Primes or zoom?

[smthopr]

I'm seriously thinking of buying a Canon 5D (unless something better comes along before March).

I played with the camera at the store with a 24-70 2.8L zoom. It's an expensive lens, but I like the focal lengths, but found it kind of heavy on the camera.

I tried on a 50 1.4 prime and liked the handling much better. I also like the choice of 1.4 - 2.0 f-stops on some occasions.

So, the question is should I get 3 primes such as the 28 f1.8, 50 f1.4 and maybe something about 85-100mm prime, or the zoom?

I noticed that the build quality of the primes (nonL, I don't need f1.2 or want to carry the weight of such a lens) is less than ideal. But with no experience with modern AF digital SLR cameras, I don't know which lens will provide the best results with this camera. I'm guessing that these prime lenses were designed before the age of digital cameras...

Any opinions?

Thanks so much,
-bruce

[wolfnowl]

There are a lot of answers to that question.  One depends on what type of photography you do...  For example, if you're a sports shooter, you may find that you need to be able to zoom in or out quickly to capture a shot.  If you're shooting architecture, the building will likely be patient enough to wait for you to change lenses.  If you shoot in low light a lot, then you may need a lens with a larger maximum aperture.  The list goes on...

Mike.

[larryg]

I also had the 70-200 f 2.8  and sold it and got the 70-200 L F4  much lighter and smaller.  Still very sharp

I currently have mostly zoom lenses (except for the 500 F4)   Trying to lighten my load without giving up quality results.

I would think that primes would have an edge on sharpness over zooms?

Everything seems to be compromise of one sort or another. If I carried everything that I really wanted to my bag would weigh 100 lbs or more.  Don't think I would be hiking long distances with that size bag

[ohcaptain]

as said, that's a very tough question

i consider mysellf a prime kind of guy, cause i love that large apperture and dof it allows, as well as the optimas IQ

anyway, zooms nowadays have fantastic IQ also, so... it's really a tough choice

of course with zooms you get much more flexibility shooting

i also think primes are wonderful to teach us to compose... of course with a price of eventually loose a photo

really it's up to you to choose

it's very likely you decide one way, and later find yourself going the other

sorry if i am not so helpful

[smthopr]

There are a lot of answers to that question.  One depends on what type of photography you do...  For example, if you're a sports shooter, you may find that you need to be able to zoom in or out quickly to capture a shot.  If you're shooting architecture, the building will likely be patient enough to wait for you to change lenses.  If you shoot in low light a lot, then you may need a lens with a larger maximum aperture.  The list goes on...

Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163895\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess I'm saying that I would prefer the primes, but I'm concerned about the image quality from these non "L" lenses.

So if anyone has used em, let me know.

Thanks,
-bruce

[Shutter]

I bought the 50 1.4 in 2005 and I never ever regretted my decision.
At first it felt a bit too light and I also questioned the build quality. Actually I wasn't too sure about it but after a few shots I came to realize that I was wrong with this first impression. Not only has the lens survived a frontal floor-crash (1m, mounted on camera) it's also one of the sharpest lenses I own and it's very fast and compact.
It is a bit soft at 1.4 but when you stop it down to 1.8 the softness is completely gone and it never bothered me - after all the 1.2 is also quite soft wide open.
A few months ago I was given the opportunity to buy the 50 1.2 but it's just too heavy and bulky to carry it around all the time.



Surely a zoom lens is quite comfortable, but I prefer primes - and it's not only because I think they're sharper and faster but they force you to really think about the frame and the composition and they allow you to take full control of the photo.

Whenever I take a walk with fellow photographers who use zoom lenses and they take a picture, it's always the same procedure: they take their camera out of the bag, zoom and *klick*, they didn't even take one step to the side or towards their motif - after all, they didn't have to.
But when I take a walk with fellow photographers who use prime lenses and they take a picture, it's always nice to see how they arrange their images, they try different angles, go back and forth and generally seem to really care about composing the frame.
With a prime you have one focal length and you have to really work in order to fit everything into one photo and in my opinion that's what really makes the difference, not the few f-stops more or the tiny amount of sharpness.

