If you want to learn the more in-depth side of commercial photography that we don't share here on RUclips, head over to here tinhouse-studio.com/studio-access/
@@andychandler3992 there is definitely a time and a place for it, but it’s been overdone. I see a few photographers who shoot at f1.2/f1.4 all the time and honestly, all their photos look like they have been done against a backdrop in a studio with the subject stuck on, completely disconnected from their environment.
What's funny is that the same people that say that bokeh is for noobs will glaze a medium format camera "because of the bokeh" i always used APS-C with full frame lenses. I just plug dat ho with a full frame lens taking care of the crops and i get beautiful in-between results.
Seconded. I think Scott is the only pro I’ve heard of who doesn’t like bokeh. I don’t personally care about the “quality” of the bokeh, but I sure like being able to isolate my subject in a sports context.
Being a wide-angle fan (~1990 to 2012 I shot estimated 70% with 24mm on 135 film, 2012 -2020, likely 60% on 20mm fullframe), so I know how to live/like "without bokeh" most of time. BUT to be honest I shoot now with fullframe more often, and with analog medium and large format for "bokeh". It is not one or the other, it is both. BTW: I shoot primary urban pics.
You are totally right. The border between fixed and zoom is open. Even though I am still a fixed lens lover. Wight and size make the difference. Not the image quality anymore.
Nicely put. I've been working since 1972 and always preferred prime lenses because as you say, back then zooms were pretty appalling. I still only use primes today with one exception. I cover street marches and demonstrations quite often, and I find the new Sony 20-70 f4 a complete godsend, With the 135mm 1.8 on the other body I can take on pretty much anything the event throws at me. Love the channel. Take care.
And to think that for 16 years of taking wedding photos on a Hasselblad 500CM film camera I used just one prime lens, an 80mm. The average wedding was 72 shots only, with some as low as even 24 for a budget wedding, but if we really pushed the boat out we'd shoot 144 pics, yet often thought that was a bit excessive. Unlike digital weddings today, where literally thousands of shots can be taken at the event, the key difference is that almost every shot we took on film was actually usable, unlike today. These days, when shooting on my digital kit, I still use primes for 'serious' work, but I do like having a zoom in my bag.
120 roll film, I loved it. Plus X. Focus, shutter, f-stop, and when you knew your film better than your best friend, no light meter was needed. Then I moved to 135 Kodachrome 2. I can sing Neil Simon’s song.
Although most of my shooting is done with zooms, I’m mystified as to why he downplayed bokeh. Excellent, creamy bokeh can add a beautiful ambiance to a photo that greatly enhances the overall feeling of the photo (e.g. I specifically purchased a 85 f1.2 to obtain that effect). I also often shoot video with that same lens to ‘wash out’ background distractions that one has little or no control over. All of my zooms will give some degree of bokeh but it is ‘busy’, not soothing, a failure at the kind of ambiance my fast 85 can give, and often annoying and distracting- taking away from my subject.
You're not gonna like what I'm gonna say, but my problem with that 24-70 Art is that it's an amazing studio lens, but for outdoors it has really nervous bokeh. Also, zooms are just really big. I shoot entirely with slow primes.
Bought my Nikon Z 24-120mm as a 'travel' lens. It's so sharp I rarely use my 20, 50 and 85mm f1.8s - now reserved mainly when shooting at night, although I occasionally put on the 50mm for the simplicity of shooting at a 'normal' focal length
@@brucecrossan2284 I too have the 24-120 F4 fixed to my ZF and love it… but… I recently bought a Z Voigtlander 50mm F2 apo to challenge my manual focusing skills and boy the sharpness and colors using this lens is at a different level to anything I’ve experienced before .. I still have my old afs 200-500 F5.6 , 105 f2.8 and 300 f4 pf plus a few specialist z mount 3rd party lenses which I roll out for specific needs .
Totally agree on using primes not because of bokeh or sharpness, but because of knowing what type of look you are after, in other words, knowing your focal length.
I agree that the 'bokeh' obsession became crazy, bur fast lenses and the ability to 'isolate' subjects from the background will never go out of fashion, its an important part of the 'artistry' of photography. I know there are fairly fast, excellent zoom lenses, but they are horribly expensive and cripplingly heavy to cart about, so I'm in the camp of using both, dependent on need. 'Horses for courses'.
Yes, the 45-100mm f4 is impressive, especially for studio portrait shot at f5.6 anyways. And eye AF works well on the GFX-100 II. For landscape work the 20-35mm f4 is remarkable too, basically as good as the 23mm f4. I compared them in details also sold the prime. Now for some applications my 50mm f1.2 S and 85mm f1.2 S on the Z8/Z9 remain essential for fast action indoors.
That new Tamron 35-150mm F2 - F2.8 is such a great option for portraits. Personally I still find I use Zooms for flexibility more than anything - but I prefer shooting primes. I feel like I am more creative with a Prime because I typically have to move and adapt to get the framing I want - and of course, if I have shot it a lot...I can pre-visualize shots. With a zoom - there is almost analysis paralysis because you have so many focal lengths, and so many places you could stand with each of those focal lengths. I think the key difference is how my workflow changes. For Zooms I tend to find that I choose a position a good enough place to stand and then cycle through different focal lengths, whereas with a Prime I shoot it from one location and move around while in that zone and really fine tune to find best shot at that FL before going and changing to a different lens. Maybe I need to change how I approach working with a zoom.... set it to a certain FL and then get "the shot" and then move to the next FL.
I kind of do the same thing and definitely need to move around more with zooms vs primes but I've also found with social media being the primary destination for a lot of photos I love having the variety of focal lengths from a single spot as well (assuming it's a good composition) it adds a nice way to move through a series without it jumping around too much and adding a bit of story telling. Two bodies and two primes can obviously do this as well or better but the simplicity and speed is a huge advantage.
Thanks for your beautifully presented argument. Those of us who shot refrigerated pro transparency film using top of the line optics for a few decades, need to undo a lot of deeply ingrained logic when moving to shooting video for RUclips, where optical resolving power is not a factor at all. On a full size modern Sony sensor, I've noticed that even the 24-105 f:4 G is overkill. The only time I would reach for a fast prime is when I have to eliminate the background more than possible with an f:4 aperture.
I'm mostly a prime shooter for stills (Hasselblad). Recently got the HC 50-110 which I like and use in the studio. For video (Canon) my A camera has zoom (17-120 cine-zoom with the servo) adds a great element to filming. My B cameras are 45mm tilt shift. They are usually on tripods and can add nice effect when filming at an angle to people.
If I’m honest I chose to go with a 30mm f1.4 for my a6300 purely because I needed something that could get intimate looking photos without being too wide or narrow and allow for higher shutter speeds in mostly shocking lighting. I like the bokeh but it’s not ideal when capturing stuff I want to be sharp, although the compromise is I’m able to get shots which don’t have too much noise while letting me use a higher shutter speed to capture a wriggling baby or cat acting like they’ve just taken all the speed the world has to offer. That’s literally it. Comes down to what you need your gear to do for you at the best possible value for money and price per performance, and it’s a bonus if it covers any additional preferences aside from its function. Just choose what works for your purposes and roll with it, it’s the same in any creative or vocational medium/profession.
