Spot on as usual, Matti, thanks. I tend to carry both a zoom and a fast prime, mostly for low light. One thing I would add is that nearly all primes with a few exceptions have no IS in the lens, so if you are using a prime on an older camera that has no IBIS (e.g. Lumix), you have no IS at all. Having said that, we shot film for a lot of years without IS (and I still do today), and that didn't stop us. You just have to be more mindful of your shooting technique, but you should be doing that anyway.
Thanks for a great video, it has certainly opened up the debate about zooms vs primes. Another advantage of the fast prime over the slower zoom is autofocus performance. As the autofocus is performed wide open, a 15/1.7 or 25/1.4 is much more accurate than a 12-60/2.8-4.0 in low light. One of my favourite walk about set-ups is the GX9 and PanLeica 15/1.7. they just seem to have made for each other.
Lens design is at a point now where there are plenty of zoom that are actually better than primes for the m4/3 range. FF is almost there and will reach parity soon, and, here, the difference is tiny. So there is absolutely no reason to buy a prime for m4/3 unless you are looking for light weight or a specific F stop like 1.4. If you are using these lenses across multiple platforms, distortion correction for video is a factor to consider, and then you have the case where some very good primes are unusable on a different camera and you will need to get Zero D lenses. But, for most users, this is not a problem.
Could you give an example? I don't know of any zoom lens that provides superior quality to the M.Zuiko 45mm or 75mm 1.8 for portraits. At the wide end, maybe there are zooms that are almost as good as the Laowa 7.5 or 10mm, but I imagine they are a lot bigger and heavier. Also, do most amateurs have several M43 cameras?
@@RoderickJMacdonald dunno, I have amassed MFT cameras and lenses for years now. I'm amateur. I have the 45 and 75, smaller yes, faster yes, but I cannot say their IQ is any better than the G-X 35-100. That is a x3 zoom and once you get above x3 then the IQ does go down. The exception being the extra long zooms like the 50-500 where the wide end is not intended to be used for anything other than finding the subject.
@@jeffslade1892I have not used that zoom but can see and accept your point. I was just surprised by the other fellow's assertion that some zooms are superior to primes. Perhaps he meant superior in practicality and convenience.
Surprisingly I came to similar conclusions. On MFT I usually use 10,15,25,60 primes and one telephoto 40-150 as "backup" when I need something either longer or shorter.
Timeless, epic imagery has been taken 90 years ago with a tiny Leica III and a 35mm prime. Talking Cartier-Bresson et al. That said, I prefer the Olympus 12-40/2,8 on my G9 and the famous 15/1,7 on the GX80 as a Leica M-ish combo. Somehow the lens has to fit the body. Finally, the neccessity to change the lens while out in the field sometimes comes as a pita, so that's another bonus on the zoom scorecard.
There are a few extra-long primes i.e 200mm, 300mm, &up but are often difficult to aim at the subject, especially if it is moving. With a zoom you can zoom out to the wide end, find the subject and zoom in.
Thanks for your thoughts. And your participation in Rob's video call last Sunday. My take: Generally, I prefer my prime lenses. As long as I am capable to move around ... "Adidas zoom", as some like to call it. Still, there is a certain use case where I decided otherwise: Adverse weather conditions which prohibit lens change. A variety of focal lengths (long and short) needed because I cannot move from my spot. (Example: travel by ship in Northern Norwegian coastal waters in winter.) My solution: Weather resistant body plus weather resistant zoom. Aka Olympus E-M1 III with Olympus 12-100mm f/4. But again: The answer depends on the question posed by a specific set of requirements.
I shoot high school and JUCO sports. I use a zoom for football and a couple of other sports but have found for basketball I love a fixed prime. There's something about sitting on the baseline and catching the action coming down the lane that a prime gives me. I usually go with a 19mm to a 45mm. All Olympus gear. The 19mm is a Sigma.
I agree with you if you are an urban photografer. But a zoom lens is better if you enjoy hiking. With bad weather it is not advisable to change lens. When I go to the montains I use zuiko pro 12-100 f4, but for street fotography I prefer zuiko 17mm f1.8 with a small camera.
I have both high-quality primes and zooms, but find zooms to be much more useful most of the time for a number of reasons. Of course, YMMV, but in response to your points: 1) Yes, of course primes tend to be smaller than zooms and zooms tend to be slower than primes, but for MFT anyway (a much better format in general for most photographers, but that's another discussion), even the largest lenses are still relatively small, light, and affordable (the Oly 150-400 f/4.5 being an obvious exception). 2) On what are you basing "better?" Due to the lack of a requirement to change FL, primes could have lens elements better optimized for a specific FL, but the fact is, lens tech has evolved to the point where even mid-range zooms now resolve well beyond the level needed to product museum-quality prints (MTFs and comparisons of 100% crops are useless in the real world) and things like CA and distortion are easily corrected. 3) I disagree that primes are easier to use. I often find myself in situations where the "correct" FL falls between "standard" FLs and I don't have the option to change my position or lens (and I hate significant cropping!). 4) I totally agree about long lenses--I can't imagine carrying an 800mm prime, as 800mm is rarely going to be the "right" FL and my Leica 100-400 is awesome, allowing me to get tack-sharp images anywhere between 200 and 800.
All valid reasons for primes. I use a zoom mainly because I can take a picture of a subject in a specific size with different amounts of surroundings in it because of the possibility to have different angles of view. That is something I prefer over more depth of field. Thank you for the video.
