Prime lens or Zoom

[Mickj]

I have a canon 700D with an 18mm - 55mm zoom lens and wondered if there would be any real benefit in getting a prime lens as well. I am new to photography and am struggling a bit on the field of view side. I understand that when you zoom to a longer lenght you get a narrower field of view (not sure if it's the right term or not) so if I had a 24mm prime lens would the field of view be the same as setting my zoom to the same focal length or would the prime be wider? So far my shots have been landscape, birds and flowers and I don't anticipate doing any portrait work.

[Manfred M]

Welcome to CiC, Mick.

To try to answer your question; at a high level a 24mm prime lens and a zoom lens set to 24mm will give you exactly the same image. Most people will tend to find zoom lenses are a bit more versatile than fixed focal length lenses (a.k.a. prime lenses).

Do I have prime lenses? Yes, but these tend to be more specialized lenses. There can be an image quality advantage to prime lenses, but this is often negligible in real world photography. The often have a larger maximum aperture (for lower lighting shooting or for getting shallower depth of field). They are often smaller and lighter than zoom lenses.

When I first started out in digital photography, I started with a 18-55mm kit lens as well. I then went for a 55-200mm zoom lens to let me get closer to subjects and my third lens was a 11-16mm ultra-wide angle lens, for indoor architectural work.

[Hallen]

The general down side of zoom lenses:
1) f-stop. It is very, very expensive to get any kind of zoom and also get an f-stop below 3.5.
2) Distortions. In order to do what it does, any zoom lens has varying degrees of distortion in the results. It will be worse at certain zoom settings than others.
3) Size
4) Weight

Item 2 can largely be addressed with post processing software and known lens profiles from the manufacturers. Programs like the Nikon processing software, Lightroom, and I assume others, have most of the common lenses built-in (or in-built depending on what side of the big pond you are on). But, it's never perfect and probably never as good as a prime lens in that sense. But, for the most part, It's not a significant enough difference to be a problem.

Prime lenses will generally have a wider aperture as Manfred pointed out which can open up some nice options for both lighting and depth of field. The down side is that you have to be your own zoom. Walk further away or closer in depending on what you want and you will obviously find that it's simply not possible to do sometimes. Or, you have to have several prime lenses of various focal lengths and you'll have to swapping out lenses a lot.

I think that pretty much everybody can use a 50mm (or 50mm equivalent) at some point. It's rarely a bad choice.

Still, the best thing to do is go do they type of photography that you want to do, and then decide. Give it several thousand shots. I think you'll start getting a feel for what you think you'll need longer term and then make a better decision. Talking to us here isn't going to help much there. It will depend too much on what you like to work with.

[DanK]

There can be an image quality advantage to prime lenses, but this is often negligible in real world photography.

Exactly. There was a time when this isn't so, but many modern zoom lenses are very good. Moreover, some of the common distortion, such as barrel and mustache distortion at the ends, is trivial to correct.

a 24mm prime lens and a zoom lens set to 24mm will give you exactly the same image. Most people will tend to find zoom lenses are a bit more versatile than fixed focal length lenses (a.k.a. prime lenses).

I would offer one friendly amendment. I would change "a bit" to "sometimes a bit, sometimes a great deal."

The notion of walking with your feet makes theoretical sense, but it is often not practical. Moreover, walking with your feet does NOT give you the same image as zooming in or out, because zooming in or out changes focal length and therefore changes field of view.

I shot only with primes for years, back when zooms weren't very good, but at this time, I have NO prime lenses other than macro lenses (all of which are prime).

My suggestion is that you forget about it. Practice with the lens you have, which includes the focal length you asked about. In time, you will begin to find things that you can't do, or can't do well, with that lens. It could be anything. Perhaps you will need something longer. Perhaps you will want something faster (wider aperture), either for speed or for narrow depth of field. Maybe you will want a macro lens. Who knows? We are all different. But my advice is that until you find something specific that you want to do and can't, forget about more equipment. You could otherwise end up throwing away a lot of money.

I'll offer one caveat. Most of the really top zoom lenses have a zoom factor of about 3, to minimize the compromises and distortions that Eric mentioned. In the Canon line-up, examples are the 24-70 and 70-200 lenses (and,for that matter, your own lens, even though that is a budget lens). A few very good lenses have larger zoom ranges. However, the larger the zoom factors, the more likely that optical quality will be compromised more than you want.

