Prime or Zoom, which is better?

[FrankMi]

Hi Jim. I sense that your real concern is in missing shots that would take a different lens than what you have mounted, that you are looking for a lens that would capture a wider variety of shooting circumstances.

I faced similar circumstances and casted about for a solution as well. Although I have wide-angle, normal, and telephoto lenses (all zoom) that covers the range from 11mm (18mm FFE) to 300mm (450mm FFE), I was still stuck with the wrong lens at times and missed opportunities to get some really great shots.

In the end I settled for a second camera that I could grab and shoot as fast, and sometimes faster than my DSLR. The Canon SX40 seems to have better low-light sensitivity and image stabilization than my Nikon D3100 and several features, like Auto-Bracketing that are not on my primary DSLR, but the biggest benefit I've found so far is that I can shoot from 24mm-840mm (FFE) by just zooming. If I have the time, I can still switch lenses on the DSLR but now I don't miss the shots.

What about image quality? All of the images I shot between post # 69 and post # 96 in this thread Project 52 by Frank Miller were done hand-held with the Canon. Although it won't fit everbody's needs, I provided me with an effective solution to this and several other issues for less than $400.

[Designer]

Andrew; the 18-200mm sounds like the lens I should seriously consider. Thanks for the reply! Even though a purchase such as that seems like an extravagance, considering I have two lenses that cover that range now, I would essentially be duplicating what I already have, but perhaps I would need only one lens and avoid some of that lens-changing hassle.

[Designer]

Thanks, Frank, for the reply. Yes, my conceit is such that I think I can frame the ideal shot in the camera by using zoom, and it is probably a hold-over from film days. As I consider myself a newby with digital, I guess just need to keep learning.

You are correct in understanding my main concern about finding the best shot. I don't travel much, but I wish to avoid unnescessary lens-changing if possible. Furthermore, I would like to be able to pick up the camera with a lens on it that would cover 99% of possible shots, and not need to be concerned if the "wrong" lens is attached.

[Scottm]

Hi Jim... The 18-200mm is an ideal walk-about lens, giving you an equivalent range of around 27-300mm if you are using a Nikon DX body. This lens would probably cover most of what you are likely to photograph on any walk-about, so eliminate any of your current lens-changing concerns. It will replace your current lenses and you could probably recover some of the cost by selling them on e-bay. As a "consumer" lens, you will not get faster focus, nor lower aperature on the 18-200, so do not expect much difference in the quality of pictures from what you get with your current lenses; what you do get is the convenience of not having to change lenses on-the-go. only you can decide whether the additional convenience justifies the cost.

[inkista]

Kathy, thanks for the reply. I should clarify my frustration in changing lenses:

It seems that in order to cover most shooting opportunities, I swap between my "kit" short lens, and its longer f.l. partner. I have tried to do this under pressure from timing, particularly when the shot is rapidly disappearing. Also, at such times I rarely find the convenience of a table, bench, or some even some quiet place in which to change lenses. Furthermore, doing something like that, exposing the interior of my camera to the elements, sometimes forgetting to replace the lenscaps, a good chance of dropping a lens, or my camera, and all the while trying to do it quickly, I am thinking of aquiring a "super zoom".

If 55mm is a bad "breakover" spot for you, then yes, swapping to a zoom that covers your typical focal lengths is probably a good idea. But the 18-200 isn't your only option. There is also the EF-S 18-135 IS, or, if you want to go whole hog into the Ls, the EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM. The question with the 18-200 is do you really need the extreme end of the zoom? (i.e., when you swap out your 18-55 for the 55-250, are you always going to the end of the 55-250)? Because if you are, I think you're going to miss the 200-250 range, and you might actually be happier practicing lens changing, and maybe going for a 70-300 IS USM for that money.

While such an investment will be expensive, it would save me the trouble and the potential of dust, etc. entering my camera. I would not consider such a purchase if the super zoom would yield a poorer picture than either of my current zoom lenses.