I have 2 zooms and too many primes. I grew up with films and primes. However if I am not in low light, I find I get better photos with a zoom. With the large format I grew up with, I have squares of carboard with holes for each lens. I would walk the scene with these to decide which prime I would use. Then finally after they made a 25ASA so 35mm could be used from prints, I got a 35mm camera. With a zoom and especially with digital, I can control the background. I can work the scene by moving closer and using lens and moving back and using longer. Although the subject stays the same, by changing the background that way I end up with 1 special photo standing out. I will not change primes nor do I have as many to see all the looks I can get with a zoom. This can clean up background, change perspective, create different senses of distance in a way I could not do with primes. And if I had the primes the weight and time changing them would be too ,much for me. If someone stand in one spot and just zooms in, I could see where a prime would take more thought and lead to better photos. But that is what a cellphone user does. We are photographers and after the investment in our equipment, we want to get the best photo. Especially for print for a client or the gallery to sell. I think zooms can take better photos. I also think F/2 ff gave me some pictures with a depth to them like you could walk into them. For many years, those sold the best and I built my reputation at F/2 once I went down to 35mm. So I will not give up the magic of a prime for a zoom for some photos especially when there is no client and I am going for prints I want to make. But shucks, that zoom can also make photos I could not get with a prime. Just my opinion and at 71 I have almost as many opinions as photos. :) BTW, modern technology can make glass shapes not available 10 years ago. Now primes can have more lenses inside that a zoom can due to not having to keep alignment with changes in the focal length. The day of the simple doublet or 4 lenses lenses are over. 15 to 19 lenses in a prime are becoming common. It amazes me how fast lens technology has changed. A quick way to see it is the Olympus 1.2s. The 25 with the old technology has to so many corrections in camera, has more aberrations, and lacks sharpness when compared with the 17 which was made using newer technology and lens shapes in the lens. Any lens over 6 years old is dated compared to new lens at the best of lenses. The especially shows on 45 to 60mp ff. I am not sure the weight comparison will hold up much longer. Particularly if you use a holy trinity of primes vs a single zoom.
You are giving a general rule that is spot on. For some people lenses have become a sort of status symbol, as they are more expensive the lower the aperture number or/and the range is. But they are tools, which serve a certain purpose. So it depends on your subject matter, which lens to use. A 35 mm lens is useless for wildlife photography, as is a 500 mm lens for street photography. In the end the results count. Nothing else.
Thanks for sharing. However, I'd like to point out that a 35mm is good for wildlife too, but it's not good for those traditional close ups of animals that we often see. A wildlife photo can be a wide view of a landscape the has an animal in it somewhere. With a 500mm you could shoot a compressed view of a busy street for example.
I also prefer prime lenses. It is one less thing to think about, it means you concentrate on the composition. However, for telephoto, yep, zoom makes sense. I have the Lumix 35-100 f4-5.6, that is a tiny zoom 🙂
Matti, I agree on the three points you mention except for the way I use my camera. I use the Olympus 14-42mm EZ lens for about 80% of my photos because it is so small that I can carry it on my hip in a pouch going to my office or where ever I go. Basically I use it at 14, 25 and 42mm. If I would have to carry three tiny primes with me they still would be too large to carry in that pouch. Even if I would take only one prime with me that prime would be bigger than the 14-42mm EZ lens in its collapsed state.
And here's the really important fact. No one could look at the images you captured with your Oly 14-42mm EZ and be able to tell whether they were captured with a zoom or a prime lens -- no one (without looking at Exif info). Modern zooms are excellent -- I have a number of excellent primes, but rarely use them with the exception of my Macro and Fisheye.
@@gregm6894 The common argument is that no one can tell which lens or camera was used. However, that argument misses the point. I think the whole point is to use the lens or camera that you like use and then you are likely to take better photos too. You like to use zooms and that is fine, but someone else might like to use primes.
@@mattisulanto You and I both agree that lens choice is exactly that -- a personal choice. However, the term "the common argument" seems a bit odd -- it's not an argument, it's a statement of fact, and it doesn't miss the point. There are many who claim that primes offer better optical performance than zooms, and therefore should be the preferred choice. The fact is that there are valid photographic considerations, aside from ultimate optical performance, that should influence one's lens choices.
I agree. I use the zoom lenses more often because of the convenience, but when I put a little more effort into moving my camera on the tripod to frame the scene the way I desired, the results are always so much more striking and make better impression. people actually asked me how I took this video take because it looks somewhat more impressive, and it was always because of the prime lenses. the prime lenses tend to show more details because of the bigger aperture, and also separate the subject better. the videographed or photographed objects stand out when using the prime lenses with lower F stop, and I get nicer blurry backgrounds too. I use G9 with Olympus PRO 25 mm, and also all other Olympus PRO zoom lenses, including the telephoto lens with the converter, which give me very good distant shooting capabilities.
Thanks Matti! Once I was shooting video on sport event and took small Olympus camera with Leica 25 mm to take occasional photographs aiming portraits mostly in pauses. There were two photographers with zoom lenses like 70-200. In all I took about 60 good photographs. When compared photographs, mostly full figure and above waist portraits, portraits with Leica 25 mm appeared much more pleasant because Leica renders background very smooth and feathered. In contrast zoom lenses yield busy contrast bokeh so that the photographs were either with totally blown background or with distracting. The drawback of using prime in reporter work is that a photographer has to step forth and back and can impede or even interrupt the other reporter using zoom and staying on the same place. But the results in artistic aspect are much better.
There is no better or worse in this case. As a professional f2.8 zooms are an essential tool for the basics, but no lens bag is complete without a few primes in there. Needed for low light. Some people think that primes are needed for portraits but 180 to 200mm f2.8 is my favorite portrait length and the zooms provide that. But in the dark, primes f2 and faster are needed. Primes would have a size advantage but once you get to f1.4 and faster the lens size increases a lot. I totally agree that zooms are most useful at tele lengths, and I am much more likely to use a prime for normal and wide focal lengths. There is good reason why the 70-200mm f2.8 is so much loved. And equally good reason why 35mm and 24mm f1.4's are equally well loved. I have never been quite certain, however, why on full frame I use the 24mm f1.4 much more than I use a 12mm f1.4 on MFT. They are effectively, the same focal length, yet MFT causes me to use the camera differently.
It is hard to beat a 12-60mm f/2.8-4 lens for convenience, especially for travel photography but the more I use the 12mm f/1.4 or 16mm f/1.4 the more creative I think I become. The photos are also definitely crisper. I do not take portrait photos very often so other than a 45mm f/2.8 macro my primes end there for general photography. I do like the 8-18 mm f/2.8-4 for a walk about lens too but my 12mm & 16mm are my favorites for night and interior shots for obvious reasons. Thanks for the video.
I only use primes when I have in body stabilization. At least in lower light. I prefer the hybrids. By that I mean lenses like the 18-35 f1.8 or the 50-100mm f1.8 with a speed booster on my Panasonic G9.
