Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Prime or Zoom?

lens zoom prime aperture

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1
jandrewsesq

jandrewsesq

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Country Flag

I've been shooting with Nikon for a few years now and am working up through the ranks, but before buying a new body I want to be as good as I possibly can be with the D90 I've got.  I've been using my 35mm f1.8 more and more of late, and generally shooting in RAW (NEF) than jpeg.  

 

I love the Prime as it really makes me think about composition, and using RAW files makes me consider even more, given the size of the files, but I'm still reading that some users prefer a more practical zoom lens.  

 

I've got a 70-300mm zoom, that I'll use to capture my son playing football or my daughter playing tennis, but am having a true romance with the 35mm prime that I'm using that over anything else.

 

What's the general view on Prime vs Zoom???

 



#2
K-9

K-9

    Jamie

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNew England

Site Supporter

I've been shooting since 1995 and I rarely use zooms. I prefer to zoom in and out with my feet. Zooms are very useful in areas where you can't do this, which is why photojournalists, sports shooters, and news photgraphers should use them, as they never know how close or far they will be to the subject they need to photograph.

One huge reason for using primes are their speed. F1.8 primes are extremely affordable and much faster than even the fastes zoom lens, which will probably set you back 3-4 times the price just to get f2.8. There are many times f2.8 just won't cut it for me, so I've always used primarily an f1.4 or f1.8 lens as my main lens.

Zooms also suck way more dust into your camera sensor than a prime. I've owned two DSLRs over the past 3-4 years and haven't needed to have my sensor cleaned professionally or even needed to try and clean it myself. I own a rocket blower and haven't had to use it yet (knock on wood). I truly believe that primes attached to your bodies keep your sensors very dust free. I've been on other camera forums and hear other users always getting their sensors cleaned yearly, and nearly all who say they have to do this use zooms.

Lastly, primes are always going to be a tad sharper than zooms, and in some cases, much sharper depending on the lens.

#3
Russ

Russ

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Country Flag

I believe the geneeral view is: do the whatever the hell you want!

 

I have zooms and a couple of primes, use zooms 95% of the time, way more convenient. Use the primes (a 50 and a 35) in low light mainly. Modern zooms are way sharp enough for me.



#4
Stas

Stas

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • Country Flag

I have Nikkor 18-105 mm and Nikkor 70-300 mm zoom lenses, Nikkor 35 mm and two USSR fixed lenses. 35 mm I use more that any other lens. All my primes (even very old USSR lenses) gives me an image of significantly better quality than zooms. But, as you can see, I have only cheap zooms and compare primes only with them.



#5
DCB

DCB

    Active Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationFL

I have been using my 35mm 1.8 most of the time lately....great lens. I find I can zoom with me feet easily. 

 

I also get use to the field of view and can compose really fast.

 

There will be times that my zooms are needed so they are not to far from reach.

 

Peace



#6
scoobymax

scoobymax

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationDunstable, UK

Site Supporter

Zoom 95% of the time for me. I shoot mainly wildlife so I can't just zoom in with my feet as I would just scare most of the animals away! I find primes are great for close up portraits or stills that you can move closer to but for me that's very rarely. You have a lot more scope and variation available with a zoom so l don't have to keep changing my lenses all the time to suit a sudden change in situation. Like Russ said most modern zooms are just as sharp as a prime unless you are able to spend thousands on a prime in which case the quality should be better! And if everyone zoomed with their feet poor nikon(and other manufacturers of course!) would be half way to being out of business!

#7
Nesster

Nesster

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 118 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNew Jersey, USA

Site Supporter

My view - modern zooms are very very good, good enough to use all the time. The downside is in some combination of size/weight/speed/cost... You can get a fast zoom and pay for it in dollars and weight, or get a slow one but save dollars and weight.

A prime (or two) will help with the size/speed equation, though if you buy enough to cover, say, 24-120mm in FX with 4 primes, your total cost (and size/weight) will be > that of the one zoom.

But with primes you make do, you adjust, you zoom with your feet. For example I like to go out with just one prime. Certainly there are some shots I miss because I don't have a wide or long enough lens. But to compensate, when I start looking at things from the POV of the single focal length, I see more photos.

 

Also, lens speed in these days of high ISO cameras is less a necessity than it is an option. You can isolate a bit better using shallower DOF, and maybe the thing focuses a bit faster in low light. But if most of your shooting is in the sweet spot of f4 - f/11 (or f/5.6 - f/8), a slow zoom will do just fine.



#8
K-9

K-9

    Jamie

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNew England

Site Supporter

The good thing about using primes with Full Frame is that even if you don't have a long enough lens with you, cropping your shot still gives great quality.

Bokeh, for those who want the best, will use fast primes.

#9
Russ

Russ

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Country Flag

I can crop my D7100 pictures heaps and still get great shots, even with a zoom.



#10
K-9

K-9

    Jamie

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNew England

Site Supporter

I can crop my D7100 pictures heaps and still get great shots, even with a zoom.


Yes, because Nikon has the best sensors for non full frame cameras! D7100 and D5200 are tops in image quality.