[peteh]

I'm seriously thinking of buying a Canon 5D (unless something better comes along before March).

I played with the camera at the store with a 24-70 2.8L zoom. It's an expensive lens, but I like the focal lengths, but found it kind of heavy on the camera.

I tried on a 50 1.4 prime and liked the handling much better. I also like the choice of 1.4 - 2.0 f-stops on some occasions.

So, the question is should I get 3 primes such as the 28 f1.8, 50 f1.4 and maybe something about 85-100mm prime, or the zoom?

I noticed that the build quality of the primes (nonL, I don't need f1.2 or want to carry the weight of such a lens) is less than ideal. But with no experience with modern AF digital SLR cameras, I don't know which lens will provide the best results with this camera. I'm guessing that these prime lenses were designed before the age of digital cameras...

Any opinions?

Thanks so much,
-bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[DonWeston]

As long as you do not miind the inconvenience of primes, one almost never goes wrong with a prime lense. In the range you are talking any of them would be at least close to the quality of a top L zoom and still gives you the advantage of a stop or more. That said the convenience of a zoom most of the time rules out and the small advantage of sharpness the prime may have in some cases may be lost if you have to crop the image, where as the zoom you can use to crop the image easier. The other issue, is IS or VR can be a huge advantage with a zoom like the 28-135mmIS or 18-200VR, just one mans' opinion. YMMV....Don

[Ken Bennett]

I own and use the 24-70/2.8 -- great lens, and my most used along with the 70-200. I also have the 28/1.8, the 50/1.4, and the 85/1.8, all of which are fairly light, sharp, and bright. The zooms get the most use on a daily basis just for the convenience, though they are heavy. I'll take the primes when I have a specific need for f/2 or thereabouts. (I actually spent a week shooting all my assignments with nothing but the 28/1.8 and the 85/1.8, on 1D2 bodies, just as an experiment. Not a bad way to force a different way of seeing the world. Also made my back feel better.)

You might take a look at the 24-105/4 L zoom lens. It has IS, which is a huge plus, and covers a useful range on the 5-D. But if all you are concerned about is the quality of the primes, they are fine.

All that said, you might want to wait a bit on the 5D. I was looking very hard at the 5D versus the 40D, and in my opinion the (very useful) updates in the 40D made it a better choice. I think most of us are expecting many of those updates in the 5D replacement. I'd love to see it come out this spring with ultrasonic sensor cleaning, a nice big LCD, live view, etc. I'll add that to my 40D for personal use.

[zlatko-b]

I guess I'm saying that I would prefer the primes, but I'm concerned about the image quality from these non "L" lenses.
So if anyone has used em, let me know.
Thanks,
-bruce
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's no need to be concerned about image quality with those non-L primes.  They are a good value, relatively small and easy to carry, and compare very well with their L versions when stopped down a little.  If you needed heavy duty build, great low light ability and the best possible quality at maximum apertures, then the L primes have no substitute.  But for general photography, you'll likely be very pleased with the 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 (haven't tried the 100/2).  Each lens is usable wide open (especially the 85/1., very good when stopped down 1 stop and excellent when stopped down 2 stops.  The 28/1.8 is probably the weakest of the bunch because image corners are fuzzier than with the other lenses when used with a 5D, but it's still very good.  The 85/1.8 is a brilliant lens, really super great for the price.  Yes, they were all designed before digital cameras came along, but they do still provide high quality with digital.

You can easily compare the image quality of many Canon lenses at various apertures here:
[a href=\"http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&Lens=404]http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...Comp=0&Lens=404[/url]

[Craig Arnold]

Rather rambling and unstructured, please accept my apologies...


My favourite place to compare lens performance is at http://slrgear.com

They have interactive blur charts which show lens sharpness at different apertures and (for zooms) focal lengths.

They also show the performance on both crop and non-crop bodies which is very handy.

This is of course a "lite" version of the profiles used by DXO optics for correction.

