zooms based on the situation, not because I particularly prefer them over primes.

PF

Exactly, I could put it better; thanks for saving me a lot of typing.

Regards, David