Prime or Zoom?

[Jorundr-Jorgensen]

Hello people, I've been racking my brain over and over this for quite some time now, so I thought it was time to ask for some assistance with this issue.


I made a topic asking for a great portrait lens some time ago and I ended up getting the 85mm f1.8 and I haven't regretted this a single time. Since then I have been doing couple sessions outside (bride and groom mostly) and beside the 85mm I've also been using the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for the more wider angles. (This is with a crop body).


Now I've gotten a bit into it and starting to enjoy it more and more and seeing that I'm getting my own style I'm thinking about going full frame and getting a series of L lenses with it that will suit my style, and here the problem comes in.


I prefer to shoot couples that are acting more spontanious and not posing to much to give it all a more naturel look, with this I almost always shoot with the biggest aperture that's possible to archive that shallow DOF and dreamy surroundings.


Now I'm thinking, what would be better for my rather dynamic style, 2 zoom's (24-70mm f2.8 + 70-200mm f2.8 IS) or the whole group of L primes (from the 24mm f1.4 L up to the 135mm f2 and all of them in between).


I already have considered the point of, weight, time and flexibility. But I know as well that primes can archive things that zooms can only dream of.


If anyone has got any advice I would highly appreciate it! [:)]





Jørundr Jørgensen.

[alexniedra]

That's a tough one, but I'll try to provide you with some useful insight.


For me, I find zooms to be, from a versatility standpoint, the best. Like Bryan mentions in his reviews, in my opinion, any cropping that needs to be done to a prime shot in post quickly negates the image quality advantage it has. You mentioned that you'd like that "dreamy background" look. Primes will rock at that, from my experience. The 24-70 L and the 70-200 2.8 L IS (especially the 70-200) produce beautiful bokeh. But if you want very shallow depth of field at the wider focal lengths, really consider primes like the 24 1.4 and the 35 1.4.


I'm not sure what your budget is, but the set of primes will be much more expensive to purchase than the two zooms. You could get the zooms, and then invest the other money into another camera body, lighting setup, etc, if this is important to you. You could also use the primes and zooms in combination. Consider combinations like the 24-70 L, 70-200 2.8 L IS, 24 1.4, and 85 1.2. That way when you're faced with a really bad lighting situations, or want that really dreamy bokeh, break out the 24 1.4 or the 85 1.2. Think about it...


In terms of general image quality, I would ideally think of all things equal among primes and zooms - That would make the decision much easier. However, it's not like this. Contrast, sharpness, and color are all good or excellent (excellent in the 24-70's case), but primes are generally sharper and have better contrast. The biggest difference with the primes is that they are almost all of the time faster - In the 24 1.4's case, a full 2 stops faster than the 24-70 L. During a wedding ceremony (no flash allowed![:D]), if you were shooting at 1/100 with the 24-70 L, you would be able to shoot at 1/400 with the 24 1.4.



This is a tricky decision to make, but I hope I made it a little easier for you. This decision will require a few compromises to make. Size/weight, speed, price, and image quality are all factors that you should consider when making your decision. So, in the end, you have to figure out what your priorities are. Is lens speed and image quality paramount to you? Or is the versatility of a zoom something you can't shoot without?


Think about it - With either decision, something is compromised. With zooms, it's the image quality improvement and better bokeh. With primes, versatility and price.


Hope this helps....


- Alex

[Fast Glass]

Go the all prime route. One will be very good, the other will be "What took that!".

[Keith B]

I started out pretty much the same way. I was prime guy all the way but I quickly found out what a momentum killer switching lenses every few minutes was. Subjects tend to lose patients and loose faith in a photographer who is constantly saying don't move while I change lenses.


I started with 28-135 kit lens but went straight for primes, 24 1.4, 50 1.4 and was planning on the 85 1.2. Never got the 85. After shooting a few paid gigs and realizing people lost patience quickly, I decided to start my zoom collection.