[William W]

I have a canon 700D with an 18mm - 55mm zoom lens and wondered if there would be any real benefit in getting a prime lens as well.

Maybe, maybe not. It mainly depends on, firstly your uses (outputs) and secondly, but not as importantly your techniques.

For example, your 18 to 55 lens is probably one of the iterations of the EF-S 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6 lenses, in which case the Maximum Aperture that you have available to use is comparatively quiet small, being F/3.5 at the 18mm end of the zoom and F/5.6 from about 35mm to 55mm of the zoom.

Therefore – IF you wanted to use that lens for a ‘standard view’ of a scene, (that’s a lens of a Focal Length of about 35mm on and APS-C Camera), and that scene had kids moving about in a low light area, then a 35mm prime (like the F 35/2) would allow you to use FASTER shutter speeds at any given ISO. Because you can ‘open up’ the EF 35/2 Prime Lens to a larger aperture than the Zoom Lens, the Prime Lens will be more efficient to ARREST SUBJECT MOTION in some shooting scenarios.

Similarly, if you want to get a SHALLOW DEPTH OF FIELD and Prime Lens will usually be more efficient.

For example, you might find that using the 18 to 55 is cumbersome to get really close to Flowers, in which case you might investigate a dedicated Macro Lens, (which will be a Prime Lens).

For example you might find that you want to shoot Birds in Flight or Birds which are not easily approachable and the 18 to 55 is not 'long enough', in which case you might consider a Telephoto Prime Lens.

*

I am new to photography and am struggling a bit on the field of view side. I understand that when you zoom to a longer lenght you get a narrower field of view (not sure if it's the right term or not)

That is the correct terminology, it seems you have the concept understood.

Pedantic correction here -

"I understand that when you zoom to a longer FOCAL LENGTH you get a narrower field of view"

*

so if I had a 24mm prime lens would the field of view be the same as setting my zoom to the same focal length or would the prime be wider?

It would be the same Field of View, for both lenses.

(Pedantic caveat: because lenses have different designs, especially Zoom Lenses compared to Prime Lenses, then some may exhibit a slightly different FoV at the same FL, but we are discussing differences which are NOT significant).

*

So far my shots have been landscape, birds and flowers and I don't anticipate doing any portrait work.

My advice is do not buy another lens until you can articulate a reason(s) for so doing.

WW

[William W]

. . . The down side is that you have to be your own zoom. Walk further away or closer in depending on what you want. . .

Please - no.

This is an incorrect phrase and it occurs to me that using it, even casually, will only exacerbate the notion that one can ‘zoom with the feet’.

Walking further away or closer to the Subject is NOT being the same as a zoom.

Moving the Camera Viewpoint (i.e. walking) will change the PERSPECTIVE of THE SHOT.

Zooming (or using a Different Focal Length Prime) will change the FIELD of VIEW of THE SHOT

PERSPECTIVE and FIELD OF VIEW are different and NOT interchangeable.

*

The easiest example is to illustrate this is, pretend that your Kit Lens is actually two PRIME lenses, one 18mm and one 55mm.

Now Photograph an HALF SHOT of a person using the 55mm lens - filling the frame with ½ of the person.

Now use the 18mm end of the lens and ‘be your own zoom’ and walk closer to get the same ½ Shot of the person.

WW

[xpatUSA]

My advice is do not buy another lens until you can articulate a reason(s) for so doing.

WW

One possible reason could be the ability to shoot higher-quality pictures with a similar perspective to that of human vision. In 135 format (the so-called 'full frame'), that would be 43mm focal length, often touted as 50mm - the so-called 'normal' focal length.

For your APS-C sensor 43mm equivalence would be close to 28mm. This focal length would give a 'natural' perspective to your shots - and then "zooming with your feet" would be simply be setting the framing of your shot.

Now your decision would be simply to compare the performance of your 18-55mm zoom set to 28mm with a 28mm prime lens. Will the potential improvement be worth the outlay and the hassle of having to swap lenses for a shot?

You might find this useful for on-line comparisons:

http://www.slrgear.com

Having just looked at the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 and f/2.8 primes there, I can not say that I'm highly impressed with either one - but then I'm a Sigma guy . . . .