Agree in theory, and for studio work. But as a freelance, my biggest money-making shot has been an image captured on a Pentax 28-200mm zoom, which most photographers would say is rubbish. I was on holiday and travelling light. Would a prime have been sharper? certainly. But it was good enough for an A4 magazine cover. Did I have a 200mm prime with me? no. Even if I had, would the shot have waited while I changed lenses? no. The important thing was the shot, not how sharp it was or what the bokeh was like or if there was a trace of distortion etc etc.
I agree, but consider these two: Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM ART ; Sigma 24-35mm F2 DG HSM Art. The weight, cost, and performance is similar to a collection of primes covering those ranges (more so with the aps-c lens, but the aps-c cameras are really just for wildlife with most serious photographers). The dxomark figures for both of these lenses are fabulous. So I consider these two zooms an exception to the "zooms for long focal lengths only" rule.
@@mattisulanto yes, big and heavy for one lens. But for the 18-35, ... is it more than an 18 prime, a 28 prime and a 35 prime at f1.8 in combined weight? If you carry a single lens, the point is moot. But if you carry several primes, it is important. And while you can zoom with your feet, zooming with the lens is easier for an old guy like me. While the optics of those Sigma lenses are incredible, there are some focus accuracy issues. So it's not some miracle photography cure. But in some circumstances the Sigma lenses address the weight issue (when you carry multiple primes). And they address the speed issue at f/1.8. And they are sharper than many primes. So I think that these Sigma zooms are a logical alternative to a collection of primes at lower focal distances. I do not suggest that it is an improvement. Only that it is a sensible alternative. On the other hand, lesser zoom lenses are not an alternative. They tend to be slow, heavy, and optical trash.
I seldom comment on videos but in this case I have to. The LUMIX 12-35f/2.8 II that I purchased recently is sharper than my older Leica 25mm f/1.4 and very little bigger. When traveling, especially with a group, the zoom is far more useful and means that you can carry a spare battery and SD cards in your pocket and leave your bag behind. Finally, there are times when you just can’t move around as you would like (concert, wedding, crowded event) and the zoom can capture a variety of images that you would miss with a prime lens. The current zooms on high-tech cameras (LUMIX G9 or GX9) give wonderful results and should not be discounted. Your point about super-telephoto zooms is well taken. Nice job.
Many use zooms at either end of their range, which is essentially like having two primes. A cheap prime is better than a cheap zoom (usually), but a good zoom may be a better investment than a cheap prime (usually). The best primes are surprisingly expensive; because so much product development goes into zooms these days, differences in optical quality are over-exaggerated. If you have more than one prime, switching between them may lose a shot and is asking for dust on the camera sensor. My point is that it is a much more complex than “which is better,” The answer is “neither” … or maybe “both.” Now, “which I prefer” is useful. I personally prefer a good prime, but I often use zooms … mostly at either end.
Thank you very much! I think you summarized the basic differences very well. One thing I would like to add. Prime lenses usually have a scale of depth of field (called hyper focus now?). I use that almost always for street photography. That is why I decided against the new OMS 20mm, for me expensive and NO manual clutch.
Thanks Matti for sharing your view. For me the perfect lens is neither zoom nor prime lens. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. There are plenty of occasions where a zoom lens for me is better than a prime (e.g. Sightseeing, hiking, sports) and the prime lens for more static images. With static I mean situations where I do have the time for framing the picture with my feet instead of turning the zoom. Regarding the Tele zoom... I do own a 100-400mm since roughly 6 months and I begin to think whether a prime wouldn't have been the smarter choice for me. I'm using mostly the full focal length but would love a wider aperture (the 150-400 f4.5 is not an option 💸) Stay safe
The Olympus 12-40 2.8 is compact, pro-grade and like having multiple lenses in one and great for professional shoots and filmmaking. However for walking about, I'd rather carry my Lumix 20mm for its compact size, light weight and shallower depth of field.
As a Wildlife shooter, I use the Olympus 300mm - even in a hide. Yes occasionally something bigger comes in to annoy because I cannot fit it in the frame, but a second set up overcomes this which I prefer. Why? because I have never been happy with zoom lens definition, and because the first tool I use when processing all of my images is the crop tool. We inevitable end up with a smaller-than-frame size image in reality. I have the 40-150, which is always at the 150mm end. When OM brings out a 150, I will be there!
Hey Matti! Hyvää uutta vuotta! Agree to what you said, except in defence of the zoom lens that if you look back to the past zoom lenses have come a long way in terms of image quality compared to primes. The latest iterations especially for full frame cameras are so close to primes especially if you don’t need wide apertures. Other than that I will stick with primes. It’s just easier for me to frame the picture in my mind if I know I only need to think of one focal length.
In the early 1980´s I tried several zoom Lenses and I found, like you, zooms are larger with less aperture, I also found that often I only used two focal lengths of the zooms, what really was a big problem was that I was not that creative with zooms, I tend to just stand one or two places and zoom in and out, with a prime Lens I walk around a subject close and away, up and down, I also have the sight of the Lens inside my head, so I ended up at that time with a 3 Lens set-up, 28mm, 90mm Macro and a 300mm Lens, as an old very experienced Photographer told me at that time, with a wide angle Lens and a short tele Lens you can cover 95% of all kind of Photography ! So yes Prime Lenses rule 😃 I have a lot of prime Lenses, but often I only use one or two on a hike, lately I often use two identical Cameras with different Prime Lenses mounted and that is super !
Some positives that I felt could have been touched on more. I like using telephoto zoom lenses for some portrait photography because compression allows me to do things like make the moon bigger, or some monument behind seem closer to the subject but we can't actually stand close to it due to restrictions. Other scenarios can also be where you want to take a picture involving a sparse amount of people, but using the compression to make it look like it's actually very crowded etc. (edited: fixed typos)
A fourth reason can be the results you get from using one fixed focal length. The body of work (collection of photographs) will be more cohesive than a mixture of several focal lengths. I like the 50mm look te most because it creates a look that gives the viewer the possibility to be "in" the captured scene. You are forced to look at telephoto photographs. You cannot really imagine yourself to be in the captured scene that is taken with a tellephoto optic.
All good points. As a relative beginner, I find using a prime helps build a habit of moving my feet, which helps me find more perspectives and take more interesting pictures. Unfortunately, the Olympus 12-40/2.8 is a really good standard zoom that has led me to delay adding to the two primes I own.