I prefer to create still images with a Prime, because I know what the framing is before I even raise my camera up to my eye. It's a way of intuitively seeing and creating for me.
My Canon RF 28-70 f2 is sharper than any of my previous EF primes. It is astonishing how well it resolves. My RF 85 1.2 is the sharpest lens I've ever seen but there is a point of diminishing returns for the work that I do.
I like my 50 mm f1.8 because it is light and short, and quick composure. The zoom lenses are heavy and large, and you have an extra step to zoom it. When digital sensors were 300 kilopixels, it was critical to zoom tight and crop the shot in the camera. Now we have latitude to shoot wide and crop in post, as we did when shooting with film.
Every tool has its strength... Using primes mostly as they are lighter these days, as I can zoom with my feet. Just got the new 24-70mm 2.8 Canon RF, and this lens is just mind-blowing. I could not believe my eyes when I saw corner to corner sharpness at f2.8...
Hi, I agree with you, in the last 20 years polishing machines have benefited of the digital era, especially in the aberrations correction domain, making them more precise with a tremendously high repeatability ratio that was absent before, and plastics are now almost as resilient as steel while not aging anymore and supporting shocks better than steel, glues have also made a big jump higher - in fact, there were big improvements with almost each and every step of the lenses manufacturing. Prime lenses stays important when you still work with analog film and with very large paper formats, but year after year there is less and less differences with high quality zooms.
Upgraded from the EF 24-105 f4 ii to the 24-70 f2.8 ii and bought the ef 16-35 f2.8 iii and the difference in corner and center sharpness is a light and day difference with great versatility for landscape photography. Those two lenses also resolve much more information at infinity and have nearly zero CA even wide open. Coupled with the 5DIV, the setup is a powerhouse for my needs and will keep my bank account healthy until I decide to upgrade my body to shed some weight as I age. These newer zooms are the way to go and can be further IQ'd with proper sharpening techniques. Buy once, cry once.
I prefer primes for a few reasons, low light situations, narrower depth of field, and they tend to make me work a little slower thus taking my time to consider what I'm doing. But I can't tell the difference between my primes and zooms for overall image quality. I like my zooms for travel and situations when I need to get the shot and move on.
You are spot again in your analysis. I have been pondering on which lens to buy alongside Fujifilm GFX 100S II, after watching this video, am sure my first lens will be 45-100mm. Covers great focal lengths that lends well to different genre of photography I will be shooting. Thanks Scott for always giving brilliant perspectives that are difficult to find elsewhere!
As someone who has more prime lenses than I know what to do with and who shoots a lot of studio portraiture, I have to say you are correct. Shooting at f/8 the difference between a zoom and a prime is negligible. I recently, bought a Panasonic 70-200mm f/4 and optically it is great. It is lighter than my f/2.8 zoom and a lot of my fast primes Where for me, prime lenses are still an advantage is where I have to think about the shot. I still love my Zeiss primes, not because the image quality is better, but because they slow me down and make me pre-plan and prepare. I can't just click away. I have to set up the shot, in a similar way to how I would shoot product photography. Generally, I use a tripod, the rear LCD and punch in focus to make sure I have everything framed and in focus. So every shot is deliberate, which can mean l lose some spontaneity, but when I get the shot, I can then play around a bit later. It also stops me from hiding behind the camera, and allows me to interact with the client more. In the end, it all comes down to the individual and how they like to work. There is no wrong answer, just the answer that works for the individual.
Agreed. I shoot low light concert photography, so I'll stick to my fast primes (they are cheaper and faster than the top of the range zooms for my camera system). But, I definitely get what you are saying.
id just lock your zoom in at 35 and go out without changing it, learn how things look that way. use primes if you can move around, and don't mind lugging around lots of gear, use zooms if you cannot / dont want to. that's my stance. i think prime wides are more important / more noticeable than tele's. compression of telephotos can give the illusion of a wider aperture.
Absolutely agree. My Nikon Z 2.8 zoomlenses and de GF45-100 and 20-35 are as sharp as the primes that fall within their ranges. I sold my Nikon primes, but bought the GF 110 2.0. That one can not be beaten by a prime.
I know this probably sounds sacrilegious, but I shoot portraits with a 70-200 zoom. Yes, it's an expensive lens, and yes I could probably get a better technical image quality with a prime, but with a zoom lens, I get a significantly better overall image because it allows me to choose my perspective and composition, then select the focal length that gives me that. Technical image quality being put down on the sensor is secondary, and a lot of the newer zooms are good enough. I really only use two lenses. 24-105, and 70-200, mostly 70-200 with the 24-105 for the rare occasion I need something wider than 70mm.
@@boredboiseboy 85mm (on full frame 35mm) is typically considered a portrait lens where the 70-200 is part of the holy trinity lineup that many event photographers use. There are a number of weirdos (like me) that also use the 70-200 for portraits instead of just using an 85 or 100 prime. I strongly prefer to pick the subject to camera distance where the subjects ears are the same approximate size as their nose, then select the focal length that gives me the composition I want, but that’s just me. There are a boatload of photogs that swear by an 85 prime for portraits.
I was a studio product guy back in the film days and with 4x5 & 2-1/4, primes were the only thing. But once the better lenses & higher res digital cameras came along & seeing what the zooms could do in terms of image quality and versatility, I started using zooms almost exclusively, though admittedly I don't do much tabletop anymore except for eBay, where IQ still sells. But primes remain in the kit, especially for available light or macro work.
During the 1990's there was a widespread adoption of various quality methods in manufacturing . TQM, Crosby system , ISO 9001 etc - generally they all had a similar aim to track and incrementally reduce variability by measuring your outputs carefully and reducing tolerances as you worked out where the variation was occurring ... the Japanese were very into this and the example that became well known was the doors on a mazda ... if the metal used on the door can vary in thickness by +/- 40% - then the weight of the 20kg door varies from 12kg to 28kg ... this means the hinges need to be sized to cope with up to 28kg , and the strength of the door frame on the chassis has to be built to cope with higher weight too , which leads to the springs , dampers and suspenson components needing to be uprated too. By getting control of variable inputs manufacturers gradually cut the 'lemons' out of the process. Camera makers found this too- a prime is simple to construct and has few moving parts so the quality is always going to be easier to achieve - but with modern techniques even incredibly complex optical formulas can be turned reliably and consistently into products because the glass , the ABS plastic , the assembly processes now have minimal variability compared to 30 years ago when every xxth zoom lens was an utter dog
Along with your observations; primes being simpler are a more mature technology with less room for improvement while zooms being more complex had much more room for improvement and would mature more slowly.
You are absolutely right. For work I use a zoom lens and it gets almost every job done perfectly. But for my personal photography I use one camera with one fixed focal length and I appreciate the limitations that come with it. It calms my mind somehow...it is weird, but works for me.
For weddings I use a Nikon 750 with 17-35, 28-70 on the camera most of the time and an 80-200 zoom. No complaints from any clients. For my commercial work I use a Nikon 60 macro, 105 macro and a 85 shift, pc lens, Once again no complains from those clients.
