Hi , I am just curious. Do you like 2.8 fast zoom or prime lens (with aperture 1.4/1.8 ) better?
one is more convenient and the primes is more powerful in the night.
2.8 fast zoom or prime lens? which one you prefer?
(37 posts) (17 voices)-
I prefer the primes in general. I love the razor thin plane of focus and low light ability.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I came up in photography during the days that primes were really the only good lenses, and zooms were questionable. Now, many zooms are way better than the older prime glass. Right now, I usually carry zooms on my camera bodies, as they are more convenient.
Posted 4 years ago # -
If price matters, the Prime's for sure.
I own the 50mm 1.4, and the 35mm 1.8 DX. I also own the 24-70 f2.8. That zoom wins hands down. Its a couple stops slower than the 1.4, but every bit as sharp, even at 2.8. I will say that for hand held shooting in low light w/o a flash, you probably want at least 1.8, and really you need 1.4. My gripe about the 1.4 is that its really hard to use wide open, because the depth of field is just too shallow. I've had shots where a person's nose was in focus, but the rest of them was out of focus (hint... go for the eyes).
The one caveat is that I generally use my 50mm 1.4 on my D40, where it won't auto-focus. I'd probably like it better on a D90.
For predictable studio shooting, primes are the way to go. If you are a walk around shooter like I am, you will get much better results from a zoom in my opinion (unless your subject is something patient like a building... then you just walk a little more).
Posted 4 years ago # -
Have you actually tried to use f/1.4 on normal or longer lens? The depth of field will be so shallow that almost everything will be out of focus; that can sometimes be actually desirable but seldom.
Big apertures are more useful for precise focusing than for night shots, and that is the reason why I prefer primes.Posted 4 years ago # -
Yeah, the primes seem to be cheaper, so primes for me.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Primes all the way. Fast, sharp, cheap, and little to no distortion. If you're too lazy to walk, then you shouldn't be in photography anyway. I understand that there are situations when a good zoom is necessary, but who want's to pay 1500 dollars more than they have to just so they don't have to walk? If it's just preferance, primes. But there is a time and place for both.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Conner - say what??? "If you're too lazy to walk ..." What's that got to do with anything? Do you mean you only would use a zoon to get closer to a subject without having to walk up closer? If so, isn't it also true that all long lenses are just for lazy people. I guess I just don't get what you're saying. Explain please.
Posted 4 years ago # -
He means get in close for better shots. It's a photography technique. I'm not sure how well it works because I haven't tried it myself seriously.
Posted 4 years ago # -
hi guys, i disagree with everybody who thinks prime is cheaper. 50 1.8 is the cheapest of all. but if you talked about 50 1.4 or anything else (especially the new prime lens with AFS), they can be very expensive.
and not to mention zoom gives you more convenience. i think its not fair to say that prime is cheaper.Its too one sided opinion. to cover the zoom range, you need couple of primes and if you total the cost, it can exceed the cost of professional zoom.
For willis, can you tell me if you like 24-70 in your d40/d90 body?
and how can you say that 24-70 wins? so 50 1.4 is not as sharp as 24-70 at 2.8??I am actually thinking whether I should get 501.4 or 24-70 for my little d40.
1.4 to 2.8 is 2 stops faster , means that you can let in 4 times more light, NOW THIS IS HUGE.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I think there is an assumption here that we are talking about the "normal" focal lengths of around 35-50 mm. Basically the range the 24-70 f2.8 will replace. ..
Posted 4 years ago # -
Here's the thing with primes... they are great for lots of things like shots of flowers, models who you pay to sit still and pose, buildings, etc.
For capturing things you can't predict, they are not very well suited. Sure you can crop after the fact to get the shot you wished you framed up, but then you are throwing away pixels... possibly lots of them. I spent last weekend at a festival that had all kinds of crazy stuff going on (Eeyore's birthday party... yeah that's right the donkey from Winnie the Poo). My 35mm prime was on my camera, and while I got a few great shots, the most interesting were to wide to use (especially on my 6mp D40). So for lots of situations, a prime just won't do.
That's the thing with photography gear, even at the pro end... you are always making trade offs.
