Prime v Zoom, what's your preference?

[weltweit]

the focal length in what, inches, feet, yards ... ?

 

[manstein]

Just measured the 135mm Nikkor and its roughly 95mm so its classed as a telephoto?

 

[weltweit]

I thought a prime was simply a lens that was of fixed focal length.

So for example a 400mm lens could be a prime.

Is that not right?

 

[boskysquelch]

it's wot I was taught... but it's prolly all different nowadays.

 

[boskysquelch]

oh & the term "Prime" is, IMO, an pretentious affectation..

In film and photography, a prime lens is either a photographic lens whose focal length is fixed, as opposed to a zoom lens, or it is the primary lens in a combination lens system.

 

[Refused as fuck]

And out comes the giant rubber penis.

 

[boskysquelch]

& then there was the transmutation of fast & slow lenses from cinematography to photography.

eg 8-35mm (film)

>f3,5 = fast

<f5,6-3,5=slow

35mm(photo)

>f2.8=fast(though initially called jus "wide-aperture")
>f2.8=slow

then the f2-f1.2 came out ask wide/extra-wide apertures...which soon became or double-nomered as fast-wides but when peeps started shooting with 24mm f2... though I tended & still do tend to say eg 85 mill f2..24 f2 50 f1.4 etc

But then I come from a culture where when peeps talked of Primes they usually thought of Porky Primecuts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peckham

 

[Herbsman.]

Prime for sure. I've never, ever had any benefit from any zoom lens.

Maybe if I was a PJ or a pap. But ffs. Most zooms are shit and all are completely pointless except for convenience. If I was offered all the Canon L zooms or three primes, I'd take the primes (or take the zooms, sell them and then buy primes).

That said, some primes could be better in quality.

 

[weltweit]

Well I left my 28-70 f2.8 zoom at home today and just took my 20mm f2.8 prime. I didn't notice myself missing any shots for lack of a zoom and the tiny size of the 20mm was great in not having a papperazi style camera on me, just a small and discrete one.

 

[cybertect]

Most zooms are shit and all are completely pointless except for convenience.

30 years ago I'd have agreed with that without any reservation.

Zooms are a hell of a lot better today than when I was making my first steps in photography, though, and it's unwise to generalise.

Take a look at this comparison between two of Canon's highly regarded lenses, the 135 f/2.0L and the 70-200 f/4L IS. They both retail for within £100 of each other (£988.99 for the 70-200 vs £918.99 for the 135 - street price at Park Cameras).

The zoom gives the prime a very good run for its money, especially in the centre of the frame, and bear in mind that the zoom is wide open, while the prime is two stops down from maximum aperture. At f/5.6, the zoom may even perform better in the centre, IMHO. The prime always has a definite advantage at the edges, but that's usually less critical in overall image quality and almost irrelevant if you're shooting with a crop format body as it's never used.

Sure, you can't open the zoom up to f/2, but then the prime doesn't do 70mm or 200mm or anything else except 135mm.

Now, if you're going to compare a £250 prime with a £250 zoom, you'll almost certainly find the prime wins in terms of quality. Cheap zooms are, by and large, disappointing when viewed with a critical eye. I get by with a mix of quality zooms and cheap primes

 

[Herbsman.]

yeah, i should have said all of the zooms i have owned are shit, it would have been more accurate statement,