@@Ryuken2721 So far when I've bought primes, it's been after spending some time with a zoom at the same focal length to be able to guess whether I want to have it in a smaller lens with a brighter aperture. Of course, that only works if you have an appropriate zoom. My other motivation in the case of the 20/1.7 is that it lets me put my GX9 in my jacket pocket. I've found that very valuable.
@@ZakWilson From reviews I have seen on the 20mm, it is slower to focus, which is not great for the street. It is optically a great lens however for the money, so a good buy if that is the aim.
Walking around and making images of what’s close at hand, my 17mm f1.8 is an easy choice compared to the 14-150mm zoom which came with my Olympus camera. I did switch out for the zoom the other day for the very reason you mentioned. I also feel so obtrusive walking around with a zoom lens attached to my camera: I’d rather not be noticed. Thanks for another interesting video.
Maybe you never really tried the Olympus 12-40? 😉 It's just as sharp, and even sharper than many of my prime lenses. A bit on the heavy side for a mft shooter so occasionally I juts put the Olympus 17mm on my camera.
The quality and size arguments are the least important. What really counts is the fact that with a prime you have to pre-visualize the shot. A zoom lens lets you just stumble upon a shot without thinking.
Yeah, that's the common argument, but it's the wrong argument. I think the whole point is to use a camera (system) that you like to use and if you enjoy your camera you are going to take better pictures. I like primes and I take better pictures with them, but you can like whatever you like and I hope you also take awesome pictures with your favorite setup.
What are you thoughts on a small light zoom like the Sigma 28-70mm 2.8. I try to choose my composition while using zoom in/out without getting stuck on either end of the focal lengths. After seeing this I think it's time to grab my Lumix 50mm 1.8 with the S5 and only shoot with that for a day.
Like I said in the video, zooms have their use, but I think you are going to learn a lot by shooting a prime and very likely end up with better pictures. You just have to learn to look for pictures for your prime and forget about your zoom😀
The opposite - a zoom is better than a prime. Because I'm lazy and I hate to change lenses. Plus, I'm an amateur and the better IQ is not that important ;)
Zoom lenses are always bigger than prime lenses Sigma 16mm f1.4: Hold my beer! I love primes though, I value the fast F over zoom. So I agree. The only exception is on long lenses. My Olympus 40-150 2.8 is superb. Edit: the last sentence written before you reached the long lenses section. Great minds think alike :D
I appreciate what you have to say, but, I think a better title might have been, "Why For Me, Prime is Better than Zoom". Everything you said is true, for you, but for every million photographers, there are a million different circumstances and preferences. I think RUclips would benefit from less videos declaring winners and losers. I'll tell you what though. If you can convince my wife not to get annoyed with me, every time I say "wait a minute honey, I need to change lenses" maybe I'll take your advice more seriously. ;-)
Thanks for sharing your comment. In the video 0:42, please listen carefully😀 My advice to you is: Stop changing lenses and use just one prime. Your wife will be happy and you'll also become a better photographer. However, it's my advice and someone else might have another advice😀 I can say though that is has worked for me 100%. My wife is happy and I'm happy with my photos.
@@mattisulanto Yep, I caught your disclaimer. It was mostly just the title that bothered me. I totally get your preference, but there is no way, that if I took a once in a life time trip to say, Finland ;-), I'm only taking a 35mm prime! I just could not bring my self to do that. No mater how good my images came out, there'd always be that nagging feeling that I missed something great for lack of a wide or long lens. I know you understand that, and that's why the title just didn't set well. Bottom line, "a happy wife is a happy life". Ha Ha!
@@j16m02 Yes, I get that. Each to their own. By the way, I traveled around the world for nine months and all I had was a 35mm prime. I'd do the same again any time😀
@@mattisulanto LOL, you're a braver man than I! Not to mention, as a consummate professional, I'm sure you can do more with a single prime than I can do with a zoom. There is that. I really aught to challenge my self to one prime only for a month and see what happens.🙂.
I think with the availability of choice the differences are getting smaller. The image quality of modern zooms is getting so good that it’s getting hard to tell the difference between the two. Primes are still better for corner quality and vignetting plus you are able to go down to F1.0, F1.2 plus there are maybe things like the quality of the bokeh is better due to less elements.
I agree 100 % with you! Three primes for the daily press photography and for special task two zoom lenses. Keep on rolling!
Thanks. My thoughts exactly😀
I think that a key advantage of primes is they encourage you to move about a subject to compose
Yes, definitely. It makes you think😀
Spot on as usual, Matti, thanks. I tend to carry both a zoom and a fast prime, mostly for low light. One thing I would add is that nearly all primes with a few exceptions have no IS in the lens, so if you are using a prime on an older camera that has no IBIS (e.g. Lumix), you have no IS at all. Having said that, we shot film for a lot of years without IS (and I still do today), and that didn't stop us. You just have to be more mindful of your shooting technique, but you should be doing that anyway.
Thanks. The lack of stabilizer is a good point.
1 smaller
2 sharper less elements fast aperture 1.8 etc
3 easy to learn , focusing on creativity not zooming
Exception wildlife
Thanks.
Thanks for a great video, it has certainly opened up the debate about zooms vs primes.
Another advantage of the fast prime over the slower zoom is autofocus performance. As the autofocus is performed wide open, a 15/1.7 or 25/1.4 is much more accurate than a 12-60/2.8-4.0 in low light.
One of my favourite walk about set-ups is the GX9 and PanLeica 15/1.7. they just seem to have made for each other.
Thanks for sharing! Yeah, the 15mm F1.7 is a great lens.
Lens design is at a point now where there are plenty of zoom that are actually better than primes for the m4/3 range. FF is almost there and will reach parity soon, and, here, the difference is tiny. So there is absolutely no reason to buy a prime for m4/3 unless you are looking for light weight or a specific F stop like 1.4.
If you are using these lenses across multiple platforms, distortion correction for video is a factor to consider, and then you have the case where some very good primes are unusable on a different camera and you will need to get Zero D lenses. But, for most users, this is not a problem.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Could you give an example? I don't know of any zoom lens that provides superior quality to the M.Zuiko 45mm or 75mm 1.8 for portraits. At the wide end, maybe there are zooms that are almost as good as the Laowa 7.5 or 10mm, but I imagine they are a lot bigger and heavier. Also, do most amateurs have several M43 cameras?
