Primes vs. a zoom lens...

[rpcrowe]

I do like using primes on my APSC cameras but, prime lenses may not always be the best solution in a fast moving scenario; even when shooting with two bodies in tandem

I was shooting portraits of people in costume with their faces painted at a local Day of the Dead celebration. I was shooting with two Sony APSC bodies in tandem and just happened to have an 85mm on one body and a 50mm on the other. I also had a 30mm and a 12mm with me but, I had the two longer lenses on the cameras because I was standing in the audience in front of a stage where dancers were about to perform. The 50mm covered most of the stage and I would be able to single out dancers with the 85mm. That seemed like a good plan until I was booby trapped

I noticed a neat shot of a little girl in full regalia with her face painted sitting on her dad's shoulders so she could see the performers on the stage. The shot was "O.K?" with the 85mm but didn't show her dad.



I switched to the 50mm, which was better but, still didn't show as much of the dad as I wanted to see!



No sweat - just zoom with my feet a bit, right? WRONG

I stepped back to get the shot and my foot ended up in a squirrel hole about six inches (16 cm or so) deep and I ended up falling. I scraped my arm pretty badly and dislocated my pinkie finger, thus ending my shooting for the day

Moral of this story: No matter how many times "zooming with your feet" comes up in a zoom vs. prime lens comparison as a simple solution, it is not always as easy as it seems Maybe I should have been more careful but, I certainly did not expect to find a hole this deep in the area that the audience was standing.

My next Day of the Dead (hopefully this Friday) will be with a zoom on one camera (probably my 28-75mm) and the 85mm on the other...

[xpatUSA]

Never mind about your arm and finger - was the camera/lens OK?

At the age of almost 80, tripping over stuff is all too easy, I find.

As to lenses, I've long ago moved to image-stabilized zooms. Firstly for the shaky hands and secondly to avoid the inconvenience of lens-swapping.

My favorite is the Sigma 17-50mm constant f/2.8 - equivalent to 29-85mm on my DSLR.

All my prime lenses are true macros specifically used for close-up work.

[DanK]

As to lenses, I've long ago moved to image-stabilized zooms. Firstly for the shaky hands and secondly to avoid the inconvenience of lens-swapping.


All my prime lenses are true macros specifically used for close-up work.

Me too, with one exception: I recently bought a cheap (refurbished) 'nifty fifty' f/1.8 for low light use in a specific situation. It's so small, cheap, and light that it doesn't really count.

[pschlute]

Sorry to hear of your industrial injury.

Of your two shots I think the tighter one of the girl is better.

When I started out in photography zooms were looked down upon as poor relations, which they generally were. These days it is different. A prime may still outperform a zoom on a bench test but zooms are generally of a very high quality.

[rpcrowe]

I am quite in love with my newest lens, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for Sony e-mount. The lens is sharp and contrasty and, of course, a steady f/2.8 at all focal lengths. IMO it is a major cut above he Sony-Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 G OSS lens and is better at auto focus than the 28-75mm lens that Tamron issued for the Canon many years ago. Although it doesn't have stabilization, both my A6500 and A7iii cameras have in body image stabilization (IBIS)...

It is also light enough to work well on the Sony crop sensor cameras and when shooting people, I don't mind that 28mm is the wide side. At a 42mm equivalent, the wide end doesn't distort people to any great degree.

[LePetomane]

Single focal length projects are fun but "zooming with your feet" does have limitations.

[DanK]

Single focal length projects are fun but "zooming with your feet" does have limitations.

It also doesn't have the same effect as zooming by changing focal length. If you zoom in with your feet to get the same size subject relative to the frame as zooming by increasing focal length, the two provide a different perspective, and the background will be busier and less blurred if you zoom with your feet.

[Antonio Correia]

Primes are in fact in generally more precise and render better images but zoom are pretty good these days, indeed. I agree.
But nothing like a zoom in a moving scenario when on travel for example.
One has to think: this is the lens I have ar this moment to work with. Let me take the best advantage of it.
I took for the travel in Guatemala 3 primes: the 24, the 85 and the 135.
The one I used more often was the 24 but I also made some beautiful portraits (which must be verified in the computer) with the heavy an fabulous 135
😀
I almost forgot: are OK now Richard ?
Something similar happened to me some time ago...

[William W]

"zooming with your feet" is one, in a list of phrases, that I would prefer to see stricken forever, but I know that's a lost cause, but I feel good mentioning it.

Hope your finger is better, Richard.

WW

[rpcrowe]

Thanks for your concern... My finger is getting better. It is hard to believe how important that little finger is when trying to grip something

I have just received my latest (and I would hope my last) lens. It is the 70-350mm Sony for APSC cameras. I am going to put it through its paces this Monday when I photograph our local Veterans Day Celebration. I am going to shoot with the 70-350mm on my A6400 and the 28-75mm on my A6500 in order to take advantage of the OSS of the 70-350mm on the non IBIS A6400 and to take advantage of the IBIS of the A6500 with the non-stabilized 28-75mm Tamron...

I also will shoot in a studio setting using my A7iii with the 28-75mm Tamron and with the Sony 85mm f/1.8 lens this Sunday...

I also plan to do a shoot using the full frame A7iii and 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens matched against the A6400 wearing the 70-350mm OSS lens...

I will be sure to post the results...

[Amirax1]

I hope your health condition has improved. I think the tighter one of the girl is better. I personally prefer using my Sony DT SAL50F18 lenses. I like that the 50mm focal length on APS-C body provides a viewing angle that is approximately equal to the 75mm lens on a Full-Frame sensor.