Posted 4 years ago # -
i see now willis. so basically, zoom wins due to convenience, doesnt it?
hey, can you comment on the pics quality of 24-70 compared to 50 1.4 at 2.8??
how is it? is 24-70 better? what about the focusing speed of 50 1.4?? is it slow?
and is 24-70 wide enough for you? for landscape?
Posted 4 years ago # -
nikonian - 24-70 is far better, yes 24-70 has faster focusing speed, and IMHO 24 on FX is ok for landscapes although not wide enough on DX.
Posted 4 years ago # -
If by convenience you mean getting the shot, then yes, zoom wins. Many shots with a prime won't be there anymore by the time you get in position.
To the 24-70 vs. 50 1.4, let me first say I own the old 50mm 1.4, not the AFS version. Auto focus on this lens is slow. Not painfully slow on a good body, but slow enough to be irritating. Of course it won't auto-focus at all on my D40 body. I'd say both lenses are about as sharp as each other, but I think that's because they both out resolve my 12mp D90. I don't know what the difference would be if I stuck them on a D3x (although I'm willing to try if anyone wants to send me theirs).
I actually find the colors & contrast to be better on my 24-70. I have no idea how a lens can accomplish this, but its definitely there (or maybe my brain sees it to justify the purpose). If I get time later this week, maybe I can post some comparison shots. It's out with the pro in my household right now, so I won't have anything for a bit.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I use both zooms and primes depending on the situation. For birds that are truly wild and not necessarily the common park fed ones, most birders will tell you, you need a prime. I generally found myself shooting at the maximum focal length most of the time anyway with my zooms. I still use a zoom though if I'm in an area where the birds are more tame and I may be shooting other things as well. Of course, I'm talking only from the telephoto side of things here.
Posted 4 years ago # -
But you won't get the reach with a prime, no?
Actually, I forgot about the expensive long primes.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I love street photography. If I take only one lens with me I take the 50mm f1.4. If I take two I add the 14-24 f2.8.
SnaketailPosted 4 years ago # -
I have a D90 with 24-70 f2.8 and a 50mm 1.4 AFS. The 50 is much easy inside the home with low light and physical weight - perfect for portraits! The 24-70 gives me much more width and faster focus and better reach, which is great for chasing shots of the kids.
Verdict - the prime 50mm is the sharpest lens I've seen (wins me over every time!), and the 24-70 is very close second in the sharpness department and that zoom ring is damn handy when recomposing (on moving subjects).
Posted 4 years ago # -
Hi Nikonian
I have an 18-200mm which is wide at the 18. I tried a nikkor 12-24 (ultra-wide) in the shop and was really impressed by it although price is a bit steep for such a little item.
24mm is still wide enough for my needs eg. snapping the kids in the lounge room. If I had to buy an utra-wide I would probably would save up for the 14-24mm f2.8 because it's f2.8 and would also cover FX when I decide it's time to buy a FX body.
Check-out http://nikongear.com/nef/lenses/nikkor_lenses.php for more lens info.
- Matstar
Posted 4 years ago # -
i use dx body and seriously, when i am contemplating about building my collection, I am so confused. there is no clear cut. nikon 14-24 would have been perfect. the performance is stellar, etc but the inability to take filter really bug me. what about if I scratch it?
i was thinking of 10-24 + 24-70 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 but 10-24 is overpriced imho. and not to mention that it is unusable in fx body.
and not to mention that nikon's price increase makes it even more difficult these days. sigh
Posted 4 years ago # -
nikonian
I understand your concern about scratching the 14-24. I baby mine and use a LensCoat (hoodie) on it when I'm not shooting. The LensCoat is easy to get off and stays on the lens all the time, when I start to shoot I pull it off, fold it up and it goes in my pocket.I shoot a D700 and sometimes switch to DX to get a bit more reach from the 24mm end (use RAW - you'll lose some resolution doing this).
I sold my 12-24 DX lens because I didn't know that I could use it on my D700 - after all it is a DX lens - but in FX mode it will give you a full frame image from 18-24mm...wish I'd kept it!
Had a Sigma 12-24 and 15-30...never again - these lenses flare like crazy.
Snaketail
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
