primes vs. zooms

Andy

i split this out from another thread. i was asked by cmr about my gear... and then the discussion ensued from there.

cmr164 wrote:

Andy;

I have been a little busy but what is your rationale? And what is your current collection?

i replaced the 70-200 with primes. i'm actually all primes now except for the 10-22 ef-s. i think i'll only be keeping one of the 24 or 35Ls.

10-22 EF-S
18 f/4 Carl Zeiss
21 f/2.8 Carl Zeiss
24 f/1.4L
35 f/1.4L
50 f/1.4
85 f/1.8
100 f/2.8 Macro
135 f/2.0L
200 f/2.8L
Canon 1.4x
Tamron 1.4x

cmr164

andy wrote:

i replaced the 70-200 with primes. i'm actually all primes now except for the 10-22 ef-s. i think i'll only be keeping one of the 24 or 35Ls.

10-22 EF-S
18 f/4 Carl Zeiss
21 f/2.8 Carl Zeiss
24 f/1.4L
35 f/1.4L
50 f/1.4
85 f/1.8
100 f/2.8 Macro
135 f/2.0L
200 f/2.8L
Canon 1.4x
Tamron 1.4x

Yea... I can see myself doing that from the outside in with the 24-70 2.8L being the last zoom.

First I would replace my 17-35 2.8L with a 14mm f/2.8L and leave the range from 15-23 open. Then maybe a 200 f/1.8 and/or a 135 f/2.0, plus the 85 f/1.8 to replace the 70-200 2.8L

But first some money.....

mereimage

quality comparison

andy wrote:

i replaced the 70-200 with primes. i'm actually all primes now except for the 10-22 ef-s. i think i'll only be keeping one of the 24 or 35Ls.

10-22 EF-S
18 f/4 Carl Zeiss
21 f/2.8 Carl Zeiss
24 f/1.4L
35 f/1.4L
50 f/1.4
85 f/1.8
100 f/2.8 Macro
135 f/2.0L
200 f/2.8L
Canon 1.4x
Tamron 1.4x[/QUOT

Andy I have a 70-200IS and have been impressed with the lens function and superb image quality and bokeh-was your decision to sell based on wt and size of the lens or do you think the 85 135 and 200 primes produce that much better images. I use the 70-200 all the time wereas Pathfinder has one but rarely uses it.??///mereimage

tlittleton

a question from someone about to get into a SLR...when you refer to primes, what exactly are you refering to? Is it better than non-primes?

davev

tlittleton wrote:

a question from someone about to get into a SLR...when you refer to primes, what exactly are you refering to? Is it better than non-primes?

Primes are fixed focal lengths. Or if you prefer, non zooms.
For instance a 300 prime has a focal length of 300mm.

dave.

tlittleton

gotcha...thanks dave.

David_S85

tlittleton wrote:

a question from someone about to get into a SLR...when you refer to primes, what exactly are you refering to? Is it better than non-primes?

Good question, since we throw around terms like "BIF," "OOF," "DOF," "AF," "IR," and "Andy is selling another what?" here every day, it is easy to get lost in the jargon and acronyms, not to mention other Dgrin Secret Words.

A prime lens is one that has been designed for a single focal length. An example of this could be a 50mm, f/1.8. What that is would be a lens that has a "normal" magnification power of about 1:1 on a 35mm film or digital camera (digital using a 36x24mm full-sized sensor with no crop factor). In other words, about the normal view that your eyes see (neither larger or smaller than one sees in the real world). Prime lens focal lengths can be anywhere from about 10mm (extremely wide angle) to some up to 1,200mm (massively telephoto) plus anywhere in-between. Primes (usually) have a better ability to resolve very fine detail (read: sharper) at their given focal size, since the optics are specific to that one length, and are less complicated design-wise internally.

A zoom (also called variable focal length) lens is one capable of a range of magnifications. An example might be something like 30-85mm, f/2.8. The aforementioned 50mm "normal" view is within the range of this 30-85mm zoom, but the 30-85 also has the capability for wider angle views at the short end (30) as well as some telephoto ability at the long end (85). The better constructed zooms might have the ability to resolve similar detail as in a prime lens, but normally at a higher cost (and usually resulting in soft corners at the edges of the image).