Long story short, I now have 16-35 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 IS. With the IQ of these lenses I don't feel I lose much except the low light abilities of a prime and that is why I still have the 24 and the 50 primes, and to satisfy the "artist" in me. But as a "pro" perception is very important too. Everyone will expect you to be able to just keep shooting because everyone will assume your lenses should zoom in and out and if you lenses don't, they must not be "good ones." People may hire you once, but if you annoy them with constant lens changing you probably won't be hired again.


I recently shot a couple on the beach with with a 24-105 (before selling it) and the ability to go wide and then tight in a split second made the shoot a complete success. The couple caught a silly child like mood that was so spontaneous, I wanted to capture their movements and then when they drew in close I was able to draw in close too without running at them or asking then to keep that mood while I changed lenses.

[Rodger]

But as a "pro" perception is very important too. Everyone will expect you to be able to just keep shooting because everyone will assume your lenses should zoom in and out and if you lenses don't, they must not be "good ones."


Hahaha there is so much truth in this. Although I don't speak as a professional, I can attest that trying to explain to my grandpa why I spent even $100 on a lens that doesn't zoom (nifty fifity) is perfectly alright. Of course, he had envisioned me becoming a jazz musician or mathematician. Just something more "secure" haha.


I say zooms!!


-Rodger

[jasbsar]

I would go for the 2 zooms, 24-70mm f2.8 L and the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS.


The 70-200mm is great for getting those more spontanious shots, I have the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS and it is great, really good bokeh for your dreamy surroundings.

[Cory]

One possible suggestion...





Money doesn't sound like it's a huge object for you... so...


Use two Camera's and get a 70-200 2.8 L IS USM and either a 24-70 L or 24-105 L for one and a good range of Primes for the other.

[piiooo]

I prefer to shoot couples that are acting more spontanious and not posing to much to give it all a more naturel look, with this I almost always shoot with the biggest aperture that's possible to archive that shallow DOF and dreamy surroundings.


If you prefer to photograph couples and keep both persons in focus, you're gonna have to use apertures of 4-5.6or even smaller, depending on your focal length. Apertures of 1.4-2.8 are pretty much useless, unlessthe subjects' faces areon the same plane paralel to you, or you planon keeping only one person (or even one eye) in focus.


If you're still interested inshallow depth of field,2.8 on full frame will dojust as goodor better than 1.4 on an APS-C camera.


I'd go with the zooms.

[jasbsar]

Check this website out: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html ("http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) You will see that there is a lot of things which effect your DOF and it is not just the aperature. Focal length and distance to subject also matter.


I have found f2.8 with the 70-200mm IS f2.8 L works very well.

[Daniel Browning]

I have both, but for my style of photography I tend to use primes more. If you will shoot at a fast pace and never go wider than f/2.8, I suggest zooms. But if you can take a little more time for each shot and need f/2 or faster, then primes will serve you better.

[Colin]

I'd rather have both.


But, i'd go for zoom first (at least for the middle to mildly telephoto range), and then maybe compliment that with a prime or two.


I would say that you can't argue with the image quality of a prime, and I guess you can't, however you can't argue with the versatility and speed (of 'changing' the lens) of a zoom. If you take pictures of things that won't hold a pose while you change lenses, or try to back up (assuming you have the space), you're just going to miss pictures, period.


If i'm carrying a prime in a candid situation, I prefer it in the 35-50mm range (on full frame), though unless it's a low light scenario, a zoom usually serves me better.


So, I guess I'm on the "depends on your situation" bandwagon.

[peety3]

I'd say the answer is, unfortunately, dependent on how many cameras you have, and perhaps what resolution those cameras are. More cameras = more primes ready to go. Higher resolution cameras offer more crop-ability, so your focal length intervals can be wider.


For now, I've been extremely happy with the 16-35/2.8, 50/1.8, and the 85/1.2 OR the 70-200/2.8IS, and two bodies. On leaner events (like a game of dominoes the other night), 16-35 and 85/1.2 and one body was an awesome combo.

[Colin]

On leaner events (like a game of dominoes the other night), 16-35 and 85/1.2 and one body was an awesome combo.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I'd like to see a few from that!