@@RoderickJMacdonald dunno, I have amassed MFT cameras and lenses for years now. I'm amateur.
I have the 45 and 75, smaller yes, faster yes, but I cannot say their IQ is any better than the G-X 35-100. That is a x3 zoom and once you get above x3 then the IQ does go down. The exception being the extra long zooms like the 50-500 where the wide end is not intended to be used for anything other than finding the subject.
@@jeffslade1892I have not used that zoom but can see and accept your point. I was just surprised by the other fellow's assertion that some zooms are superior to primes. Perhaps he meant superior in practicality and convenience.
Surprisingly I came to similar conclusions. On MFT I usually use 10,15,25,60 primes and one telephoto 40-150 as "backup" when I need something either longer or shorter.
Thanks for sharing.
Timeless, epic imagery has been taken 90 years ago with a tiny Leica III and a 35mm prime. Talking Cartier-Bresson et al.
That said, I prefer the Olympus 12-40/2,8 on my G9 and the famous 15/1,7 on the GX80 as a Leica M-ish combo. Somehow the lens has to fit the body.
Finally, the neccessity to change the lens while out in the field sometimes comes as a pita, so that's another bonus on the zoom scorecard.
Thanks for sharing.
Henri Cartier-Bresson used a 50mm for most of his work.
@@lorenschwiderski My mistake, mea culpa. Definitely no zoom though ;-)
Up vote for Olly 12-40 which is sharper than my Olly 12mm prime.
Never forget that the super sharp 20 mm 1.7 don't allow you to use AFF or AFC....
There are a few extra-long primes i.e 200mm, 300mm, &up but are often difficult to aim at the subject, especially if it is moving. With a zoom you can zoom out to the wide end, find the subject and zoom in.
Thanks for your thoughts. And your participation in Rob's video call last Sunday. My take: Generally, I prefer my prime lenses. As long as I am capable to move around ... "Adidas zoom", as some like to call it. Still, there is a certain use case where I decided otherwise: Adverse weather conditions which prohibit lens change. A variety of focal lengths (long and short) needed because I cannot move from my spot. (Example: travel by ship in Northern Norwegian coastal waters in winter.) My solution: Weather resistant body plus weather resistant zoom. Aka Olympus E-M1 III with Olympus 12-100mm f/4. But again: The answer depends on the question posed by a specific set of requirements.
Thanks for sharing. Changing lenses on location is a pain and a zoom can be very handy if you need many focal lengths.
I shoot high school and JUCO sports. I use a zoom for football and a couple of other sports but have found for basketball I love a fixed prime. There's something about sitting on the baseline and catching the action coming down the lane that a prime gives me. I usually go with a 19mm to a 45mm. All Olympus gear. The 19mm is a Sigma.
Thanks for sharing.
The color contrast are simply better due to lesser glas on primes.
I agree with you if you are an urban photografer. But a zoom lens is better if you enjoy hiking. With bad weather it is not advisable to change lens. When I go to the montains I use zuiko pro 12-100 f4, but for street fotography I prefer zuiko 17mm f1.8 with a small camera.
Thanks for sharing. You are absolutely right, in adverse conditions a zoom is really practical, if you need more than one focal length.
I have both high-quality primes and zooms, but find zooms to be much more useful most of the time for a number of reasons. Of course, YMMV, but in response to your points: 1) Yes, of course primes tend to be smaller than zooms and zooms tend to be slower than primes, but for MFT anyway (a much better format in general for most photographers, but that's another discussion), even the largest lenses are still relatively small, light, and affordable (the Oly 150-400 f/4.5 being an obvious exception). 2) On what are you basing "better?" Due to the lack of a requirement to change FL, primes could have lens elements better optimized for a specific FL, but the fact is, lens tech has evolved to the point where even mid-range zooms now resolve well beyond the level needed to product museum-quality prints (MTFs and comparisons of 100% crops are useless in the real world) and things like CA and distortion are easily corrected. 3) I disagree that primes are easier to use. I often find myself in situations where the "correct" FL falls between "standard" FLs and I don't have the option to change my position or lens (and I hate significant cropping!). 4) I totally agree about long lenses--I can't imagine carrying an 800mm prime, as 800mm is rarely going to be the "right" FL and my Leica 100-400 is awesome, allowing me to get tack-sharp images anywhere between 200 and 800.
Thanks for sharing.
All valid reasons for primes. I use a zoom mainly because I can take a picture of a subject in a specific size with different amounts of surroundings in it because of the possibility to have different angles of view. That is something I prefer over more depth of field. Thank you for the video.
Thanks for sharing.
I have 2 zooms and too many primes. I grew up with films and primes. However if I am not in low light, I find I get better photos with a zoom. With the large format I grew up with, I have squares of carboard with holes for each lens. I would walk the scene with these to decide which prime I would use. Then finally after they made a 25ASA so 35mm could be used from prints, I got a 35mm camera. With a zoom and especially with digital, I can control the background. I can work the scene by moving closer and using lens and moving back and using longer. Although the subject stays the same, by changing the background that way I end up with 1 special photo standing out. I will not change primes nor do I have as many to see all the looks I can get with a zoom. This can clean up background, change perspective, create different senses of distance in a way I could not do with primes. And if I had the primes the weight and time changing them would be too ,much for me. If someone stand in one spot and just zooms in, I could see where a prime would take more thought and lead to better photos. But that is what a cellphone user does. We are photographers and after the investment in our equipment, we want to get the best photo. Especially for print for a client or the gallery to sell. I think zooms can take better photos. I also think F/2 ff gave me some pictures with a depth to them like you could walk into them. For many years, those sold the best and I built my reputation at F/2 once I went down to 35mm. So I will not give up the magic of a prime for a zoom for some photos especially when there is no client and I am going for prints I want to make. But shucks, that zoom can also make photos I could not get with a prime. Just my opinion and at 71 I have almost as many opinions as photos. :)
BTW, modern technology can make glass shapes not available 10 years ago. Now primes can have more lenses inside that a zoom can due to not having to keep alignment with changes in the focal length. The day of the simple doublet or 4 lenses lenses are over. 15 to 19 lenses in a prime are becoming common. It amazes me how fast lens technology has changed. A quick way to see it is the Olympus 1.2s. The 25 with the old technology has to so many corrections in camera, has more aberrations, and lacks sharpness when compared with the 17 which was made using newer technology and lens shapes in the lens. Any lens over 6 years old is dated compared to new lens at the best of lenses. The especially shows on 45 to 60mp ff. I am not sure the weight comparison will hold up much longer. Particularly if you use a holy trinity of primes vs a single zoom.