[Abitconfused]

I tend to think zooms for occasions where no set subject of interest & location is the order of the day and prime lenses for a specific subject, such as 24-70 for street but a 105 for portraits. Plus, a zoom (such as my 28-300) recovers much lost pride when sifted through post-production.

[rpcrowe]

I hope your health condition has improved. I think the tighter one of the girl is better. I personally prefer using my Sony DT SAL50F18 lenses. I like that the 50mm focal length on APS-C body provides a viewing angle that is approximately equal to the 75mm lens on a Full-Frame sensor.

Thanks, I'm patching up just fine.

I also like the 50mm lens on a Sony crop camera for chest up portraits but, the 85mm is additionally quite good for head shots and for wider shots outdoors when you have room to back up.

[Manfred M]

I tend to think zooms for occasions where no set subject of interest & location is the order of the day and prime lenses for a specific subject, such as 24-70 for street but a 105 for portraits. Plus, a zoom (such as my 28-300) recovers much lost pride when sifted through post-production.

I have a slightest different view. Zooms are good all purpose lenses that work very well for general purpose photography.

Fixed focal length lenses are special purpose lenses, for instance for street photography where we want a shorter, smaller lens that is less obvious. They can have a larger maximum aperture that allows for a shallower DoF. They also tend to be lighter weight, which can be useful when carrying heavy gear for long distances in wildlife work, where fast glass is required.

[Shadowman]

Sounds like being able to control the scene (meaning the subject) plays an equal part in the favoritism of prime/zoom lens, being limited in your movements can also occur in a controlled environment, you could be shooting in a small bedroom or one with obstructing doorways; I suppose time could be included in the scenario as well, could be fumbling with lenses when the lighting is perfect yet fleeting.

[DanK]

Just speaking personally, I find this question easy in practice. Zoom lenses provide flexibility and convenience that primes can't. For me, the convenience is not just a reduction in the number of lenses one needs; it's the speed with which one can change focal length, without changing lenses.

In the old days, the quality differential was so large that I stuck with primes. It no longer is. Primes are often sharper, but high-quality zooms are now good enough that it often makes very little or no practical difference. For example, at standard portrait lengths, my 70-200 is a superb lens. Moreover, some of the problems with zooms, such as barrel and pincushion distortion at the extremes, are now trivial to correct in postprocessing. (In practice, I find it often isn't necessary.)

Primes do offer some advantages, of course: they tend to be much lighter, they are often faster, and they are still somewhat better optically. The weight difference, however, disappears if you carry a few primes rather than one zoom.

So for me, the decision is simple: I use zooms unless I have reason not to. My macro lenses are primes; I think all true macro lenses are. I bought a nifty fifty for cases where I need shallower DOF or faster speed, but I actually have yet to use it. Other than macro lenses and my nifty fifty, every lens I own is a zoom.

[rpcrowe]

I have a slightest different view. Zooms are good all purpose lenses that work very well for general purpose photography.

Fixed focal length lenses are special purpose lenses, for instance for street photography where we want a shorter, smaller lens that is less obvious. They can have a larger maximum aperture that allows for a shallower DoF. They also tend to be lighter weight, which can be useful when carrying heavy gear for long distances in wildlife work, where fast glass is required.

Totally agree but, I'd like to add another factor: a zoom allows me to crop in the camera for many shots. I can adjust the focal length so I can utilize 100% of my image in most cases. There will be times when a short prime is too wide while my next longer lens is too long.

My only choice in this case is to either shift my position (not always possible) or shoot with the wider lens and crop,

The quality of today's zoom lenses (especially better quality zooms) is nothing short of amazing. Gone are the days when I would choose a prime lens simply because the image quality of zoom lenses was not up to standards...

My newest kit for travel will be my pair of Sony APSC cameras (A6500 and A6400) pained with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 lenses. If experience sows me that I need wider, I will toss the little Rokinon 12mm f/2.9 into my bag.

Add a small Godox/Flashpoint TTL 350S flash and my total kit will weigh right at about six pounds which is quite manageable for me...

[Antonio Correia]

Well said Dan and Richard !

[William W]

[summary in point form]
> zoom lenses provide flexibility and convenience
> reduction in the number of lenses
> the speed with which one can change focal length
> high-quality zooms are now good enough [image quality]
> the weight difference, however, disappears if you carry a few primes rather than one zoom.

I think that there are two other big elements to this list:

> the fact that (modern) Digital Cameras allow excellent high quality imaging at (what used to be) High ISO. As an example, pulling shots at ISO 3200 and 6400 is commonplace for some, me included: only 10~15 years ago I’d ache for F/1.4 simple to attain a reasonable hand held Shutter Speed to also negate any Subject Movement Blur, and then I’d be concerned to bump to from ISO800 to ISO1600 that three stops from ISO800 to ISO 6400, now being accommodated by the camera’s capability means that I can choose to use an F/2.8 Zoom for mostly all low light shooting.

> Especially (the second important element being) if there is no concern about Subject Movement Blur, the advances in Image Stabilization Technologies make F/2.8 and F/4 Zooms a most logical first choice for high quality work.

WW

[royden]

To The OP, hope you are on the mend. I like your 2 images. This is my first post, just joined. To the 2nd poster. It is indeed a small world. I'm Ted too and I'm seriously considering the Sigma 17-50 and the 17-70 as an option being a bit longer. With 17-50 I would have to zoom with my feet for the extra 20mm