What is Digg?60 Comments
- anitab83, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19I've found that prime lenses are great if you want to get a lot of exercise. I always find myself running all over the place when I have my 50mm attached.
- devindotcom, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18What a.... short and useless article. A photographer with any experience knows the benefits and drawbacks of primes and zooms. This little link is purposeless.
- rebotfc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8The thing I like about primes in addition to their low light ability is that they force you to really think about the composition, rather than zooming in and out to 'fit everything in' you really thing about the result of your image.
- bigjimslade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5My 50/1.4 has its place. Unfortunately I can't afford the 5D so my 20D has the CMOS sensor magnification factor...making it a 80mm lens. Poop.
As far as which is better, technically the prime will probably always end ahead of the zoom. However, when it comes to taking a photograph, it'll come between the shot you get and the shot you miss. If the zoom gives you the flexibility to get a shot you couldn't get with out it, the zoom wins, doesn't it?
Before we start the Canon vs Nikon thing, both have incredibly well made lenses, both zoom and prime. I've used the Canon L zooms (the big white ones) with their IS technology, and they're awesome.
Zeiss makes some pretty slick stuff, too. Leica just may do the same. - gavincato, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You'll find the pro f/2.8 zooms will start to be competitive from f/4 and especially f/5.6 and smaller.
Where the zooms fail is ;
1) There ain't a zoom in the world that is f/1.2
2) At f/2.8 - typically a prime is already stopped down 1 or 2 stops and is thus running at pretty much it's optimum quality. Whereas the f/2.8 zoom is still wide open, and is thus performing poorly. If you compare MTF charts of say, the canon 200mm f/1.8 prime at f/2.8 vs the canon 70-200/2.8 at 2.8 - theres like a 30-40% difference in sharpness but that closes as you reach 5.6
3) Generally the bokeh and contrast/colour at wide apertures is better on the primes - christineplum, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Zoom lenses are ok in the 'sports' apperture range (ie f2.8 for 80-200) but a lot of zooms have slow appertures (they are generally cheaper and smaller than the more expensive zooms). The big problem here is that the slower zooms have a darker image when you are looking through the viewfinder because the aperture doesnt let in as much light. For the best quality, look at the old Nikon S series prime lenses. They were built to last with metal barrels and high end glass optics... and come in some very fast aperture speeds. Want to throw that background out of focus for a portrait? Problem is that background is only a few feet away from the subject. No problem... use a 80mm or 105mm f2 lens with f2, f2.8, or f4 aperture and be sure to focus on the subjects eyes. This combination has a very narrow depth of field, that simply cannot be achieved with cheap zooms and small apertures that dont open up to let in more light.
- Hexis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Same thing, other extreme. A uber wide lens makes you take into account everything around you.
- conekt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4There is no war. Only inexperienced authors/photographers who have to invent tension so they have something to write about.
- mfratt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Exactly. Prime lenses generally have good optics, fast aperture, relatively compact size, and a good price. I use my Sigma 30mm f1.4 about 75% of the time.
Olympus does have the 14-35 f2 and 35-100 f2, but those are both over $2000.
Also, primes make you think more about composition, so they're preferable to someone who is looking to expand his abilities. - rebotfc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4VR/IS is very effective, in some implementations you get a 4 stop advantage, i.e. you can shoot in a 4 times slower shutter speed.
Although it is limited to static, or in some cases static + panning shots. - Jah30, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Site is alive and kicking!!! I say Prime, just sounds better.
- acomj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+385mm is a good length. my favorite lens on the old manual focus canon line (in the 80s) was an 85mm 1.8. Its a great focal length for portraits. I used to open it up and use its very narrow depth of field.
- orxor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What about ultra wide angle prime lenses? Like anything less than 16mm on a 35mm frame.
- FoxOrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm not a serious photographer, but I have a Rebel XT 350D,
I bought the EF 50mm f1.8 II "Plastic Fantastic" for $80.
I never even touch the stock lens anymore unless I absolutely need to get a wide angle and don't care about the quality much. - ocellnuri, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Use whatever works best for you.
Primes are going to generally give you more image quality/speed for the money, but zooms are needed if you're covering an event from one spot (like the press area on a sideline). It's all about context. - eam52guy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I've held off this complaint for a while, but Glenn Wosley posts seem to exemplify the tyranny of the mediocre that Digg sometimes suffers from. There's never any insight, just unchallenging, re-heated common concensus. I've never really felt like I've come away with anything useful having read one. It's obvious that the flexibility of zooms (vs time consuming prime changing) would lead to his conclusion. You could have worked that out by applying a second of thought.
I think it's typified by that fact that of all the great photographers, who have interesting things to say on the subject, he chose some Apple event photographer.
