Primes vs. Zooms

[996GT2]

Personally, I feel like I think about what I'm shooting more when I've got a prime lens on my camera. Primes are usually sharper, faster (aperture-wise), faster focusing, and smaller/lighter. That said, I do appreciate the versatility of a fast, constant-aperture zoom. I've toyed with the idea of going to primes altogether (got a Canon 50mm f/2.5 on the way), but I'm not sure if I can ever give up the versatility of a good zoom lens.

So, ATers, what's your opinion on primes vs. zooms?

 

[Fardringle]

If I could afford good primes in the whole range that I want to use (very wide to very long telephoto), and I had a way to transport them without breaking my arm/back, I would definitely go with primes. But, since I'm poor, a decent quality zoom or two would be my choice. It sacrifices a bit on image quality, but is significantly cheaper, easier to transport, and less of a hassle since you don't have to swap lenses as much.

 

[jpeyton]

I use primes because they give you the performance of a professional zoom at 25% of the price, they are lightweight, and in some cases they offer much faster apertures.

Primes: 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 105mm and 180mm. I also have a 80-200mm zoom. I frame off-center a lot, so I appreciate the uniform sharpness that prime lenses (especially macro lenses) offer across the frame.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

I appreciate primes for what they are.

However, my style of photography demands the versatility of a zoom - lots of wildlife and "off the cuff" shots.

 

[shocksyde]

I've got an equal amount of both, and I love both equally.

 

[bobdole369]

Too poor to really explore primes. nifty fifty is about it. I bet I'd love a 17mm prime. 180mm too.

 

[corkyg]

If the shot fits, and I have a prime to match, that is my preference. On the other hand, when on a photo mission involving unknowns, a good zoom is essential. And if you are travelling and have a weight/space limit, a zoom is the right tool. So, I suppose I use both equally.

 

[soydios]

short primes are all I've got for low light.

 

[randomlinh]

when i'm out on my own, or in a controlled environment, primes. doing an event of some sort, zooms. I seem to use zooms more, but prefer primes.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
I appreciate primes for what they are.

However, my style of photography demands the versatility of a zoom

this pretty much goes for me too.

 

[Alyx]

I'm always out and about when photographing stuff, I don't have enough space for primes to cover the whole range. That and since I use a backpack its always a pain to change lenses, and it seems I'd be doing it a lot with primes. Maybe i'd use them more if i had two bodies.

 

[AndrewR]

If I and my subject are standing still, then I prefer primes. For anything dynamic, with the exception of macro, I tend to use zooms. There are exceptions, of course, but it all depends on what I'm capturing.

 

[Shimmishim]

Recently, I've been favoring my primes, Sigma 20 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4. I love their low light capability. My 24-70L has barely seen any action since December. However, the 70-200 I have is way too versatile to collect any dust on a shelf. In order of usage:

70-200
50
20
24-70

If I absolutely had to get rid of one lens right now, it would have to be the 24-70 as much as it would hurt.

My next lens will be the 85 1.8 or 135 2.0. Primes become addicting after a while.