Generally speaking, prime lenses are the better quality option if you don't mind changing out your lens often to alter the view your camera sees, and also have quite a large lens budget. Zoom lenses would be the better bet to keep costs lower, and minimize lens changes (since they cover a range of sizes). One would think that if a zoom could have a huge range from, say, 15-300mm, you wouldn't need to any other lenses in the sizes in between, but the quality of the images, even under the best circumstances, would be largely compromised in such a huge range with such a zoom. The wider the zoom range, the more the quality drops off. Like other things in life, there's always a trade-off between convenience and quality. However, a well made short range zoom such as a 28-75, f/2.8 might be about good as single 28, 50, and 75's might be for most photographers in most situations.

The f/x.x number is a figure having to do with how much light the lens can grab when the iris (or "aperture") is set wide open. A smaller f number (meaning a wider aperture) is better, but more expensive. A 50mm, f/1.2 might be quadruple the price of a 50mm, f/2.8 lens. If shooting in very low light conditions often enough, the 1.2 would be the better choice.

Andy

mereimage wrote:

andy wrote:

i replaced the 70-200 with primes. i'm actually all primes now except for the 10-22 ef-s. i think i'll only be keeping one of the 24 or 35Ls.

10-22 EF-S
18 f/4 Carl Zeiss
21 f/2.8 Carl Zeiss
24 f/1.4L
35 f/1.4L
50 f/1.4
85 f/1.8
100 f/2.8 Macro
135 f/2.0L
200 f/2.8L
Canon 1.4x
Tamron 1.4x[/QUOT

Andy I have a 70-200IS and have been impressed with the lens function and superb image quality and bokeh-was your decision to sell based on wt and size of the lens or do you think the 85 135 and 200 primes produce that much better images. I use the 70-200 all the time wereas Pathfinder has one but rarely uses it.??///mereimage

heheh pathfinder has a lot of stuff, he's more of a gear hound than i am the only difference is he keeps his yap shut about it eh

the 70-200IS f/2.8 is a sweet lens. canon really did it right with this one - zoom benefits, speed, i.s., and great image quality, color, contrast. so, why'd i switch? well, the primes (notably the 135L f/2.0 and the 200L f/2.8) are even *sharper* contrastier, better bokeh and they're of course, lighter lenses.

it's just a tradeoff nothin' wrong with the 70-200 - i'm just in a prime mood now. this week.

rutt

Primes are great, but sensor cleaning is not. *Sigh*, life is nothing but tradeoffs.

Andy

rutt wrote:

Primes are great, but sensor cleaning is not. *Sigh*, life is nothing but tradeoffs.

for serious work, at the price of 20ds and rebels, having 2 bodies is becoming more affordable. long on one, wide on the other.

i'll be shooting wide on my 1Ds and tele on my 20d ...

agree: sensor cleaning is a pain

tlittleton

Thanks for all of the great information all.

David did a great job with the primer there. Maybe a dictionary thread could be started with some basic definitions for newbs like myself. That way if anyone has a question as to what BIF and OOF are, they could llok at the thread.

Nee7x7

Andy, you must own a bank, (or rob 'em, !!!)~

andy wrote:

for serious work, at the price of 20ds and rebels, having 2 bodies is becoming more affordable. long on one, wide on the other.

i'll be shooting wide on my 1Ds and tele on my 20d ...

agree: sensor cleaning is a pain

Must be really nice to have that sort of loose change laying around, ! (and of course, your Sherpa guide, too!)

Cheers!
~Nee

Andy

nope - not a bank

Nee7x7 wrote:

Must be really nice to have that sort of loose change laying around, ! (and of course, your Sherpa guide, too!)

Cheers!
~Nee

nee, i've been able to fund all my gear and then some via sales of my photographs. now the sherpa, he's another story

Nee7x7

Kewl!!!

andy wrote:

nee, i've been able to fund all my gear and then some via sales of my photographs. now the sherpa, he's another story

Just goes to show that talent has it's own rewards (and I mean that as a high compliment)!

Seriously though...I may be entering the semi-paid ranks of photographers soon myself! I was recently asked by a parent to take some candid style Senior Portraits of her teenage daughter (the girl wants the "Senior Experience" of having some non-traditional non-studio portraits done).