I'm in the prime camp mostly because I love the predictability of a single focal length. In never need to open up more the f2.8 so it's not about soeed/bokeh. I have simplified my kit down to 28mm, 35mm and 55mm lenses and I could not be more happier. Most of the time I'm using the 35mm. I can see how useful a zoom is, but I find I'm more creative when I cannot adjust the focal length and have to work with what's on my camera.
Agreed modern zooms are amazing in terms of optical quality. With discipline you can shoot a zoom like a series of primes. Look at the scene, decide the composition based on your knowledge of focal lengths and distance from the subject, set the focal length, then raise the camera to your eye & shoot. Done. The key is to set the focal length first.
I think zooms still vary quite a bit in quality, but if you have a good zoom lens they can almost be on par with primes. On Fuji GFX I like the 20-35mm f4 and 45-100mm f4, and on Sony I like the 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8 GM2 versions. For Sony E-mount, I also like the Tamron 35-150mm f2-f2.8. All really superb zooms, and I am sure that Canon and Nikon can match this with some of theirs.
I believe that 45-100 Fujinon lens is well-known for being as sharp as a prime - I had one for awhile and the picture quality certainly did not suffer when I used that over a prime...
At this point the only reason to go prime is for speed. For the reason you mentioned that you know what it’s going to look like but also light gathering. Some people would rather shoot at a lower ISO/faster shutter if they can help it. A fast prime wide angle should yield a lot of things in focus while gathering light
Absolutely enjoying how your commentary is serious and funny at the same time... I only carry primes, often only 1 one a day, because primes are usually smaller and I enjoy that restriction on composition
Spot on, the Fuji GF zooms are amazing the 20-35mm zoom has surpassed the 23mm prime, and I could not do without my set of Canon RF zooms for the day to day work horses which are also a huge leap forward compared to the EF zooms
I’m also on a 90D, and love it. And I just ordered the canon 24-105mm today - which he called a ‘dog’! - so I hope he’s wrong about that. My canon 100-400mm is the sharpest lens I have; sharper than my 25mm & 50mm primes, just bloody big & heavy for general/walkabout use. I’m hoping the 24-105 will be similar quality.
Bokah is still required in some situations to make the subject really stand out. As you say ISO has improved so much that these days you don't necessarily need a wide aperture to gather enough light for a shot. What you do need a wide aperture for is to cut down the depth of field, to separate the subject from a cluttered background and the "quality" of the Bokah can help.
well when i started i got the advice that i should be using prime, not for the quality argument, but because it forces you to move through your scene and use composition in camera. Whereas a zoom might have the picture i wanted without moving and thus not making me understand some stuff about depth of field, composition, etc... Now i do primes because they are cost effective compared to a good zoom lense.
Absolutely! I’ve shot Nikon all my life and the new generation 14-24 and 24-70 2.8’s S lenses are crazy…AND I’ll add the f4’s equally as sharp! The new Nikon 24-120 f4S is as sharp as the 2.8’s! I’ll always have a nifty 50 in the bag still , not cheap nifty fifties (1.8) any longer but still relatively good value for a cutting edge sharpness lens.
I’ve always shot with prime lenses. I often find myself being extremely indecisive with my approach to composition with a zoom. A zoom just doesn’t fit right with me. I absolutely love the 35mm focal length on a FF sensor, it’s incredibly versatile when used correctly.
I find a zoom lens useful when you’re unsure what to expect, when edge-to-edge sharpness isn’t critical and for determining which focal length you use most, in case you need a fast prime lens later.
my kit 24-70 f2.8(24-105 f4 as backup), 70-200f2.8, 100 f2.8 and 15mm f2.8 if you have this you can do any event BUT you need the knowledge of how to use them, and at what time!
Some really good points...nice video. I am prime prone though...mostly field stills so dovetails into what you said. I want that fast aperture for isolation...but hey, my fast lenses can slow down like any other lens...so I get both. Usually an f1.4 lens dialed down to f2.8 will be sharper than a lens that starts at f2.8.
I'd argue the Ef24-70-2.8 Mk2 was better at the time than my then EF24.1.4 and EF50 1.2 lenses. The RF lens game has moved on quite a bit but I still mostly use a zoom, the RF28-70 F2 lens and honestly bar it's wrist wrecking/back breaking weight it is sharp enough my work. The more interesting point you make is that with a prime lens there's no surprises, if you lift it to your eye ten feet from the subject you'll pretty much no what you'll see. However I can't get past the versatility of my zoom and those micro composition tweaks I make in camera on the hoof. For personal work I will only use a prime because it makes you work harder on your composition... sorry for the long reply, it's the one thing I've mixed emotions about most in my photography. Love the channel btw.
I started on primes and then switched to zoom. But I use it like 3 primes: all the way in (17mm) and all the way out (55mm) with bits of white tape on the barrel to mark the standard lens length, 28mm, which is my mainstay on Super35. The most noticeable thing about the switch was the zoom wide is much sharper than the prime wide. Also, price, speed, convenience, filters
Good video. Not only zoom vs prime but I am having a hard time sometimes recognizing my 60mp FF vs 26mp APSC shots (especially if post processed). Today's cameras and lenses are just, too good. I had my Sony changed to crop mode that I took for a trip a week ago since I was packing light, along with small APSC Sigma lens. I came back, put on my $2000 24-70 FF, but forgot to change the camera settings to FF. Shot a bunch at a party and was super content at what I thought were my 60 MP quality shots, only to realize in post processing I had shot the entire event in APSC mode. Could hardly tell any difference.
We’ll obviously have different views on “sharp”, but I used my Canon EF 28-105mm for close-up flash portraits - middle of the zoom range, stopped down - and the lens was suddenly very sharp to my eye. It’s not a very good lens, but I managed to give it all it wanted, and it showed up for me in a major way.
"Sitting on the proverbial fence" is the way forward for you. Nitpicking seems to be your preferred gentre. Nothing wrong with that! Thank you for this excellent video.
Most definitely true in the case of new zooms like the gf 45 100 and the xcd zooms for x2d. I really found that the convenience of the gfx zoom quality vs the fantastic 110 (was not a fan of the 80) fantastic. Really feel that you don't"need" both. When you know what focal lengths are your bread and butter then it's all good.
1:00 great point. When I was shooting headshots I found I had to close the aperture down to 4.5 (at 90mm) or the nose would be out of focus when focused on the eye. In fact, I’m not sure if it’s ever appropriate to shoot wide open.
I don't know, I just prefer using primes. When I change the lens, it changes my thinking perspective. I film different. I FILM to the lense. I very rarely buy zooms.
Sharpness doesn't interest me for portraits because it just shows defects, like every ingrown hair and lump, but isolating the subject does interest me, and is essential. Landscapes do need to be sharp just before diffraction kicks in. I guess it depends on what you want really. Zooms just aren't fast enough for me in natural light either.
In all my decades of doing photography I had never thought about “predictability” as an intrinsic quality of the primes. Yet as soon as you came up with it I knew exactly what you were talking about. I had events after which I thought the zoom saved my day. But strangely, when I only used a prime some other time, nothing bad has happened. In fact, that made the shoot more relaxed. One problem with the events is that you eventually do need a wide angle lens for groups, so ideally, you would always be there with two bodies.