Digg me down if you think I'm being a snob, but I think there should be more merit in what's reaching the front page. - gavincato, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2hey,
I'm a pro photog.
You'll find the pro f/2.8 zooms will start to be competitive from f/4 and especially f/5.6 and smaller.
Where the zooms fail is ;
1) There ain't a zoom in the world that is f/1.2
2) At f/2.8 - typically a prime is already stopped down 1 or 2 stops and is thus running at pretty much it's optimum quality. Whereas the f/2.8 zoom is still wide open, and is thus performing poorly. If you compare MTF charts of say, the canon 200mm f/1.8 prime at f/2.8 vs the canon 70-200/2.8 at 2.8 - theres like a 30-40% difference in sharpness but that closes as you reach 5.6
3) Generally the bokeh and contrast/colour at wide apertures is better on the primes
- napk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They all have their place. Just make sure you're working with quality glass, otherwise you're just messing around.
"If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough" - Robert Cappa - etruscan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2...because I work for Nikon.
- chrisbarr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I own a Nikon D80 and got the 18-135mm lens with it and have enjoyed it - but today my 50mm f/1.8D just came in and I did some test shots with it.
The 50mm is MUCH clearer and the colors are more vivid, due to the many reasons stated in the article, but also because it stops down to 1.8 and thus allowing more light in. One the down side of course is the lack of zooming, which I am used to, but I'll force myself to leave this lens on and learn to love it, because it really is a better lens in terms of image quality. And it was cheap! I for it for about $100 on Amazon, totally worth the money. - Hexis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4How can you say a lens that is not shipping is excellent? It's likely they are good glass, but without some tests there is no way to tell.
- etruscan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I understand what you're saying... but how about a photographer without any experience?
- Hexis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Even pro zooms can't hold up to the detail offered by decent (mid and high end) primes. Perhaps not with film, but put a 1Ds2 or a 5D (or the good Nikon bodies) behind good glass, and you will start to notice a real difference.
- brianbennett, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Zooms are convenient. Primes are sharper. What's to argue about?
- orxor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Site is down so can't read the article, but primes make it very easy to pre-focus using markings on the barrel, for street photography, it's much faster than any auto focus system and allow you to shoot from the hip, knowing that what you want to be in focus will be. If you shoot from the hip using an auto focus system you don't really know what it's going to focus on.
- acomj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1primes are better but less convient. I used to carry a 20mm /35mm and 85mm and a 80-200 zoom. Now I just have a 90mm ts and a 20mm as primes. The high end zooms are good and the image stabilization is really amazing.
- bieber, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're evidently not that avid a wildlife photographer, or else you'd be using supertelephoto primes (and don't pull out the money argument, as you could easily be purchasing them over all those expensive "pro-grade" zooms).
- deepcore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Everyone thats into photography should already know that primes gives better quality. Just look at what they mostly use in cinematagrophy. Show me a wide-angle zoom that gives better quality than a Hasselblad SWC or an Arri Master Prime.
- mnjordan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm a professional wedding and portrait photographer, and I use Canon L primes 75% of the time. (35 f/1.4L & 85 f/1.2) To me, my zoom lenses (24-70 2.8L & 70-200 f/2.8L IS) are just as high quality in terms of sharpness, contrast, and saturation. The thing is, they don't quite have the "magic" that my primes have - but to me thats more a function of the primes' super fast apertures vs. the zooms' "slower" 2.8 apertures. It's a relatively apples to oranges comparison in my opinion. Sometimes you just have to have the convenience of a zoom, and the pro zooms deliver.
- superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That's why the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is such a great lens, it's a 50mm lens on cropped cameras (or at least the 50mm FOV you might be used to from a 35mm camera).
- Ricapar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have an old SLR (Canon AE-1 Program) with a set of prime lenses that I still use up to this day. I've been in many situiations where I wish I had some zoom lenses *, but for the most part, the prime lenses have been excellent.
* There are lots of stray cats around here, a lot of which do some funny things. They make for great pictures, but they take off and hide at the sight of a human getting close. I've had better luck with my point-and-shoot camera. - hullodare, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1The article is astonishingly dull and uninformative. This one is better: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_onlin ...
- oziii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Prime vs Zoom lenses - another slightly more in depth article
http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/prime-vs-zoom-lenses-which-are-best/ - TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've NEVER seen a zoom on a disposable, either.
- knyghtryda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1One of the things I was told and still subscribe to is that if you are beginning photography, get yourself a decent 70-300mm and a 50mm prime and try as much as you can to shoot with the 50. Yes, it will involve a lot more moving and yes, some shots will not be possible without the extra zoom but that just means the photographer will worry less about fiddling with the lens and more about composition and lighting and making creative choices with what is given to him/her.