[William W]

One possible reason could be the ability to shoot higher-quality pictures with a similar perspective to that of human vision . . . For your APS-C sensor 43mm equivalence would be close to 28mm. This focal length would give a 'natural' perspective to your shots - and then "zooming with your feet" would be simply be setting the framing of your shot.

. . .

Having just looked at the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 and f/2.8 primes there, I can not say that I'm highly impressed with either one - but then I'm a Sigma guy . . . .

Yes Ted: well followed on, on that train of thought.

That's one of the reasons why I gave the EF35/2 as an example.

*

Re the Canon lenses:

I've used the 28/1.8 and we own the 35/2, but I have not used the 28/2.8.

My view is that the 28/1.8 was not a great performer on 135 format, but on an APS-C camera was more than adequate, because a smaller area of the lens's Circle of View is used, the edges being cropped.

The 35/2 was better on 135 format, and a 35mm Lens is a more useful FL than a 28mm Lens (on 135 Format) for my outputs and my techniques, but IF I only have a APS-C cameras then the EF28/1.8 would have been in better contention for a purchase choice.

I didn't use the 28/2.8, because there is not that much Lens Speed gain (i.e. bigger maximum Aperture) from F/3.5 to F/2.8 (the Kit lens is at about F/3.5 around the 22~24mm FL region and my view is that never hurts too much to shoot a tad wide and crop, in Post Production.)

All that stated, Sigma has recently (last few years) released a wad of fast lenses ('fast lenses' means 'having a large maximum aperture) - and if the press is correct some of those lenses are very good optics. I haven't used any of the Sigma Lenses

Canon has an EF 35/2 IS which appears quite yummy and it appeals to my uses, also a 24mm and a 28mm both at F/2.8 an both with IS. This trio is not 'inexpensive'.

WW

[Mickj]

Thanks for this Manfred it answers my question, I did buy a cheap 55-250mm zoom to see if it would be useful and it has been, so at the moment I think I will stick with the 2 I have and see how things develop.

[Mickj]

Bill thanks, this has been my first contact with a forum group and I have been very impressed with all the responses, I have taken on board your comments and have decided to wait and see, I think my wife will be pleased as she thinks I have been spending too much any way!!

[Mike Buckley]

Mick,

Sometimes it's a lot easier to decide whether a lens is a helpful addition to your kit only after using it. One way is to make use of a no-questions-asked return policy; simply return the lens if it is not helpful enough to warrant purchasing it. Another way is to rent the lens. If you really like it, some rental companies will sell you that lens and some will apply part of your rental cost to the purchase price.

[DanK]

One way is to make use of a no-questions-asked return policy; simply return the lens if it is not helpful enough to warrant purchasing it. Another way is to rent the lens.

IMHO, the latter is a lot more considerate of the merchant and of the person who ends up buying what you return. I think the best use of a no questions return policy is to return something that is not what you expected or that you ordered mistakenly, not to try out merchandise that you don't necessarily plan to buy.

[Brev00]

I would suggest you invest in a tripod for your landscape work over a new landscape lens. Your 18-55 set at f 8 should perform quite well and much landscape work is done stopping down the aperture somewhat (from f 3.5 to f 8, for instance). But, this stopping down can result in slow shutter speeds or high iso's or both in low light. A tripod will slow you down and enable you to carefully adjust settings even using live view for precise focusing all the while keeping the camera steady for slower shutter shots. Better than zooming with your feet is often staying in one place!

[Donald]

I would suggest you invest in a tripod for your landscape work over a new landscape lens.

I would totally endorse that view.

What I don't think has been discussed in the thread (sorry if I've missed it) is what you're going to do with your pictures. Unless you're looking to print them to quite large sizes, the lens you have will give you all the quality that you will need for the moment. For landscape work in particular, a good tripod will contribute far more to achieving high quality than would a change of lens.

[rpcrowe]

Donald hit the nail on the head... The quality of the later version kit lenses is amazing (considering their relatively low cost) when the camera is mounted on a sturdy tripod and the image shot at around f/8 or f/11...

"Will the field of view of a zoom lens be exactly that of a prime lens when the zoom is set at the same focal length as the prime (say both lenses at 28mm)?" The answer is generally YES and NO! I don't mean to be vague but, I am, basing my answer on the fact that most zoom lens focal lengths are measured with the lens focused at infinity. At other distances, the lenses can show a field of view different from the markings on the lens. Different lenses can have different focal lengths when focused at distances other than infinity. Sometimes the difference is considerable.

