Prime or Zoom?

[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!