We worked a barter out (they own a hair salon ) because I've never done this sort of photography before (portraits in natural settings with natural light). So in case the pics don't turn out well, the family can still hire a pro to do them. If they do turn out, they'll put the photos up in their salon and give me free word of mouth advertising to get some paid jobs for the future (and believe me...beauty salons are very BIG on word of mouth, !).

So, I'm both excited and nervous! I'm thinking of getting the Canon 28-135 USM IS lens today to use for the shoot. I think that would be a good starting lens (and maybe future jobs will pay for more ).

Cheers!
~Nee

Andy

Nee7x7 wrote:

Just goes to show that talent has it's own rewards (and I mean that as a high compliment)!

Seriously though...I may be entering the semi-paid ranks of photographers soon myself! I was recently asked by a parent to take some candid style Senior Portraits of her teenage daughter (the girl wants the "Senior Experience" of having some non-traditional non-studio portraits done).

We worked a barter out (they own a hair salon ) because I've never done this sort of photography before (portraits in natural settings with natural light). So in case the pics don't turn out well, the family can still hire a pro to do them. If they do turn out, they'll put the photos up in their salon and give me free word of mouth advertising to get some paid jobs for the future (and believe me...beauty salons are very BIG on word of mouth, !).

So, I'm both excited and nervous! I'm thinking of getting the Canon 28-135 USM IS lens today to use for the shoot. I think that would be a good starting lens (and maybe future jobs will pay for more ).

Cheers!
~Nee

thanks, and good luck, nee... i'd recommend the canon 50 f/1.4 instead ... you won't regret it. it's a great fl for portraits.

Andy

not a prime bigot
i have owned some canon zooms that i've *loved*

70-200 f/2.8L i.s. - super quality - super sharp

16-35 f/2.8L - excellent on 1.6x body, great focal range, reliable and sharp. on ff, somewhat soft in the corners. others i've seen have absolutely trashed this lens on ff in the corners. but again, on a 1.6x body, it's quite a performer

10-22 ef-s - currently using this lens - loads of fun.

lots of folks swear by the 17-40 f/4L, the 24-70 f/2.8L, and i've seen great results from these.

how about the nikonians? what are the good quality nikon zooms?

tlittleton

Since we're on the subject, I was looking at some lenses at B&H. What would be the difference between a macro lense and a USM macro lense. The macro part is just the lenses ability to focus on close in objects, right?

Khaos

tlittleton wrote:

Since we're on the subject, I was looking at some lenses at B&H. What would be the difference between a macro lense and a USM macro lense. The macro part is just the lenses ability to focus on close in objects, right?

Macro gives you 1 to 1 ability. Which is true life. USM means ultra sonic motor, in other words the AF is much quieter so as to not scare away any bugs or animals you might be getting close to shoot.

tlittleton

Khaos wrote:

Macro gives you 1 to 1 ability. Which is true life. USM means ultra sonic motor, in other words the AF is much quieter so as to not scare away any bugs or animals you might be getting close to shoot.

That's for clearing that up for me.

One question down...a million to go....

bkriete

I thought the word "macro" referred to close focus ability, not true 1:1 reproduction (e.g., Canon 50/2.5 macro lens, which I believe is 1/2 life size, and *can* do 1:1 with the help of an extender).

pathfinder

bkriete wrote:

I thought the word "macro" referred to close focus ability, not true 1:1 reproduction (e.g., Canon 50/2.5 macro lens, which I believe is 1/2 life size, and *can* do 1:1 with the help of an extender).

Macro is bandied about by the manufacturers, and you only find out what it means by reading between the lines. Yes, most of us mean the ability to shoot 1:1 - that is the image on the film plane is life size. But most of the mid-range and travel zooms that also carry the Macro moniker, are not REAL macros - they may only shoot 1:2 or even 1:4.