Thanks so much for sharing your extensive comment.
You are giving a general rule that is spot on. For some people lenses have become a sort of status symbol, as they are more expensive the lower the aperture number or/and the range is. But they are tools, which serve a certain purpose. So it depends on your subject matter, which lens to use. A 35 mm lens is useless for wildlife photography, as is a 500 mm lens for street photography. In the end the results count. Nothing else.
Thanks for sharing. However, I'd like to point out that a 35mm is good for wildlife too, but it's not good for those traditional close ups of animals that we often see. A wildlife photo can be a wide view of a landscape the has an animal in it somewhere. With a 500mm you could shoot a compressed view of a busy street for example.
@@mattisulanto Only your "imagination" is the limit. I'd love to see you doing some "street" photography in Helsinki with a 500 mm lens :-))
I also prefer prime lenses. It is one less thing to think about, it means you concentrate on the composition. However, for telephoto, yep, zoom makes sense. I have the Lumix 35-100 f4-5.6, that is a tiny zoom 🙂
Thanks. Yeah, primes are the way to go😀
The 35-100 f/2.8 can rival a prime but it is a lot bigger.
Matti, I agree on the three points you mention except for the way I use my camera. I use the Olympus 14-42mm EZ lens for about 80% of my photos because it is so small that I can carry it on my hip in a pouch going to my office or where ever I go. Basically I use it at 14, 25 and 42mm. If I would have to carry three tiny primes with me they still would be too large to carry in that pouch. Even if I would take only one prime with me that prime would be bigger than the 14-42mm EZ lens in its collapsed state.
Thanks for sharing.
And here's the really important fact. No one could look at the images you captured with your Oly 14-42mm EZ and be able to tell whether they were captured with a zoom or a prime lens -- no one (without looking at Exif info). Modern zooms are excellent -- I have a number of excellent primes, but rarely use them with the exception of my Macro and Fisheye.
@@gregm6894 The common argument is that no one can tell which lens or camera was used. However, that argument misses the point. I think the whole point is to use the lens or camera that you like use and then you are likely to take better photos too. You like to use zooms and that is fine, but someone else might like to use primes.
@@mattisulanto You and I both agree that lens choice is exactly that -- a personal choice. However, the term "the common argument" seems a bit odd -- it's not an argument, it's a statement of fact, and it doesn't miss the point. There are many who claim that primes offer better optical performance than zooms, and therefore should be the preferred choice. The fact is that there are valid photographic considerations, aside from ultimate optical performance, that should influence one's lens choices.
I agree.
I use the zoom lenses more often because of the convenience, but when I put a little more effort into moving my camera on the tripod to frame the scene the way I desired, the results are always so much more striking and make better impression. people actually asked me how I took this video take because it looks somewhat more impressive, and it was always because of the prime lenses.
the prime lenses tend to show more details because of the bigger aperture, and also separate the subject better. the videographed or photographed objects stand out when using the prime lenses with lower F stop, and I get nicer blurry backgrounds too.
I use G9 with Olympus PRO 25 mm, and also all other Olympus PRO zoom lenses, including the telephoto lens with the converter, which give me very good distant shooting capabilities.
Thanks so much for sharing.
Reall truth. Thx!
You're welcome!
Thanks Matti! Once I was shooting video on sport event and took small Olympus camera with Leica 25 mm to take occasional photographs aiming portraits mostly in pauses. There were two photographers with zoom lenses like 70-200. In all I took about 60 good photographs. When compared photographs, mostly full figure and above waist portraits, portraits with Leica 25 mm appeared much more pleasant because Leica renders background very smooth and feathered. In contrast zoom lenses yield busy contrast bokeh so that the photographs were either with totally blown background or with distracting. The drawback of using prime in reporter work is that a photographer has to step forth and back and can impede or even interrupt the other reporter using zoom and staying on the same place. But the results in artistic aspect are much better.
Thanks for sharing!
Fingerprint on the Front?
There is no better or worse in this case. As a professional f2.8 zooms are an essential tool for the basics, but no lens bag is complete without a few primes in there. Needed for low light. Some people think that primes are needed for portraits but 180 to 200mm f2.8 is my favorite portrait length and the zooms provide that. But in the dark, primes f2 and faster are needed. Primes would have a size advantage but once you get to f1.4 and faster the lens size increases a lot. I totally agree that zooms are most useful at tele lengths, and I am much more likely to use a prime for normal and wide focal lengths. There is good reason why the 70-200mm f2.8 is so much loved. And equally good reason why 35mm and 24mm f1.4's are equally well loved.
I have never been quite certain, however, why on full frame I use the 24mm f1.4 much more than I use a 12mm f1.4 on MFT. They are effectively, the same focal length, yet MFT causes me to use the camera differently.
Thanks for sharing. I also have slightly different favorite focal lengths for different formats.
Full frame f2.8 wide-to-portrait lenses are standard professional kit. However they are hardly walk round lenses for enthusiasts.
It is hard to beat a 12-60mm f/2.8-4 lens for convenience, especially for travel photography but the more I use the 12mm f/1.4 or 16mm f/1.4 the more creative I think I become. The photos are also definitely crisper. I do not take portrait photos very often so other than a 45mm f/2.8 macro my primes end there for general photography. I do like the 8-18 mm f/2.8-4 for a walk about lens too but my 12mm & 16mm are my favorites for night and interior shots for obvious reasons. Thanks for the video.
Thanks for sharing.
I only use primes when I have in body stabilization. At least in lower light. I prefer the hybrids. By that I mean lenses like the 18-35 f1.8 or the 50-100mm f1.8 with a speed booster on my Panasonic G9.
Thanks.
Agree in theory, and for studio work. But as a freelance, my biggest money-making shot has been an image captured on a Pentax 28-200mm zoom, which most photographers would say is rubbish. I was on holiday and travelling light. Would a prime have been sharper? certainly. But it was good enough for an A4 magazine cover. Did I have a 200mm prime with me? no. Even if I had, would the shot have waited while I changed lenses? no. The important thing was the shot, not how sharp it was or what the bokeh was like or if there was a trace of distortion etc etc.