When I'm run-n-gun I wind up using my zooms either racked in, racked out and very little in between. Basically I know what those two focal lengths do and that's what I use. I then usually have a prime hanging off my second camera anyway, so that's like 3 lenses for the weight of 2.5. That's a win right? For portraits I have my EF 70-200 f/4 which at f/8 or f/11 is stupidly sharp pretty much anywhere in the range and makes any overlapping prime completely pointless for that work.
I've always shot primes, though a couple of years ago I purchased the GF45-100 for my GFX100s kit and, yep I love it. My only qualm with it, is that at f4 and f32 all that beautiful sharpness is compromised quite a bit. If I need to play with focal depth beyond that range, I use the primes. Try a comparison through all the f/stops and see if you notice.
When I shot Canon FD mount with film, I only shot primes. Switching to Canon EF mount, I was okay with the 24-70 f/2.8 but disliked the Kit lenses and third-party lenses. For Canon RF lenses, even the kit lenses are great and very hard to discern appreciable differences between them and “L” series glass (other than speed) in terms of contrast using the B&H Photo lens testing image. I have a couple of fast primes, but don’t get as much use as the 2.8 trilogy.
it's not just about sharpness zooms have a lot more distortion in general which gets electronically corrected so you might not see it but the correction degrades image quality
Nice. For me the prime vs zoom debate used to be based on what internet people told me was going to be important, and then I’d build hypothetical scenarios in my head about when I’d appreciate having one or the other. Then one day I was recording a haircut video using a 1.2 lens at F8 and later that day I shot a portrait using another F1.2 lens at F8, so that night I wound up buying a cheap old 24-105mm F4 to replace them both. Never looked back, never wondered again if I’d made the right choice. It’s kinda cliche but I can only answer “prime vs zoom” for me, not for anyone else 😂 I do greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this, and the other topics you cover, as well.
I recently bought the Tamron 35-150mm F2 - F2.8 and think this to be the perfect all-rounder. Yes, I still have and use a wide range of primes for unique occasions but for the most part the modern high-tech zoom is the way to go.
I like them smaller. I like them faster. And I like to think less about having to pick a focal length. Primes will always be my choice. One isn't better, one is better for me.
Perfect timing on this! As a festival photographer, I use zoom lenses for obvious reasons but this year I'm completely redoing my portrait portfolio and I'm in the market to purchase my first prime lens. Great stuff!
I'm in the Sony ecosystem. I get excellent performance with my zooms. The 24 to 105 is my go to lens. I do own a couple of G Master primes but only because they have large apertures for low light. I cant justify spending thousands on large aperture zooms. I also dont understand why anyone wants a f/1.0 or f/0.95 lens. My best photos usually end up in the f/1.8 to f/2.0 range. I dont care for or need razor thin DOF.
When I was in high school, the teachers mantra was "zoom with your feet". I had a 50 1.8 and that was all. Did my best, but still ended up cropping. With zooms, if not rushed, I rarely crop. Horizontal and vertical from same spot both framed well.
How new a camera body do you need to have for the image sensor to give you negligible noise even at ISOs like 6400 and above? When did the sensors get good enough? I'm getting back into photography, especially photojournalism to support my main job as a reporter. I'm on a Canon 5D Mark iii, which I mostly love, but indoors and in low light I feel like there's a lot of noise in the images in low light. Realistically, my beat involves a lot of work inside at conferences, inside factories, and other places with uncontrolled or dodgy lighting. Any thoughts, comment section (or OP)?
Not an expert but I'd say from about 2017/18. Maybe search some cameras from that era, there will be "noise" tests and RUclips videos "is this camera worth it in 2024". I shoot with a 2016 and 2017 M43 and ISO 3200 is maybe the limit but I am shooting concerts at ISO 6400 and using DXO Photolab with great results. That been said some used cameras that hold up well are still pricey, the market knows :-). Good luck
With studio portraiture, f/8 and big watt-seconds from the para, so 70-200 because no need for the prime. But I still want it because my head and heart are at war. 🙄
I don't know that I would say, "Nobody wants Bokeh." It depends on the situation. If I'm shooting portraits in studio with a black or basic color background, great, F8 all day. But if I'm shooting outside with moonlights and want to really frame my subject I'll shoot F4 or F5.6 to get some nice depth work, I love shooting with the sunset behind my subject through trees to get those pretty golden swirlies. To say nobody wants bokeh is silly...the better thing to say would be, nobody needs F1.4 anymore. I still primarily shoot primes, but I am also getting ready get a good zoom to make some shoots easier.
If I'm walking around with a 24-70 I tend to return it to the 35mm position between shots so I know when I raise the camera what I will be seeing immediately.
I shoot micro 4/3 and had a chance to compare the Panasonic/Leica 10-25/1.7 vs the 25/1.4 and 9/1.7 primes. They are all excellent, but I felt the 10-25 was actually a little sharper at 25 than the prime lens. The only issue is that it's quite expensive and heavy(for a m4/3 lens, at least)
I think this is fair! Iv Mainly been a zoom user myself and turn the zoom ring until it’s good to go but primes for sure imo provide that perspective that needs to be understood and appreciated. Iv done one studio shoot and swapped between 4 lenses one was a macro but id need more bodies to soley use primes in that situation
I've backed zooms for 40 years and never regretted it. Many reasons, despite maybe the loss of pixel peeping IQ and max aperture of F4 or so. Currently have RF24-240 and RF100-400. They are excellent IQ for the money. Well great regardless. In camera lens correction for jpegs is the key! Even affordable tor APS-C bodies with the option to go FF later on! Don't rate them on CRAW. Tamron and Sigma make great zooms as well. Sigma now licensed for Canon R series mount. Bokeh is over-rated. Regardless, you don't need a F1.8 portrait lens to create it! True!
I'm at the point where I don't touch my primes. I love the versatility of the zoom lenses. Now I do shoot primarily sports and the zoom is king for me. We obviously can't get as close as we want so having a zoom is helpful especially when the action gets closer. When I do portraits I typically use my Nikon 24-70 2.8 and it produces great quality images especially with studio lighting.
For my portrait work my EF 70-200 2.8L ii lives on my camera, it’s a beast of a lens and saves going to the gym but it covers 75% of the focal lengths I need and saves swapping lenses all the time.
All good points, but there's still room for other approaches. I do a lot of videos of basically static people with the back wall not all that far away. If I'm going to get any subject separation I want the widest aperture I can get my hands on. Also most of the time I'm working with very similar dimensions all round so one single prime will do me for the majority of jobs.
I cover a lot of events, and I’ve noticed that I use my zoom lens almost exclusively at its extreme ends, either fully zoomed in or out. I’ve simply grown so accustomed to the look of, for example, 200mm, that I treat it like a prime lens with the added flexibility to adjust quickly if something moves closer. My go-to setup is a dual-camera system: one with a 70-200mm lens and a second with a 35mm or 50mm lens, depending on the situation. Additionally, fast lenses with focal lengths of 50mm or below are very affordable, so I don’t have to worry about having a backup stored in my car.