You probably won't lose much IQ, but you won't gain much, either. It's probably a wash. If the convenience you gain is worth the cost, then go for it. But, as I said, I'm a hobbyist shooter. I don't mind things being a PITA, sometimes. And I'd prefer to spend on image quality gains, or different types of lenses that add some function to my kit I don't already have. You are blowing the price of a good tripod and a mid-range flash on a superzoom.

As for the dust/time thing, I change lenses out of the bag at my hip. I get my body cap ready to go, remove the lens, and immediately cap the body while simultaneously shoving the lens into the bag. Then remove the caps on the new lens, remove the body cap, and mount up the new lens. Replace caps on the old lens if needed (or wait until after I get the shot. No table needed. Time the body is exposed is minimal. Also, remember, that the mirror box is down and is also between the sensor and the mount opening.

The other option (and this may seem ridiculous now, but not so much when you've upgraded to a new body) is to shoot with two bodies, one lens mounted on each. I often do this when going out birding. I have my 24-105 on the 5Dii, and my 400/5.6L on the 50D. In between birds, I can amuse myself with shooting landscapes. That's the truly expensive solution to the lens-changing dilemma.

Obtaining a prime 50mm would probably not be in the near future anyway, but I was just wondering.

Actually, a 50mm f/1.8 prime is probably one of the cheapest high-quality lenses you can get. It's why so many of us acquire one early in putting together our systems.

[Designer]

Given the presumably low cash value of the used lenses, I may decide to keep them as "back-up" in case anything harms the "super zoom" at some point. I'll investigate the potential resale value of the two lenses before I make the jump.

[Designer]

Kathy, thanks for the reply. Seems like the next thing I should consider is a "pro-style" bag, which would make changing easier and more organized.

Honestly, even if I could afford another body, I doubt very much if I would enjoy carrying that much stuff around. As an amature, I already feel that the DSLR is considerable "bother" at times. I sort of enjoy having my compact point'n shoot in my pocket even if it doesn't offer much in the way of creative photography.

[benm]

A superzoom won't provide as good IQ as a shorter zoom but the difference may not be visible for small prints or monitor viewing. But they are not particularly fast (f/5.6 at the long end is typical).

As far as changing lenses and the worry associated with that I solved that for myself by buying a second body. Now I can carry a 300 mm on one body and a 17-55 mm on the other and change from one to the other almost instantly. I am developing good neck muscles too .

[Colin Southern]

A superzoom won't provide as good IQ as a shorter zoom but the difference may not be visible for small prints or monitor viewing. But they are not particularly fast (f/5.6 at the long end is typical).

With todays high-ISO cameras, a slow(er) lens is becoming less of an issue though.

I am developing good neck muscles too .

Have you considered something like the Spider Holster? I use one - usually with a 1D3 & 70-200/2.8L - and it works great. Dual camera versions available too.

[Designer]

Ben, heh-heh. Yes, a second complete unit is no doubt the fastest and surest method of extending your focal length.

[Designer]

Colin, thank you. The hyperlink did not work today, but I can search for it later. The holster idea is a good one! I have seen some advertised in magazines, and they seem to solve the problems of dangling, swinging, and awkward positioning of ordinary camera straps. Not that I have any plans to carrying two DSLR's, but carrying one is problem enough when boarding trains, standing in queues, riding on amusement park rides, etc. especially when the camera is not in my backpack.

If any difference between lenses is not noticible, then I think we have arrived at the answer. I could get a "super zoom", and perhaps a fast medium-length prime for low light conditions, and crank up the ISO for those shots where hand-held is the preferred method. Then, use the sharpening tool in PS if the photo needs more sharpening.

Yes, I plan to spend more time in the tutorials, especially concerning noise, etc.

[arith]

At the risk of hijacking this thread, I am going to answer this question...



It doesn't have to be this way. You can setup Photoshop to show an image at 100% print size. You may need a ruler. I watched Deke McLelland explain how to do this a couple of years ago and just now found it written up by someone else. So, here's the link on how to setup PS View/Print Size.

Last, let us not get confused between "resolution" and image "definition".