- fotoman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2*sigh*
I hate when people confuse fixed focal length (FFL) lenses with prime lenses...
a 28mm lens is a FFL lens
a 24mm lens is a prime and a FFL lens.
Prime lenses (as produced by the camera manufactures) as as follows: (there are more, but that's a good range)
17mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm, 400mm
There's some sort of fun mathematical formula that produces the various steps (BTW, 50mm is closer to 45mm, and 300mm is closer to 293mm, and 135mm is closer to 130mm, and I think the 85mm is closer to a 90mm). That's also why Canon's Tilt-shift lenses come in 24mm, 45mm, and 90mm!
Everything else that only has 1 focal length is a Fixed Focal length lens and NOT a prime lens.
BTW, I have 4 lenses, 2 zooms (17-40mm f/4.0 and 70-200mm f/2.8), and 2 prime lenses (50mm f/1.4 and 400mm f/2.8). Ok 5 lenses if you count the 1.4X TC :-D Each has it's purpose and was chosen for a specific task. Back in the film and manual focus days, my gear consisted of a 24mm, 35-70mm, 50mm, 80-200mm, and a 400mm. - TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Prime vs. Zoom? I shoot stills and movies and I can tell you that there is no "ongoing battle" between the two once you really understand what the both do. They're both full of limitations, advantages and quirks. The situation and the shot you want will answer any question of which one is better. Like everything, it's all relative.
That said, this article is no good. Anyone involved in photography enough to want/need/use multiple lenses already knows all this stuff. Hobbyists who just shoot around for fun probably won't want be able to justify the expense of buying a bunch of lenses, so to them, this is also useless. Buried. - onestyle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why are you getting dugg down? It's a completely legitimate argument
- onestyle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1From a professional photographer's point of view, you really have to build your system to accommodate your style of shooting. For instance, many of us (including myself!) manage quite well during live events using only primes. (though, I do have the advantage of owning 2 camera bodies). You can view my photos on flickr. The depth-of-field of the prime lenses cannot be simulated with a zoom lens.
http://flickr.com/photos/markjsebastian - ardklg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The quality differences between the two aren't nearly as exaggerated as they used to be. Back in the 80s when I first started shooting with my Pentax K1000 (what a workhorse!), the difference in quality between primes and zooms was pretty large. Now, the kit zoom lenses that come with most DSLRs are optically as good or better than many of the entry-level primes of old, though they may not be as fast in terms of maximum aperture. It is true that if you want a fast lens, primes are still less expensive than high-end fast zooms. And they probably do retain a sharpness advantage, though that often is really only visible to the measurebators and pixel peepers. Unless you're printing at a size larger than 10x13 or 11x14, it's unlikely that the difference would be noticeable.
- rebotfc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Aye, the current 85mm canon makes is maybe their best prime, 1.2f, it sucks in light.
- JFitzpatrick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This should be quoted for truth a thousand times.
- ryan112ryan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1congrats to the the author of this article for making it this far on digg by stating the obvious and getting people to post responses longer than his own article.
BURY FOR LAMENESS - Velok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0A 4 stop advantage means you can shoot at a 16 times(!) slower shutter speed. (2^4=16).
It works like a charm. I love my Nikon 18-200VR, the perfect "walk-around-lens".
My 2 next lenses: Nikon's 70-200mm F2.8 VR & 105mm F2.8 VR..... - mamanakis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The site is fine--they just had to bring a few more machines online and it works once again.
- ncc74656m, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well, I have an old AE-1 too, and it sounds like a gunshot when that shutter fires. Maybe that has something to do with it, lol.
- etruscan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You can achieve that blurry background effect with a long focal length (even on a slower lens) if your subject and background are fairly far apart. It's nothing like the versatility of shooting with a fast lens, but it works.
Some of the newer zooms (like those from Nikon) are pretty good though. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR or the 17-55 f/2.8. There were a couple of new ones announced with the D3 and the D300 too... a 14-24mm f/2.8 and a 24-70mm f/2.8. All excellent lenses. - tamaker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2yeah, "database scaling in progress" with the little ajax-y circular animation... with only 3 or 4 comments in digg... thats some weak ass hosting!
- BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Dugg for accuracy. The quality of zooms is closer to primes than ever, thanks to computer-aided design and manufacturing. Sure, everyone's posting "primes are better," and academically, they are, but the difference is much smaller than it used to be. For pure versatility, the quality and usefulness of today's high-end stabilized zooms makes them a better buy.
After buying a couple of very high-quality zooms, my primes usually sit unused now. - jschlach, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0"how often do you see a simple Point and Shoot camera with a fixed focal length lens?"
Every time i pick up my cell phone.
This article must have taken 2 minutes to write. -
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is