# Prime or Zoom?



## GraphicGr8s (Apr 4, 2011)

manualfocus said:


> It's Friday and work is slow (so far) so I'd like to see what everyone's favored weapon of choice is? For me, I used to only buy telephoto & zoom lenses but then I bought my first prime and now they're the only ones I use 90% of the time.
> 
> Prime lenses are just so much faster (aperture) than zoom lenses. Yes, I own a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and yes, I love it, but it's just too big and cumbersome. I only use it when I'm lazy.
> 
> ...


Zoom lenses can be telephoto or wide angle. Or a step in between. Also depends on whether it's a full frame/film or a cropped sensor. Most people when talking about a telephoto lens are referring to a prime somewhere above 100mm. "Normal" is around 50-75, 80'ish. Wide angle is, well wide angle and fish eye really needs no explanation.
Although I like shooting primes (aka fixed focal length lens) I tend to do so more when shooting my film cameras. Seems digital sees more of the zoom attached but that is changing and I am using the sneaker zoom more and more.


----------



## blackwidow (Mar 22, 2010)

i still like prime since they tend to have sharper pics, i dont have any high end glass but cheap good 50	1.8 is always on my camera even though i would prefer my 35-105 when i trips cause i dont need to swap the glass often.

Sent from my HTC Glacier


----------



## Nubster (Aug 9, 2011)

I like primes best but my budget doesn't allow for numerous primes to cover a large focal range. I have a 50mm and a 90mm and recently traded my 30mm for a 14-24mm.


----------



## ShortFin (Dec 27, 2005)

I like fixed zoom. We have large family gathering and there is so much room where you can step forward/backward.


----------



## Da Plant Man (Apr 7, 2010)

I'm going to have to say zoom. For most people (me at least) a lens for close ups, sports, portraits, and landscapes just isn't practical. I don't have enough money to drop 3k-4k on glass. My goal is to have 3 lens. 50mm (or 100mm) macro, 18-55mm, and 70-300mm. That covers just about everything and within a reasonable price.


----------



## ShortFin (Dec 27, 2005)

Da Plant Man said:


> I'm going to have to say zoom. For most people (me at least) a lens for close ups, sports, portraits, and landscapes just isn't practical. I don't have enough money to drop 3k-4k on glass. My goal is to have 3 lens. 50mm (or 100mm) macro, 18-55mm, and 70-300mm. That covers just about everything and within a reasonable price.


You need 1 more. A super wide one.


----------



## Da Plant Man (Apr 7, 2010)

The 18mm-55m gets pretty wide. As wide as I need anyways.


----------



## ShortFin (Dec 27, 2005)

I guess you're right. Not everyone needs wider than 18mm. I was just looking on what gap you were missing from the list. I like wide angle, that's why I have a 10-24mm. :thumbsup:


----------



## Nubster (Aug 9, 2011)

Da Plant Man said:


> I'm going to have to say zoom. For most people (me at least) a lens for close ups, sports, portraits, and landscapes just isn't practical. I don't have enough money to drop 3k-4k on glass. My goal is to have 3 lens. 50mm (or 100mm) macro, 18-55mm, and 70-300mm. That covers just about everything and within a reasonable price.


I'd recommend the 50mm f/1.8 though. It's an inexpensive fast prime that takes awesome pics and can be had for around $120 new. Fantastic as a walk around lens.


----------



## Da Plant Man (Apr 7, 2010)

Nubster said:


> I'd recommend the 50mm f/1.8 though. It's an inexpensive fast prime that takes awesome pics and can be had for around $120 new. Fantastic as a walk around lens.


True. I guess I like being able to have multiple options. I certainly would love being able to have that large of an aperture.


----------



## Jonney_Boy (Apr 23, 2009)

I too use a zoom 90% of the time.. unless you have something specific to photograph, a zoom is just more flexable. This is more so in the longer focal lengths. Sneeker zoom does not work well when your at 200+mm (you will be running accross the field).

Having said that, for each system there is always one or two "normal" primes that are "cheap".. the 35mm 1.8 and 50 1.8 in the case of a nikon. These lenses are "cheap", as sharp as a high end zoom, and much faster (at 1.8 vs 2.8). Shooting at high iso (6400) and wide open at 1.8 has allowed me to take pictures even in steakhouses with no flash...... conditions where a 17-55 2.8 won't have enough light for.

Granted.. if you have the budget... get both  trio of zooms + a few speciality primes. Something in the 35-50mm range for normal pics, 105mm-150mm for macro and headshots... fish-eye for.. um... making your fish look like they are in a fish bowl....oh did I mention a second body ....


----------



## Mr. Appleton (Jul 1, 2011)

Personally when I'm just traveling leisurely, I'll carry mostly primes and 'zoom' with my feet. They're smaller and faster than the zooms. If I have the time to be able to adjust and move around for each shot, I don't see it as lacking in anyway. Plus, they're less conspicuous  

That being said, when I'm working it's almost always zooms. The flexibility they offer is really quite critical. When I'm working a room, it is critical for me to be able to go from full body shot to headshot with a flick of my wrist on the 24-70.


----------



## TickleMyElmo (Aug 13, 2009)

I'm really a prime lover, but I absolutely LOVE my 70-200 VRII, so I'll have to say both. I would be quite content with all primes, plus the 70-200. The 24-70 is very versatile, but it's such a snooze cruise. Nothing exciting about it at all.


----------



## Eden Marel (Jan 28, 2010)

I don't have a prime yet but I'm thinking either 50 1.8 or a wider one, current have the 55-250 but I have to stand far away to get something I want inside the whole frame.


----------



## U2Kent (Jul 28, 2011)

I'd say it depends on your primary subject matter really. I shoot mostly concerts and Prime's are indispensable. Currently my two main lenses that see 80% of the action are a 50mm f/1.4 and a 24mm f/1.4. My next purchase will likely be a 16-35mm f/2.8 II or a 24-70mm f/2.8 but as it stands I usually just rent those or a 70-200mm f/2.8 as needed for paying gigs.

I just love being able to shoot in available lighting handheld almost anywhere without worrying about carrying a flash or tripod around.

Here are some of my concert photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinkent/sets/72057594114985708/


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

I did some pixel-peeping comparisons between my cheapo 1.8/50 and 18-55 kit lenses. Surprisingly, the kit lens was very sharp starting wide open ([email protected]). The prime, on the other hand, was very soft at f1.8, got a tad better at f2.8, and caught up to the kit lens @f4.

So, my personal conclusion... the kit lens is a better tool for me, since it is sharp wide open, has a good zoom range, and offers IS. Trying to sell my 1.8 on Craigslist.

Of course, your situation might be different. And if you do not pixel-peep as I do, the 1.8 aperture of the prime might sound really great. As they say, YMMV.

As for the original question... both have their places. Primes have an inherently simpler construction, so theoretically you get a better (sharper, wider aperture, etc) lens for the same money, or get same-as-zoom quality for less money. That's the theory at least.


----------



## 2in10 (Feb 8, 2011)

I can't say yet since I don't have a prime yet but I am seriously considering a 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4. I have a 100mm f/2.8 macro, a 18-55mm standard zoom and 50-250mm telephoto zoom. I currently use the standard zoom for full tank shots and the telephoto for specific sections but I am still learning the lenses capabilities and will most likely change uses. I have used the macro for pics of small areas also. I am intrigued to see what a fast lens can do.

I still have a P&S that I thought would be more than adequate but have now changed my mind.


----------