Same aperture? FoV is not a part of the exposure triad -- aperture, ISO, shutter speed.

Print size; actual print size would be useful but of course it can't show the resolution and maybe even the colour is a guess, extended argb,my moniter is 1900px wide, but I guess this is about lenses and I think Jim has rightly got the idea that prime even ones I've not heard of are really specialist stuff.
Come to think of it I used to do panorama all the time without the proper head with some good results. Can't do that with a zoom but then so what. Just have to get the proper equipment.
Fov looks about right for the second part, just a bit of fun and not relevant really.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Jim,

Sounds like you've reached a conclusion.

FWIW, after migrating from a bridge camera, I chose a superzoom; Nikon's 18-200mm on a D5000, so I retained the 28-300mm (equivalent) focal length range I was used to.

That lens was all I had for over a year and I certainly don't regret buying it, the only minor downside is it 'creeps'; i.e. the zoom extends or compresses under the weight of the front elements depending if pointing down or up, but all it takes is an extended index finger to stop the ring rotating when shooting down or up - IQ wise, I am (still) frequently surprised how good it is and I'm comparing against other people's published shots, or the occasional RAW file, from their kit lenses (Canon or Nikon).

Since I shoot wildlife, when I did eventually buy another lens, it was, for quality/budgetary reasons, the Nikon 70-300mm, I couldn't afford anything longer/faster in Nikon and I didn't want to go third party. The 70-300mm now stays on the camera 80% of the time, the 18-200mm goes on for travel, although the fairly recent purchase of a small, RAW capable, P&S now satisfies the wide angle coverage and gives the 'two bodies' benefit at far less cost and bulk

Good luck,

[rosenberg]

There is a couple of reasons why you should chose i prime over a zoom!

Price/vs image quality a prime will always be sharper than a zoom.. atlest in the same price segment that you buy the prime

and the other thing is.. you never get a zoom whit an aparture of 1,4.. or 1.2..or 1.0 (there is a Canon thats that fast but its not sold any more)

and... the most important reason... at least in my book... move in on your subject!.. a prime forces you to explore! so to speak!

but a nice L zoom.. is gold.. and at the end of the day... its all about how you like to take your photos.. and for what purpose!

[Colin Southern]

Price/vs image quality a prime will always be sharper than a zoom.. atlest in the same price segment that you buy the prime

This is something we hear a lot, but unfortunately, it usually doesn't translate into a better "real world" image for two reasons:

1. In most cases the difference between a prime and a modern zoom is indistinguishable in both online images (where typically 95% of the captured information is thrown away), and in print where the difference is too small to be resolved by the human eye in an average small to medium sized print.

2. It assumes that the prime is the exact focal length required; if you only have for example a 50mm prime and you need a 105mm lens - then you'll be throwing away a LOT of information when you have to crop the image severely - leaving an image shot with - say - a 24-105mm zoom containing a LOT more information.

and the other thing is.. you never get a zoom whit an aparture of 1,4.. or 1.2..or 1.0 (there is a Canon thats that fast but its not sold any more)

Very true, but these days, modern cameras have ridiculously high ISO modes, so wide apertures aren't needed as much for their light-gathering ability. So the only other factor is their depth-of-field "advantage", and unfortunately. at F1.2 (or there abouts) it's so razor thin it just can't be used in many situations. I've had portraits with borderline focus at F2.0.

and... the most important reason... at least in my book... move in on your subject!.. a prime forces you to explore! so to speak!

Unfortunately, this sometimes means you need to "grow wings" and "hover" at 200 feet in the middle of a valley, or swim in a river against the current with one arm, whilst correctly framing the shot with the other. I'm not saying you can't get good shots, but with a fixed focal length lens you're severely limited to ONLY the shots that can be obtained with it. Personally, I'd rather have all the tools necessary to capture ANY shot that I choose - and that means either a LOT of primes, or just 2 or 3 zooms

[rosenberg]

1. In most cases the difference between a prime and a modern zoom is indistinguishable in both online images (where typically 95% of the captured information is thrown away), and in print where the difference is too small to be resolved by the human eye in an average small to medium sized print.