#11
Afterimage

Afterimage

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationPennsylvania

I run a mix of zooms and primes but the zooms are the ones most frequently used. As someone said above, modern zooms are pretty good, almost reaching prime lens territory.  That said, I love my 60mm macro lens... when I'm stuck creatively I throw that on the camera and it forces me to rethink my shots. I really do believe that prime lenses force you to be a better photographer and that almost always leads to better images.



#12
K-9

K-9

    Jamie

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNew England

Site Supporter

While zooms at their sweet spot can be very sharp these days, I find myself shooting at f2.8 quite frequently, and would rather not be wide open all the time on a zoom.  And that's assuming I would have one of the super expensive f2.8 zooms in the first place!  



#13
rocknrumble

rocknrumble

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationSydney, Australia

My main lens is a Sigma 50-500mm Zoom. It's a great lens with great versatility. Saying that I'm waiting on a Sigma F2.8 150mm Macro Prime lens. I can't wait to see what it offers me. I think in the end, a good photographer will get great shots with whatever lens they have, but having a couple to choose from makes life easy. Match your lens to your requirements.



#14
Samyo

Samyo

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationEurope

Coming from Pentax I never really had the chance of buying a "cheap prime lens" as the Limiteds cost an arm and a leg. So I started with zoom lenses. My first prime lens was a Sigma 70mm/f2.8 Macro which made me realise what the camera sensor was capable of.

Shooting with a D7000 now, I use a Nikon 18-200mm when I'm out with the family or just take the camera along in case "something come up"

 

I use a couple of primes (and my Nikon 70-200/f2.8, which is pretty amazing for a zoom lens) when I go out with the intention of taking pictures. Which is normally on my own, so I don't mind taking a lot of kit with me. And as has been mentioned before, the pictures are better. But then I believe that you can still take very good quality images with (quality) zoom lenses.

 

But I have to admit that when I got a zoom lens on the camera I get a bit "foot lazy" and tend to use it a bit like a point and shoot. The primes make me think and slow down a lot which I enjoy when out and about.



#15
BeerBelly

BeerBelly

    Active Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationSlovenia

Yes, because Nikon has the best sensors for non full frame cameras! D7100 and D5200 are tops in image quality.

 

I think Pentax comes close or even gets more out of the same sensor than Nikon.



#16
rockjedi

rockjedi

    Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Country Flag
I'd say it varies on what you want/do. I use a mixture of the both. Depends on low light speed and if I have the ability to move from/to my subjects. Sometimes Im hanging off a cliff via a rope and I have no option but to use a zoom. In competitions I shoot they are normally indoors and don't have the best light. So I'm left with upping my iso or using a faster lens.

I find always having a couple of options when it comes to lenses is never a bad thing. Just use whatever is best to each situation.

#17
alden

alden

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,226 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationHiding in the hallway
I used a Nikkor 105mm as a short telephoto and shot a rock concert this past Saturday night. I got much sharper images with that particular prime than I ever got with a zoom.

#18
Nesster

Nesster

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 118 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNew Jersey, USA

Site Supporter

Being able to use a larger aperture & potentially the bokeh can be better in a prime than a zoom...

for example

 

10532673955_05dc15dfe8_b.jpg
bucket of briquette by Nesster, on Flickr

10511780224_46176a7377_b.jpg
Briquette Bucket Bokeh by Nesster, on Flickr

 

85/1.8 D



#19
Jay

Jay

    Active Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Country Flag

Basically if you find you can capture everything you're looking for with your 35mm prime by moving back and forth then there's no need for a zoom.  For sports when you're usually located in one location, a zoom would probably help a lot.  As far as picture quality and aperture speed a prime will be 90% likely to beat a zoom in the same focal range (exceptions are really fancy zooms compared to cheap prime).  But even though the 35 1.8 is pretty cheap, I'd be hard pressed to imagine any zoom lense at 35mm can beat its image quality.  I don't really do sports or nature photography so much so a 35mm with a 17-55mm would suit almost all my needs.  If you are all about super high quality in every shot, I would figure out what focal length you would use the most and get that prime.  The 50mm 1.8 is really good on DX for portraits, much better then then the 35mm.  The 35mm is more practical though.



#20
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

I am happy to shoot either zooms or prime, but I do 95+% of my shooting with zooms.  Only time I shoot with a prime right now is when I borrow or rent one since I don't own any primes.  I do plan on purchasing some at some point...

 

I agree that there are benefits to both primes and zooms - most of which have been stated above.  Since I mostly shoot sports, and most either inside or at poorly lit night games, the lenses I need have to be fairly fast and sharp when wide open.  I keep the 24-70 on one body and depending on what I'm shooting, I put the 70-200 or 200-400 on the other body.  Add in a 1.4 TC and I can cover a pretty wide range with three lenses.  They are all great lenses that give me sharp photos and plenty of bokeh...can primes do better?  On some shots I'd probably benefit from primes, but overall, these give me more flexibility, lower cost and mostly equal quality if that makes any sense...

 

Put another way, for the about the same cost of the 400 f/2.8, I loose one stop above 200mm and have the ability to shoot at any range from 24-400 with little if any loss of quality in my comparison photos...Before purchasing the 200-400, I shot several games (day and night) with it, the 300 f/2.8 and the 400 f/2.8 to compare...







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: lens, zoom, prime, aperture