Now, the difference in quality between a zoom lens and a fixed focal length or prime lens... Top-line zoom lenses can produce top-notch image quality - but you will pay to get that quality. Payment comes in the form of the original price and from the somewhat limited focal range of many of the top line zoom lenses. While some zoom lenses have a great zoom range (such as 18mm to 200mm or even greater), you will often pay for that extensive range with a variable and often slower f/stop, slower and perhaps less accurate focusing and perhaps a bit lower image quality. Now, is the versatility of that long focal range (handy for traveling since you generally need only one lens - and a lot less expensive to buy than several top-line lenses) worth the photographic price you pay for that versatility - only the individual photographer can decide that!

I generally shoot with a pair of Canon zoom lenses: 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS. These two lenses are quite expensive but, I will match the quality the I can produce with most prime lenses. Using these two lenses I have the 17mm to 200mm focal range pretty well covered (I don't miss the 55mm to 70mm gap between these two lenses). I have a constant f/2.8 aperture in my medium zoom and a constant f/4 aperture in in telephoto zoom. I have fast and accurate auto focus throughout the range of these lenses...

A final thought... The quality of a lens should be determined by the final product you anticipate. If all you do is post images on the Internet, send images by email and perhaps print 4x6" photos at your local discount store, buying top-line lenses might be overkill. Sort of like buying a Ferrari for your grocery shopping trips. However, if you need the utmost quality in your images, either top-line zoom lenses or top-line prime lenses would be in order. However, if you don't require the utmost quality from your images but, enjoy driving the Ferrari on your shopping trips AND you can afford that luxury - by all means use the best glass you can find and afford.

I don't shoot for profit anymore but, after a lifetime of using excellent glass, I just cannot abide using anything but top-notch lenses! A also enjoy the luxury (and it is a luxury) of being able to make large prints for one reason or another anytime I so desire!

[Mike Buckley]

IMHO, the latter is a lot more considerate of the merchant and of the person who ends up buying what you return. I think the best use of a no questions return policy is to return something that is not what you expected or that you ordered mistakenly, not to try out merchandise that you don't necessarily plan to buy.

Your sentiment makes me think that you probably agree with me that it is important to keep within the spirit of a policy, not just the letter of a policy. B&H outwardly encouraged me to buy product, try it, and return it if it doesn't meet my needs. So, I am only complying with their wish when I buy something knowing that I may not keep it. In fact, one time they encouraged me to order two digital projectors knowing that I would only keep one of them. Having said all of that, under normal circumstances I would never buy something unless I had the expectation of keeping it.

[DanK]

Your sentiment makes me think that you probably agree with me that it is important to keep within the spirit of a policy, not just the letter of a policy. B&H outwardly encouraged me to buy product, try it, and return it if it doesn't meet my needs. So, I am only complying with their wish when I buy something knowing that I may not keep it. In fact, one time they encouraged me to order two digital projectors knowing that I would only keep one of them. Having said all of that, under normal circumstances I would never buy something unless I had the expectation of keeping it.

It does sound like we are more on the same page than I originally thought. IMHO, if one can't decide between two options and a retailer says s/he will send you both for you to check, that's fine. What I was responding to is the widespread practice of treating retailers as lending libraries. I've seen posts in which people write, 'I'm really curious about lens X. I think I will buy one, keep it for a while, and then return it.' A few years ago, we had a large event for which we had to keep a large amount of drinks chilled. I decided to buy a small extra refrigerator that we could use when we need it and stow in the basement when we don't. After the event, one person said to me, "I assume you'll return that, right?"

[William W]

(Aside) re the above side conversation, there are more elements - there seems a growing perception that ALL retailers provide similar return and/or exchange policies and/or local laws enshrine that - which is incorrect.

[Mickj]

Mike, interesting thought I would never have considered renting a lens, just did a web search and there are couple of companies not far from me, I might consider this next year, I would not be comfortable buying something I felt I would take back because it wasn't what I wanted.

[Mickj]

I haven't given much thought to what I intend to do with the pictures, at the moment I only have them on my laptop and have not printed any yet, if I did I doubt that I would be looking at a large print. I will however invest in a decent tripod though, it is on my list.