I have been a keen amateur photographer since the mid 1980s. Primes vs. Zooms has been a passionate debate over much of that time. When I was younger I really liked the versatility of zooms, even though back then the quality wasn't supposed to be all that. But I really wasn't printing big, so they were fine for my use. My first lens, and only lens for a long time, was the nifty fifty, which I grew to hate. I hated it because I felt that it was never wide enough, and never long enough. It was always the wrong lens. Over the last decade or so since full frame sensors have become affordable to hobby photographers, and I am in a better position financially, I have amassed what I would consider a full photographic kit. My kit includes zooms covering everything from 17mm all the way to 300mm, which hits almost all that I would ever want to do, without the need to carry the monster lenses. I also had a 35mm prime left over from previous kits, and I bought 50mm f/1.8 for very cheap, and a 105mm Sigma macro lens (which I love). Anyway, now that I have a complete kit, the 50mm which I previously hated starts to make sense. Recently I have been leaving the heavy zooms behind and just going around town with my three prime lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 105mm, in a small bag. I am leaving the big zooms (most f/2.8) behind not because of the weight, but because it makes people around me uncomfortable with the "professional equipment". So I have been going out with the three small primes, two of which are tiny, and people are not so intimidated anymore when I photograph around them. Presumably they don't feel intimidated with the small kit, so they relax, which makes going around an urban setting so much more enjoyable. Finally I am even starting to really love the nifty fifty for its compact size, wide aperture and natural field of view. For the occasions where size is irrelevant I will continue to carry my big zooms. I don't mind the weight at all, and they really do make superb lenses these days. But for walking about town, a small kit is more inconspicuous. So these days, at least for me, image quality is no longer the driving reason for using primes. I can print massive picture from both, and indeed have some big prints from my zooms on my walls, which look superb. But I am still choosing to go out with primes for reasons other than purely for image quality reasons. And yes, when I take my primes out, the main lens of choice most of the time, is that darn nifty fifty!
I feel like my 28-105 F4 is my most handy lens, but nothing beats the 40mm 2.8 for the sharpness and weight combo.. even if I use a big camera, it's just a perfect normal lens for pictures as I see them. I think F4 zooms plus a prime normal or portrait/macro lens depending on your style of work. And maybe a big telephoto if you do wildlife. But the 28 50 135 of yesterday is a 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 F4 trio, imo. ~600 for wildlife.
I mostly shoot weddings, corporate events, family photos, school sports portraits, in which case I almost always use zooms. Most of my primes sit in my bag untouched and neglected.
I love zoom lenses. The standard on my camera is a zoom lens (the absolutely fantastic Tamron 35-150 F2-F2.8). That said, wow do I disagree with you. Bokeh is not done. For an extreme example, look at the F mount Nikon 85mm F1.8 - the old one with the aperture ring. For a REALLY extreme example, look a one of the reflector telephotos with the donut bokeh. Next up is the straight physics of it. All things being equal, the in-focus part of your shot with capture detail better at faster apertures. You have a workflow that works for you, knock yourself out. I am not kicking my primes to the curb even if I mostly shoot zooms.
One of the elephants in the room not being discussed much is how mirrorless has allowed manufacturers to re-design lenses without having to worry about a mirror box anymore. Leica M-series lenses weren't (aren't) only better because "they were better," they were better because of the reduced distance between rear element and film plain. Now mirrorless camera manufacturers have gained that advantage too. They've also largely done away with anti-aliasing filters for even greater sharpness (at the expense of higher risk of moire). For the last few years I've been using primes on my Lumix S5, and it was great except I was having to change lenses a lot. I recently bought the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN II Art, and although I wouldn't go near an architectural job with it, the quality is pretty stunning. I still prefer to use primes for that reason of knowing what you'll see as you lift the camera to your eye, but I lose nothing in sharpness with the Sigma, even wide open (albeit I lose a stop of light). As for bokeh, bokeh can get in the bin. It was always ridiculous to be discussing the out-of-focus areas of a photo. Just another way to discuss photography without discussing subject, content, intent or meaning.
I was a "Primes only" shooter for years until I switched from a Sony A6500 to the Sony A7IV and bought the Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM II. I'm not sure what magic they're using but the G Master second generation zooms with Sony are 100% prime level quality. I still use my 35mm F1.4 GM, but their "holy trinity" of zooms rival everyone else's prime lenses IMO.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
If you want to learn the more in-depth side of commercial photography that we don't share here on RUclips, head over to here tinhouse-studio.com/studio-access/
Totally different question.
Are UGG adverts your work ? Look like yours
"Technical sheets be damned" is something so many people need to hear, thank you.
Gave up on primes when I switched to Sony. Gave up on primary lenses vs third-party too. Everything is fantastic now. We are so spoiled it's insane.
@@johnsmith1474
That Sony f1.8 G 20mm is surgical though! 😉
My 85mm GM 2 is insane sharp (w wonderful bokeh).
1:40 "thankfully, we've all got past bokeh."
There are quite a few who have not gotten that memo.
@@andychandler3992 there is definitely a time and a place for it, but it’s been overdone. I see a few photographers who shoot at f1.2/f1.4 all the time and honestly, all their photos look like they have been done against a backdrop in a studio with the subject stuck on, completely disconnected from their environment.
What's funny is that the same people that say that bokeh is for noobs will glaze a medium format camera "because of the bokeh"
i always used APS-C with full frame lenses. I just plug dat ho with a full frame lens taking care of the crops and i get beautiful in-between results.
@@andychandler3992 I mean, you can still get nice back ground blur and cool bubbles in the background and still shoot with an adequate depth of field.
Seconded. I think Scott is the only pro I’ve heard of who doesn’t like bokeh. I don’t personally care about the “quality” of the bokeh, but I sure like being able to isolate my subject in a sports context.
Being a wide-angle fan (~1990 to 2012 I shot estimated 70% with 24mm on 135 film, 2012 -2020, likely 60% on 20mm fullframe), so I know how to live/like "without bokeh" most of time. BUT to be honest I shoot now with fullframe more often, and with analog medium and large format for "bokeh". It is not one or the other, it is both. BTW: I shoot primary urban pics.
You are totally right. The border between fixed and zoom is open. Even though I am still a fixed lens lover. Wight and size make the difference. Not the image quality anymore.
@@aart_willem_van_wijk I'm not sure I understand your point.
Because today some prime lens are bigger and heavier than some equally good zoom lens
@ quality fixed and variable optics are about equal.
Nicely put. I've been working since 1972 and always preferred prime lenses because as you say, back then zooms were pretty appalling. I still only use primes today with one exception. I cover street marches and demonstrations quite often, and I find the new Sony 20-70 f4 a complete godsend, With the 135mm 1.8 on the other body I can take on pretty much anything the event throws at me. Love the channel. Take care.
@@johnsmith1474 I don't recall mentioning any walls! The 20-70 fits the bill because of its focal length coverage.
And to think that for 16 years of taking wedding photos on a Hasselblad 500CM film camera I used just one prime lens, an 80mm. The average wedding was 72 shots only, with some as low as even 24 for a budget wedding, but if we really pushed the boat out we'd shoot 144 pics, yet often thought that was a bit excessive. Unlike digital weddings today, where literally thousands of shots can be taken at the event, the key difference is that almost every shot we took on film was actually usable, unlike today.