Real macros - primes - dedicated to macro from Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma almost all are capable of 1:1 images. And like most primes, are better in image quality than the zooms that also carry the Macro moniker. Have I made this any clearer or just muddied up everything?

pathfinder

andy wrote:

heheh pathfinder has a lot of stuff, he's more of a gear hound than i am the only difference is he keeps his yap shut about it eh

Andy, you know I really like having nice pro quality tools - whether they are the Snap-On variety, or the Canon variety. Good tools can allow you more opportunities for creative work. But imagination and understanding and control of lighting are far more important. After all, lenses ARE just tools.

I've seen some excellent mechanical work done with K-mart tools, and I've seen pros shoot with second hand gear that produces pro class images. Seeing what folks create with limited access to tools, helps keep ya humble. It isn't tools, folks, it is the brain behind the tools. Watch a shade tree mechanic fix something some time to appreciate the use of brains at work. I need a better brain, not better tools.

The biggest liablility of the 70-200f2.8 IS L zoom is the size, weight, and the white color. The white color of the lens really catches human quarry's eye. Other than that it is great. A little too long on the 20D , for my eye which grew up shooting 35mm. On a full frame camera I think it will be better fit. But like Andy, I REALLY like the quality of Canon's primes. You really can see the difference, excepting maybe the 24-70f2.8 L and the 70-200 f2.8 IS L.

Andy

pathfinder wrote:

I REALLY like the quality of Canon's primes. You really can see the difference, excepting maybe the 24-7- L and the 70-200 f2.8 IS L.

i have to say that having the 135L and 200 2.8L for a week, the difference is *notably* sharper, the images pop so nicely. and you're right, it's easier to carry, becuase it's lighter.. add to that the both of them can stand a 1.4x with near zero img degradation and still getting f/2.8 and f/4 respectively... not to shabby.

gus

andy wrote:

i have to say that having the 135L and 200 2.8L for a week, the difference is *notably* sharper, the images pop so nicely. and you're right, it's easier to carry, becuase it's lighter.. add to that the both of them can stand a 1.4x with near zero img degradation and still getting f/2.8 and f/4 respectively... not to shabby.

Andy if one wanted to keep the lens black (ie a non-canon TC 1.4) & the price down. Do you have any knowledge if the sigma TC's are of any lower quality than that of the canons on these shortish primes ?

pathfinder

Humungus wrote:

Andy if one wanted to keep the lens black (ie a non-canon TC 1.4) & the price down. Do you have any knowledge if the sigma TC's are of any lower quality than that of the canons on these shortish primes ?

'gus - maybe we can do an experiment while we are all in Yosemite and compare some of the Tamron and Sigma telextenders to the Canon txs. I would be very interested in this experiment also. I will bring the Canon 1.4 and 2x versions. Who is coming to Yosemite that uses non-OEM telextenders?

Andy

pathfinder wrote:

'gus - maybe we can do an experiment while we are all in Yosemite and compare some of the Tamron and Sigma telextenders to the Canon txs. I would be very interested in this experiment also. I will bring the Canon 1.4 and 2x versions. Who is coming to Yosemite that uses non-OEM telextenders?

i'll have a canon 1.4x and a tamron ($80) 1.4x that is really good - and the benefit is it's "dumb" - doesn't report aperture, so you can stack this and the canon tc's and still shoot at f/4 on an f/2.8 lens... on a 135 f/2.0 you'd be at f/2.8

sure anyone can try mine, too.

gus

andy wrote:

i'll have a canon 1.4x and a tamron ($80) 1.4x that is really good - and the benefit is it's "dumb" - doesn't report aperture, so you can stack this and the canon tc's and still shoot at f/4 on an f/2.8 lens... on a 135 f/2.0 you'd be at f/2.8

sure anyone can try mine, too.

Good idea PF

Andy if you happen to trip over a good 2nd hand tamron/sigma 1.4 in your travels...let me know pls.

mereimage

Got to admit I have wanted the 85f1.2 and 135f2 but only for shooting wideopen. The 70-200f2.8 does have a sweet spot at about 135, if you examine the mtf curves of this lens there you'll find its very very close to the 135L though won't shoot at f2 and the the 135 is slightly better at 2.8. But I guess thats what the primes are for --but I know where I can find them if I need them hehe. Path... is right though the large white lens is frequently intimidating to photo subjects and I have lost a lot of candid photos opps because of this. By the way path does like his toys:D:D:D:D.////mereimage