I used the 50 f1.4 on my 5D a lot and only got rid of it because I wanted: L contrast, colour, build quality and AF on a 50 prime. I found the build quality and the AF motor particularly disappointing on the f1.4; it just felt a bit cheap and nasty to me. By contrast the 28 f1.8 and the 85 f1.8 are both very solid and have lovely AF.  

As for wider and longer, well the 24-105L comes nicely discounted as part of the 5D kit, and the blur charts show it has exceptional performance at 24-50mm from f5.6-f11. Usually if I want a wide angle I am looking for a traditional "landscape" shot stopped down for DOF, and the 24-105L is very good for that, as well as a pretty good vacation lens. It's only weakness is that it's a bit softer at the telephoto end, but the centre is pretty good stopped down. The colour is great and it sharpens up OK. I'm not a real sharpness freak anyway.

My personal view is that if you won't be using the 24-70 mostly at f2.8 then the 24-105 is a much better deal. The IS works nicely too.

So my lenses at the moment:

1. 24-105L - mostly used stopped down at 24-35mm. [I sold my 28 f1.8.]
2. 50 L - but the 50 f1.4 is fine, and much lighter and cheaper.
3. 70-300 DO. [Gets used a couple of times a year.]

I do feel like I need one more lens though - something for tight portrait work, possibly the 85L but more likely the 135L f2.

But when I take a walk with fellow photographers who use prime lenses and they take a picture, it's always nice to see how they arrange their images, they try different angles, go back and forth and generally seem to really care about composing the frame.
With a prime you have one focal length and you have to really work in order to fit everything into one photo and in my opinion that's what really makes the difference, not the few f-stops more or the tiny amount of sharpness.

Which is probably why I always seem to get much better pictures with the prime and haven't taken the 50L off my camera since I got it 8 weeks ago. And astonishingly it even seems to work for "landscape" shots where I would almost certainly be working much wider if I had the zoom on the camera.

[sojournerphoto]

I used the 50 f1.4 on my 5D a lot and only got rid of it because I wanted: L contrast, colour, build quality and AF on a 50 prime. I found the build quality and the AF motor particularly disappointing on the f1.4; it just felt a bit cheap and nasty to me. By contrast the 28 f1.8 and the 85 f1.8 are both very solid and have lovely AF. 

As for wider and longer, well the 24-105L comes nicely discounted as part of the 5D kit, and the blur charts show it has exceptional performance at 24-50mm from f5.6-f11. Usually if I want a wide angle I am looking for a traditional "landscape" shot stopped down for DOF, and the 24-105L is very good for that, as well as a pretty good vacation lens. It's only weakness is that it's a bit softer at the telephoto end, but the centre is pretty good stopped down. The colour is great and it sharpens up OK. I'm not a real sharpness freak anyway.

My personal view is that if you won't be using the 24-70 mostly at f2.8 then the 24-105 is a much better deal. The IS works nicely too.

So my lenses at the moment:

1. 24-105L - mostly used stopped down at 24-35mm. [I sold my 28 f1.8.]
2. 50 L - but the 50 f1.4 is fine, and much lighter and cheaper.
3. 70-300 DO. [Gets used a couple of times a year.]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To follow that, I'm fortunate enought to have the 24-105 f4L, 70-200 f4 L IS and the 70-300DO. I also have a 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and 100 2.8 mactro. I use all of the primtes and the 85 and 50 are real favourites of mine. In part this is the large available apertures and also, as much as the quality of the zooms is much much better than the vivitar I gave away in the 80's, I like working with primes.

I often leave the 50 on my 5D and just work with that for days at a time - indoors in low light or wherever. The fixed focal length forces me to think about how I frame and there is something about the images I love. It isn't at all sharp at 1.4, but is much better as you stop down and really I don't mind for work at that aperture.

Having said that the 24-105 could replace all them for most uses quite easily, and that is really my 'standard' lens now.

70-300 is not a patch on the 70-200, but works well on a (borrowed) crop frame camera and is much less obvious than the L lens in it's white livery.

You'll enjoy using whatever you buy:)

Mike

Mike