These days, when shooting on my digital kit, I still use primes for 'serious' work, but I do like having a zoom in my bag.
120 roll film, I loved it. Plus X. Focus, shutter, f-stop, and when you knew your film better than your best friend, no light meter was needed. Then I moved to 135 Kodachrome 2. I can sing Neil Simon’s song.
Although most of my shooting is done with zooms, I’m mystified as to why he downplayed bokeh. Excellent, creamy bokeh can add a beautiful ambiance to a photo that greatly enhances the overall feeling of the photo (e.g. I specifically purchased a 85 f1.2 to obtain that effect). I also often shoot video with that same lens to ‘wash out’ background distractions that one has little or no control over. All of my zooms will give some degree of bokeh but it is ‘busy’, not soothing, a failure at the kind of ambiance my fast 85 can give, and often annoying and distracting- taking away from my subject.
Bokeh matters to many photographers and to a client with a good eye.
You're not gonna like what I'm gonna say, but my problem with that 24-70 Art is that it's an amazing studio lens, but for outdoors it has really nervous bokeh. Also, zooms are just really big. I shoot entirely with slow primes.
Bright zooms, anyway. I have two apsc zooms f4.5-6.3 (55-200), 3.5-6.3 (18-150) IS, that are lighter and not much longer than my 56 f1.4.
Bought my Nikon Z 24-120mm as a 'travel' lens. It's so sharp I rarely use my 20, 50 and 85mm f1.8s - now reserved mainly when shooting at night, although I occasionally put on the 50mm for the simplicity of shooting at a 'normal' focal length
@@brucecrossan2284 I too have the 24-120 F4 fixed to my ZF and love it… but… I recently bought a Z Voigtlander 50mm F2 apo to challenge my manual focusing skills and boy the sharpness and colors using this lens is at a different level to anything I’ve experienced before .. I still have my old afs 200-500 F5.6 , 105 f2.8 and 300 f4 pf plus a few specialist z mount 3rd party lenses which I roll out for specific needs .
@@brucecrossan2284 me too! It’s an insane lens
Totally agree on using primes not because of bokeh or sharpness, but because of knowing what type of look you are after, in other words, knowing your focal length.
I agree that the 'bokeh' obsession became crazy, bur fast lenses and the ability to 'isolate' subjects from the background will never go out of fashion, its an important part of the 'artistry' of photography. I know there are fairly fast, excellent zoom lenses, but they are horribly expensive and cripplingly heavy to cart about, so I'm in the camp of using both, dependent on need. 'Horses for courses'.
I became a zoom only person when I went mirrorless. Like you said, my eyes can't tell and being in studio i need the versatility.
Yes, the 45-100mm f4 is impressive, especially for studio portrait shot at f5.6 anyways. And eye AF works well on the GFX-100 II. For landscape work the 20-35mm f4 is remarkable too, basically as good as the 23mm f4. I compared them in details also sold the prime.
Now for some applications my 50mm f1.2 S and 85mm f1.2 S on the Z8/Z9 remain essential for fast action indoors.
That new Tamron 35-150mm F2 - F2.8 is such a great option for portraits. Personally I still find I use Zooms for flexibility more than anything - but I prefer shooting primes. I feel like I am more creative with a Prime because I typically have to move and adapt to get the framing I want - and of course, if I have shot it a lot...I can pre-visualize shots. With a zoom - there is almost analysis paralysis because you have so many focal lengths, and so many places you could stand with each of those focal lengths. I think the key difference is how my workflow changes. For Zooms I tend to find that I choose a position a good enough place to stand and then cycle through different focal lengths, whereas with a Prime I shoot it from one location and move around while in that zone and really fine tune to find best shot at that FL before going and changing to a different lens. Maybe I need to change how I approach working with a zoom.... set it to a certain FL and then get "the shot" and then move to the next FL.
I kind of do the same thing and definitely need to move around more with zooms vs primes but I've also found with social media being the primary destination for a lot of photos I love having the variety of focal lengths from a single spot as well (assuming it's a good composition) it adds a nice way to move through a series without it jumping around too much and adding a bit of story telling. Two bodies and two primes can obviously do this as well or better but the simplicity and speed is a huge advantage.
Thanks for your beautifully presented argument. Those of us who shot refrigerated pro transparency film using top of the line optics for a few decades, need to undo a lot of deeply ingrained logic when moving to shooting video for RUclips, where optical resolving power is not a factor at all. On a full size modern Sony sensor, I've noticed that even the 24-105 f:4 G is overkill. The only time I would reach for a fast prime is when I have to eliminate the background more than possible with an f:4 aperture.
I'm mostly a prime shooter for stills (Hasselblad). Recently got the HC 50-110 which I like and use in the studio. For video (Canon) my A camera has zoom (17-120 cine-zoom with the servo) adds a great element to filming. My B cameras are 45mm tilt shift. They are usually on tripods and can add nice effect when filming at an angle to people.
If I’m honest I chose to go with a 30mm f1.4 for my a6300 purely because I needed something that could get intimate looking photos without being too wide or narrow and allow for higher shutter speeds in mostly shocking lighting. I like the bokeh but it’s not ideal when capturing stuff I want to be sharp, although the compromise is I’m able to get shots which don’t have too much noise while letting me use a higher shutter speed to capture a wriggling baby or cat acting like they’ve just taken all the speed the world has to offer. That’s literally it. Comes down to what you need your gear to do for you at the best possible value for money and price per performance, and it’s a bonus if it covers any additional preferences aside from its function. Just choose what works for your purposes and roll with it, it’s the same in any creative or vocational medium/profession.
I prefer to create still images with a Prime, because I know what the framing is before I even raise my camera up to my eye. It's a way of intuitively seeing and creating for me.
My Canon RF 28-70 f2 is sharper than any of my previous EF primes. It is astonishing how well it resolves. My RF 85 1.2 is the sharpest lens I've ever seen but there is a point of diminishing returns for the work that I do.
I like my 50 mm f1.8 because it is light and short, and quick composure. The zoom lenses are heavy and large, and you have an extra step to zoom it. When digital sensors were 300 kilopixels, it was critical to zoom tight and crop the shot in the camera. Now we have latitude to shoot wide and crop in post, as we did when shooting with film.
Every tool has its strength... Using primes mostly as they are lighter these days, as I can zoom with my feet. Just got the new 24-70mm 2.8 Canon RF, and this lens is just mind-blowing. I could not believe my eyes when I saw corner to corner sharpness at f2.8...
Hi, I agree with you, in the last 20 years polishing machines have benefited of the digital era, especially in the aberrations correction domain, making them more precise with a tremendously high repeatability ratio that was absent before, and plastics are now almost as resilient as steel while not aging anymore and supporting shocks better than steel, glues have also made a big jump higher - in fact, there were big improvements with almost each and every step of the lenses manufacturing. Prime lenses stays important when you still work with analog film and with very large paper formats, but year after year there is less and less differences with high quality zooms.