True! but as i was saying .. it depends on what you shooting for..

2. It assumes that the prime is the exact focal length required; if you only have for example a 50mm prime and you need a 105mm lens - then you'll be throwing away a LOT of information when you have to crop the image severely - leaving an image shot with - say - a 24-105mm zoom containing a LOT more information.

In my world.. if you need to croop that much.. u did it wrong from the begining.. move in to your subject!

Very true, but these days, modern cameras have ridiculously high ISO modes, so wide apertures aren't needed as much for their light-gathering ability. So the only other factor is their depth-of-field "advantage", and unfortunately. at F1.2 (or there abouts) it's so razor thin it just can't be used in many situations. I've had portraits with borderline focus at F2.0.

yes i usuly is using my 50mm at 2,8 so i know what u mean!

Unfortunately, this sometimes means you need to "grow wings" and "hover" at 200 feet in the middle of a valley, or swim in a river against the current with one arm, whilst correctly framing the shot with the other. I'm not saying you can't get good shots, but with a fixed focal length lens you're severely limited to ONLY the shots that can be obtained with it. Personally, I'd rather have all the tools necessary to capture ANY shot that I choose - and that means either a LOT of primes, or just 2 or 3 zooms

what it all come down to.. is what you shooting and how you shoot!.. since i dont shoot images of valeys, or rivers.. i dont have that problem! since 80% of my shots is of people i cinda limit my gear to my field.. and as soon as i get an L lens.. il probably abandon my primes.. (currently looking at buying the The Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8 lens and and something like 35-70 ) because there is one thing that i have to give zooms.. and that is that they are comfortably

[Designer]

Dave Humphries; Yes, I think I can decide now, thanks to all the comments on here. If I can afford a "super zoom", I think it will serve for nearly all the shots that I wish to make. My main concern was compromised image quality with a zoom, as compared with a "prime", and that question has been addressed.

I will check my P&S Cannon to see if it will capture RAW images, but I doubt it will. It still makes fairly good images, considering its limitations, but they need work to make them acceptible in printing. I have not yet carried it when I have the DSLR, as it seems silly to use that camera when there is a better one to use.

Meanwhile, it also seems "sillly" to aquire a SLR, and leave one lens on it for nearly every outing. No sillier than purchasing a quality DSLR for what are essentially snapshots, but as I have written elsewhere, I would like to learn how to use this camera to take advantage of all its high-tech capabilities.

[Designer]

Thanks, "rosenberg", for your comments. I appreciate your desire to "move in" on the subject, but in many cases, that is impractical. For instance, visiting a point of interest, and seeing a photo opportunity that is physically out of reach. Another is taking pics of subjects who might be intimidated by the approach of a camera (particularly children, pets, etc.).

At some point, I am sure I will obtain a "fast prime" for just those opportunities for which it would be the ideal lens.

[Dave Humphries]

"Moving in on the subject" will change the relative perspective of any elements in the shot, whereas zooming, or cropping, does not.

[GrahamH]

Each tool has it's pro's and cons. Assess which functions you want/need and choose as appropriate.
Very shallow DoF, likely to be a prime.
Flexibility of composition, likely to be a zoom.
Specialist function? Specialist lens (e.g. macro, tilt/shift etc.).
Budget also a consideration? Likely to be a zoom as it covers a wider range.
Resolution critical, likely to be a prime.
Weight and portability? Likely to be a superzoom.
All is relative (and I wish I had a rich relative to get me all this kit).

I often use a superzoom as it stays on camera longer (cleaner sensor), gives me a wide range of options for composition, resolution is perfectly good for my requirements, super shallow DoF not usually needed.
If I want macro, then I use a prime (60mm F2), if I want birding then I use a prime (500mm F8 CAT).
If I shoot a wedding, I use mainly the superzoom. Special shots during the wedding? Then I choose the appropriate lens.

I don't use my laptop to knock a nail into wood, I choose a more appropriate tool (my head or a hammer depending on the frustration levels).

Graham