Thanks for sharing.
I agree, but consider these two: Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM ART ; Sigma
24-35mm F2 DG HSM Art. The weight, cost, and performance is similar to a collection of primes covering those ranges (more so with the aps-c lens, but the aps-c cameras are really just for wildlife with most serious photographers). The dxomark figures for both of these lenses are fabulous. So I consider these two zooms an exception to the "zooms for long focal lengths only" rule.
Thanks. I have used both and they are excellent optics, but also very big and heavy. But, each to their own😀
@@mattisulanto yes, big and heavy for one lens. But for the 18-35, ... is it more than an 18 prime, a 28 prime and a 35 prime at f1.8 in combined weight? If you carry a single lens, the point is moot. But if you carry several primes, it is important. And while you can zoom with your feet, zooming with the lens is easier for an old guy like me. While the optics of those Sigma lenses are incredible, there are some focus accuracy issues. So it's not some miracle photography cure. But in some circumstances the Sigma lenses address the weight issue (when you carry multiple primes). And they address the speed issue at f/1.8. And they are sharper than many primes. So I think that these Sigma zooms are a logical alternative to a collection of primes at lower focal distances. I do not suggest that it is an improvement. Only that it is a sensible alternative. On the other hand, lesser zoom lenses are not an alternative. They tend to be slow, heavy, and optical trash.
@@danncorbit3623 All fine points and it's great there are options like this.
I seldom comment on videos but in this case I have to. The LUMIX 12-35f/2.8 II that I purchased recently is sharper than my older Leica 25mm f/1.4 and very little bigger. When traveling, especially with a group, the zoom is far more useful and means that you can carry a spare battery and SD cards in your pocket and leave your bag behind. Finally, there are times when you just can’t move around as you would like (concert, wedding, crowded event) and the zoom can capture a variety of images that you would miss with a prime lens. The current zooms on high-tech cameras (LUMIX G9 or GX9) give wonderful results and should not be discounted. Your point about super-telephoto zooms is well taken. Nice job.
Thanks for leaving a comment😀
Totally agreed! In my usual bag, I replaced the wide and standard zooms by (mft) primes from 7.5 to 60mm, but for long telephoto I have a zoom lens.
Thanks!
Many use zooms at either end of their range, which is essentially like having two primes. A cheap prime is better than a cheap zoom (usually), but a good zoom may be a better investment than a cheap prime (usually). The best primes are surprisingly expensive; because so much product development goes into zooms these days, differences in optical quality are over-exaggerated. If you have more than one prime, switching between them may lose a shot and is asking for dust on the camera sensor. My point is that it is a much more complex than “which is better,” The answer is “neither” … or maybe “both.” Now, “which I prefer” is useful. I personally prefer a good prime, but I often use zooms … mostly at either end.
Thanks. Me too, I tend to use the ends of a zoom more than the mid range😀
I use my 100-400 Pana. Leica, and the 12-60, but Oly.45 and 15mm really take nicer detailed shots. I really like the 20mm you featured as well.
Thanks for sharing.
Thank you very much! I think you summarized the basic differences very well. One thing I would like to add. Prime lenses usually have a scale of depth of field (called hyper focus now?). I use that almost always for street photography. That is why I decided against the new OMS 20mm, for me expensive and NO manual clutch.
Thanks for sharing! Many (all) primes used to have that scale, but now that we have AF it has disappeared almost completely.
Thanks Matti for sharing your view. For me the perfect lens is neither zoom nor prime lens. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.
There are plenty of occasions where a zoom lens for me is better than a prime (e.g. Sightseeing, hiking, sports) and the prime lens for more static images. With static I mean situations where I do have the time for framing the picture with my feet instead of turning the zoom.
Regarding the Tele zoom...
I do own a 100-400mm since roughly 6 months and I begin to think whether a prime wouldn't have been the smarter choice for me. I'm using mostly the full focal length but would love a wider aperture (the 150-400 f4.5 is not an option 💸)
Stay safe
Thanks for sharing.
This
The Olympus 12-40 2.8 is compact, pro-grade and like having multiple lenses in one and great for professional shoots and filmmaking. However for walking about, I'd rather carry my Lumix 20mm for its compact size, light weight and shallower depth of field.
Thanks.
My 12-60 Leica is 350 gr. - My 14 + 20 + 42.5 are 290 gr total weight. I love them :)
Thanks.
As a Wildlife shooter, I use the Olympus 300mm - even in a hide. Yes occasionally something bigger comes in to annoy because I cannot fit it in the frame, but a second set up overcomes this which I prefer. Why? because I have never been happy with zoom lens definition, and because the first tool I use when processing all of my images is the crop tool. We inevitable end up with a smaller-than-frame size image in reality. I have the 40-150, which is always at the 150mm end. When OM brings out a 150, I will be there!
Thanks for sharing.
In my opinion the best micro 4/3 zoom lens is the Panasonic 35-100 2.8. Reason being it's not to big also it doesn't trumbone when zooming out or in.
Thanks.
Hey Matti! Hyvää uutta vuotta! Agree to what you said, except in defence of the zoom lens that if you look back to the past zoom lenses have come a long way in terms of image quality compared to primes. The latest iterations especially for full frame cameras are so close to primes especially if you don’t need wide apertures.
Other than that I will stick with primes. It’s just easier for me to frame the picture in my mind if I know I only need to think of one focal length.
Thanks for sharing!
In the early 1980´s I tried several zoom Lenses and I found, like you, zooms are larger with less aperture, I also found that often I only used two focal lengths of the zooms, what really was a big problem was that I was not that creative with zooms, I tend to just stand one or two places and zoom in and out, with a prime Lens I walk around a subject close and away, up and down, I also have the sight of the Lens inside my head, so I ended up at that time with a 3 Lens set-up, 28mm, 90mm Macro and a 300mm Lens, as an old very experienced Photographer told me at that time, with a wide angle Lens and a short tele Lens you can cover 95% of all kind of Photography ! So yes Prime Lenses rule 😃 I have a lot of prime Lenses, but often I only use one or two on a hike, lately I often use two identical Cameras with different Prime Lenses mounted and that is super !