Upgraded from the EF 24-105 f4 ii to the 24-70 f2.8 ii and bought the ef 16-35 f2.8 iii and the difference in corner and center sharpness is a light and day difference with great versatility for landscape photography. Those two lenses also resolve much more information at infinity and have nearly zero CA even wide open. Coupled with the 5DIV, the setup is a powerhouse for my needs and will keep my bank account healthy until I decide to upgrade my body to shed some weight as I age. These newer zooms are the way to go and can be further IQ'd with proper sharpening techniques. Buy once, cry once.
I prefer primes for a few reasons, low light situations, narrower depth of field, and they tend to make me work a little slower thus taking my time to consider what I'm doing. But I can't tell the difference between my primes and zooms for overall image quality. I like my zooms for travel and situations when I need to get the shot and move on.
You are spot again in your analysis. I have been pondering on which lens to buy alongside Fujifilm GFX 100S II, after watching this video, am sure my first lens will be 45-100mm. Covers great focal lengths that lends well to different genre of photography I will be shooting.
Thanks Scott for always giving brilliant perspectives that are difficult to find elsewhere!
As someone who has more prime lenses than I know what to do with and who shoots a lot of studio portraiture, I have to say you are correct. Shooting at f/8 the difference between a zoom and a prime is negligible. I recently, bought a Panasonic 70-200mm f/4 and optically it is great. It is lighter than my f/2.8 zoom and a lot of my fast primes
Where for me, prime lenses are still an advantage is where I have to think about the shot. I still love my Zeiss primes, not because the image quality is better, but because they slow me down and make me pre-plan and prepare.
I can't just click away. I have to set up the shot, in a similar way to how I would shoot product photography. Generally, I use a tripod, the rear LCD and punch in focus to make sure I have everything framed and in focus. So every shot is deliberate, which can mean l lose some spontaneity, but when I get the shot, I can then play around a bit later. It also stops me from hiding behind the camera, and allows me to interact with the client more.
In the end, it all comes down to the individual and how they like to work. There is no wrong answer, just the answer that works for the individual.
Agreed.
I shoot low light concert photography, so I'll stick to my fast primes (they are cheaper and faster than the top of the range zooms for my camera system). But, I definitely get what you are saying.
I use whatever suite my purposes.
The majority of the time I use vintage prime glass on my Fuji GFx, when I use a zoom it's the 35-70 GFx lens
id just lock your zoom in at 35 and go out without changing it, learn how things look that way. use primes if you can move around, and don't mind lugging around lots of gear, use zooms if you cannot / dont want to. that's my stance. i think prime wides are more important / more noticeable than tele's. compression of telephotos can give the illusion of a wider aperture.
Absolutely agree. My Nikon Z 2.8 zoomlenses and de GF45-100 and 20-35 are as sharp as the primes that fall within their ranges. I sold my Nikon primes, but bought the GF 110 2.0. That one can not be beaten by a prime.
I know this probably sounds sacrilegious, but I shoot portraits with a 70-200 zoom. Yes, it's an expensive lens, and yes I could probably get a better technical image quality with a prime, but with a zoom lens, I get a significantly better overall image because it allows me to choose my perspective and composition, then select the focal length that gives me that. Technical image quality being put down on the sensor is secondary, and a lot of the newer zooms are good enough. I really only use two lenses. 24-105, and 70-200, mostly 70-200 with the 24-105 for the rare occasion I need something wider than 70mm.
I thought a 70-200 f2.8 was a portrait lens 😂
@@johnsmith1474 wait a minute, it's a sport photography lens.
@@boredboiseboy 85mm (on full frame 35mm) is typically considered a portrait lens where the 70-200 is part of the holy trinity lineup that many event photographers use. There are a number of weirdos (like me) that also use the 70-200 for portraits instead of just using an 85 or 100 prime. I strongly prefer to pick the subject to camera distance where the subjects ears are the same approximate size as their nose, then select the focal length that gives me the composition I want, but that’s just me. There are a boatload of photogs that swear by an 85 prime for portraits.
I was a studio product guy back in the film days and with 4x5 & 2-1/4, primes were the only thing. But once the better lenses & higher res digital cameras came along & seeing what the zooms could do in terms of image quality and versatility, I started using zooms almost exclusively, though admittedly I don't do much tabletop anymore except for eBay, where IQ still sells. But primes remain in the kit, especially for available light or macro work.
During the 1990's there was a widespread adoption of various quality methods in manufacturing . TQM, Crosby system , ISO 9001 etc - generally they all had a similar aim to track and incrementally reduce variability by measuring your outputs carefully and reducing tolerances as you worked out where the variation was occurring ... the Japanese were very into this and the example that became well known was the doors on a mazda ... if the metal used on the door can vary in thickness by +/- 40% - then the weight of the 20kg door varies from 12kg to 28kg ... this means the hinges need to be sized to cope with up to 28kg , and the strength of the door frame on the chassis has to be built to cope with higher weight too , which leads to the springs , dampers and suspenson components needing to be uprated too. By getting control of variable inputs manufacturers gradually cut the 'lemons' out of the process. Camera makers found this too- a prime is simple to construct and has few moving parts so the quality is always going to be easier to achieve - but with modern techniques even incredibly complex optical formulas can be turned reliably and consistently into products because the glass , the ABS plastic , the assembly processes now have minimal variability compared to 30 years ago when every xxth zoom lens was an utter dog
This is a fascinating insight, thanks for sharing
Along with your observations; primes being simpler are a more mature technology with less room for improvement while zooms being more complex had much more room for improvement and would mature more slowly.
You are absolutely right. For work I use a zoom lens and it gets almost every job done perfectly. But for my personal photography I use one camera with one fixed focal length and I appreciate the limitations that come with it. It calms my mind somehow...it is weird, but works for me.
For weddings I use a Nikon 750 with 17-35, 28-70 on the camera most of the time and an 80-200 zoom. No complaints from any clients. For my commercial work I use a Nikon 60 macro, 105 macro and a 85 shift, pc lens, Once again no complains from those clients.
I love my Z50mm prime. At 1.8. Love the look and having more DOF options.
I'm in the prime camp mostly because I love the predictability of a single focal length. In never need to open up more the f2.8 so it's not about soeed/bokeh. I have simplified my kit down to 28mm, 35mm and 55mm lenses and I could not be more happier. Most of the time I'm using the 35mm. I can see how useful a zoom is, but I find I'm more creative when I cannot adjust the focal length and have to work with what's on my camera.
Agreed modern zooms are amazing in terms of optical quality. With discipline you can shoot a zoom like a series of primes. Look at the scene, decide the composition based on your knowledge of focal lengths and distance from the subject, set the focal length, then raise the camera to your eye & shoot. Done. The key is to set the focal length first.
I think zooms still vary quite a bit in quality, but if you have a good zoom lens they can almost be on par with primes. On Fuji GFX I like the 20-35mm f4 and 45-100mm f4, and on Sony I like the 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8 GM2 versions. For Sony E-mount, I also like the Tamron 35-150mm f2-f2.8. All really superb zooms, and I am sure that Canon and Nikon can match this with some of theirs.
This guy is so charismatic that he should be presenting a photography prog on TV. Anyway, great content!
I believe that 45-100 Fujinon lens is well-known for being as sharp as a prime - I had one for awhile and the picture quality certainly did not suffer when I used that over a prime...