Thanks. Pretty much sums up my prime work flow too.
Some positives that I felt could have been touched on more. I like using telephoto zoom lenses for some portrait photography because compression allows me to do things like make the moon bigger, or some monument behind seem closer to the subject but we can't actually stand close to it due to restrictions. Other scenarios can also be where you want to take a picture involving a sparse amount of people, but using the compression to make it look like it's actually very crowded etc. (edited: fixed typos)
Thanks for sharing.
A fourth reason can be the results you get from using one fixed focal length. The body of work (collection of photographs) will be more cohesive than a mixture of several focal lengths. I like the 50mm look te most because it creates a look that gives the viewer the possibility to be "in" the captured scene. You are forced to look at telephoto photographs. You cannot really imagine yourself to be in the captured scene that is taken with a tellephoto optic.
Thanks. Yes, a very good point indeed.
It is the same old story about the difference between theory and practice.
All good points. As a relative beginner, I find using a prime helps build a habit of moving my feet, which helps me find more perspectives and take more interesting pictures. Unfortunately, the Olympus 12-40/2.8 is a really good standard zoom that has led me to delay adding to the two primes I own.
I'm also thinking of buying prime but own the Olympus zoom and can't decide if buying prime would worth it. Do you think i should go prime?
Thanks for sharing!
Don't buy anything until you know that you are going to need it.
@@Ryuken2721 So far when I've bought primes, it's been after spending some time with a zoom at the same focal length to be able to guess whether I want to have it in a smaller lens with a brighter aperture. Of course, that only works if you have an appropriate zoom.
My other motivation in the case of the 20/1.7 is that it lets me put my GX9 in my jacket pocket. I've found that very valuable.
@@ZakWilson From reviews I have seen on the 20mm, it is slower to focus, which is not great for the street. It is optically a great lens however for the money, so a good buy if that is the aim.
Fingerprint on the ffont?😆
Walking around and making images of what’s close at hand, my 17mm f1.8 is an easy choice compared to the 14-150mm zoom which came with my Olympus camera. I did switch out for the zoom the other day for the very reason you mentioned. I also feel so obtrusive walking around with a zoom lens attached to my camera: I’d rather not be noticed. Thanks for another interesting video.
Thanks for sharing.
Maybe you never really tried the Olympus 12-40? 😉 It's just as sharp, and even sharper than many of my prime lenses. A bit on the heavy side for a mft shooter so occasionally I juts put the Olympus 17mm on my camera.
Exactly. The IQ on this lens is astounding.
I have owned that lens😀
The quality and size arguments are the least important. What really counts is the fact that with a prime you have to pre-visualize the shot. A zoom lens lets you just stumble upon a shot without thinking.
Yep, a zoom can make you lazy indeed.
i show you a print. you can tell me if it was taken with a prime ?
Yeah, that's the common argument, but it's the wrong argument. I think the whole point is to use a camera (system) that you like to use and if you enjoy your camera you are going to take better pictures. I like primes and I take better pictures with them, but you can like whatever you like and I hope you also take awesome pictures with your favorite setup.
What are you thoughts on a small light zoom like the Sigma 28-70mm 2.8. I try to choose my composition while using zoom in/out without getting stuck on either end of the focal lengths. After seeing this I think it's time to grab my Lumix 50mm 1.8 with the S5 and only shoot with that for a day.
Like I said in the video, zooms have their use, but I think you are going to learn a lot by shooting a prime and very likely end up with better pictures. You just have to learn to look for pictures for your prime and forget about your zoom😀
The opposite - a zoom is better than a prime. Because I'm lazy and I hate to change lenses. Plus, I'm an amateur and the better IQ is not that important ;)
Thanks.
Zoom lenses are always bigger than prime lenses
Sigma 16mm f1.4: Hold my beer!
I love primes though, I value the fast F over zoom. So I agree.
The only exception is on long lenses. My Olympus 40-150 2.8 is superb.
Edit: the last sentence written before you reached the long lenses section. Great minds think alike :D
I love the 16mm f1.4 but sometimes I wish it were as small as my other M43 primes :)
Thanks for sharing! 😀
Sometimes when using gimbal, we need more weight of the lens to make balance from wight of camera. Especially when you use Lumix body
I appreciate what you have to say, but, I think a better title might have been, "Why For Me, Prime is Better than Zoom". Everything you said is true, for you, but for every million photographers, there are a million different circumstances and preferences. I think RUclips would benefit from less videos declaring winners and losers. I'll tell you what though. If you can convince my wife not to get annoyed with me, every time I say "wait a minute honey, I need to change lenses" maybe I'll take your advice more seriously. ;-)
Thanks for sharing your comment. In the video 0:42, please listen carefully😀 My advice to you is: Stop changing lenses and use just one prime. Your wife will be happy and you'll also become a better photographer. However, it's my advice and someone else might have another advice😀 I can say though that is has worked for me 100%. My wife is happy and I'm happy with my photos.
@@mattisulanto Yep, I caught your disclaimer. It was mostly just the title that bothered me. I totally get your preference, but there is no way, that if I took a once in a life time trip to say, Finland ;-), I'm only taking a 35mm prime! I just could not bring my self to do that. No mater how good my images came out, there'd always be that nagging feeling that I missed something great for lack of a wide or long lens. I know you understand that, and that's why the title just didn't set well. Bottom line, "a happy wife is a happy life". Ha Ha!
@@j16m02 Yes, I get that. Each to their own. By the way, I traveled around the world for nine months and all I had was a 35mm prime. I'd do the same again any time😀
@@mattisulanto LOL, you're a braver man than I! Not to mention, as a consummate professional, I'm sure you can do more with a single prime than I can do with a zoom. There is that. I really aught to challenge my self to one prime only for a month and see what happens.🙂.
@@j16m02 Try it for a month! There is not much to lose after all.
Your video has some very high pitched whine in it, can't watch it :(
There are peaks at 7761, 12232 and 13875 Hz...
I think with the availability of choice the differences are getting smaller. The image quality of modern zooms is getting so good that it’s getting hard to tell the difference between the two. Primes are still better for corner quality and vignetting plus you are able to go down to F1.0, F1.2 plus there are maybe things like the quality of the bokeh is better due to less elements.
Thanks for sharing.