At this point the only reason to go prime is for speed. For the reason you mentioned that you know what it’s going to look like but also light gathering. Some people would rather shoot at a lower ISO/faster shutter if they can help it. A fast prime wide angle should yield a lot of things in focus while gathering light
It always depends. For some people, image quality matters more. In that case, image circle size is what really matters.
Absolutely enjoying how your commentary is serious and funny at the same time...
I only carry primes, often only 1 one a day, because primes are usually smaller and I enjoy that restriction on composition
Spot on, the Fuji GF zooms are amazing the 20-35mm zoom has surpassed the 23mm prime, and I could not do without my set of Canon RF zooms for the day to day work horses which are also a huge leap forward compared to the EF zooms
I felt like a time traveler. I am still using an 90D with sigma 18-35mm 1.4 and a EF 85mm 1.8 for 90% of my photos and videos.
The Sigma unicorn. You were truly blessed.
I’m also on a 90D, and love it. And I just ordered the canon 24-105mm today - which he called a ‘dog’! - so I hope he’s wrong about that. My canon 100-400mm is the sharpest lens I have; sharper than my 25mm & 50mm primes, just bloody big & heavy for general/walkabout use. I’m hoping the 24-105 will be similar quality.
Bokah is still required in some situations to make the subject really stand out. As you say ISO has improved so much that these days you don't necessarily need a wide aperture to gather enough light for a shot. What you do need a wide aperture for is to cut down the depth of field, to separate the subject from a cluttered background and the "quality" of the Bokah can help.
well when i started i got the advice that i should be using prime, not for the quality argument, but because it forces you to move through your scene and use composition in camera. Whereas a zoom might have the picture i wanted without moving and thus not making me understand some stuff about depth of field, composition, etc... Now i do primes because they are cost effective compared to a good zoom lense.
Absolutely! I’ve shot Nikon all my life and the new generation 14-24 and 24-70 2.8’s S lenses are crazy…AND I’ll add the f4’s equally as sharp! The new Nikon 24-120 f4S is as sharp as the 2.8’s! I’ll always have a nifty 50 in the bag still , not cheap nifty fifties (1.8) any longer but still relatively good value for a cutting edge sharpness lens.
I’ve always shot with prime lenses. I often find myself being extremely indecisive with my approach to composition with a zoom. A zoom just doesn’t fit right with me. I absolutely love the 35mm focal length on a FF sensor, it’s incredibly versatile when used correctly.
I find a zoom lens useful when you’re unsure what to expect, when edge-to-edge sharpness isn’t critical and for determining which focal length you use most, in case you need a fast prime lens later.
my kit 24-70 f2.8(24-105 f4 as backup), 70-200f2.8, 100 f2.8 and 15mm f2.8 if you have this you can do any event BUT you need the knowledge of how to use them, and at what time!
Some really good points...nice video. I am prime prone though...mostly field stills so dovetails into what you said. I want that fast aperture for isolation...but hey, my fast lenses can slow down like any other lens...so I get both. Usually an f1.4 lens dialed down to f2.8 will be sharper than a lens that starts at f2.8.
This.
I'd argue the Ef24-70-2.8 Mk2 was better at the time than my then EF24.1.4 and EF50 1.2 lenses. The RF lens game has moved on quite a bit but I still mostly use a zoom, the RF28-70 F2 lens and honestly bar it's wrist wrecking/back breaking weight it is sharp enough my work. The more interesting point you make is that with a prime lens there's no surprises, if you lift it to your eye ten feet from the subject you'll pretty much no what you'll see. However I can't get past the versatility of my zoom and those micro composition tweaks I make in camera on the hoof. For personal work I will only use a prime because it makes you work harder on your composition... sorry for the long reply, it's the one thing I've mixed emotions about most in my photography. Love the channel btw.
I started on primes and then switched to zoom. But I use it like 3 primes: all the way in (17mm) and all the way out (55mm) with bits of white tape on the barrel to mark the standard lens length, 28mm, which is my mainstay on Super35. The most noticeable thing about the switch was the zoom wide is much sharper than the prime wide. Also, price, speed, convenience, filters
Good video. Not only zoom vs prime but I am having a hard time sometimes recognizing my 60mp FF vs 26mp APSC shots (especially if post processed). Today's cameras and lenses are just, too good. I had my Sony changed to crop mode that I took for a trip a week ago since I was packing light, along with small APSC Sigma lens. I came back, put on my $2000 24-70 FF, but forgot to change the camera settings to FF. Shot a bunch at a party and was super content at what I thought were my 60 MP quality shots, only to realize in post processing I had shot the entire event in APSC mode. Could hardly tell any difference.
We’ll obviously have different views on “sharp”, but I used my Canon EF 28-105mm for close-up flash portraits - middle of the zoom range, stopped down - and the lens was suddenly very sharp to my eye. It’s not a very good lens, but I managed to give it all it wanted, and it showed up for me in a major way.
"Sitting on the proverbial fence" is the way forward for you. Nitpicking seems to be your preferred gentre. Nothing wrong with that! Thank you for this excellent video.
Most definitely true in the case of new zooms like the gf 45 100 and the xcd zooms for x2d. I really found that the convenience of the gfx zoom quality vs the fantastic 110 (was not a fan of the 80) fantastic. Really feel that you don't"need" both. When you know what focal lengths are your bread and butter then it's all good.
1:00 great point. When I was shooting headshots I found I had to close the aperture down to 4.5 (at 90mm) or the nose would be out of focus when focused on the eye. In fact, I’m not sure if it’s ever appropriate to shoot wide open.
I don't know, I just prefer using primes. When I change the lens, it changes my thinking perspective. I film different. I FILM to the lense. I very rarely buy zooms.
Sharpness doesn't interest me for portraits because it just shows defects, like every ingrown hair and lump, but isolating the subject does interest me, and is essential. Landscapes do need to be sharp just before diffraction kicks in. I guess it depends on what you want really. Zooms just aren't fast enough for me in natural light either.
In all my decades of doing photography I had never thought about “predictability” as an intrinsic quality of the primes. Yet as soon as you came up with it I knew exactly what you were talking about. I had events after which I thought the zoom saved my day. But strangely, when I only used a prime some other time, nothing bad has happened. In fact, that made the shoot more relaxed. One problem with the events is that you eventually do need a wide angle lens for groups, so ideally, you would always be there with two bodies.
We always have to check our generalizations based upon current information.
Ultimately, only those who adapt survive.
Totally. The benefit of primes nowadays is just compact size. And price, given quality zooms are not cheap.
When I'm run-n-gun I wind up using my zooms either racked in, racked out and very little in between. Basically I know what those two focal lengths do and that's what I use. I then usually have a prime hanging off my second camera anyway, so that's like 3 lenses for the weight of 2.5. That's a win right?
For portraits I have my EF 70-200 f/4 which at f/8 or f/11 is stupidly sharp pretty much anywhere in the range and makes any overlapping prime completely pointless for that work.
I have the Nikon Z 14-24 F2.8 , 24-70 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8 and all three of them are freaking sharp and avery good contrast
I've always shot primes, though a couple of years ago I purchased the GF45-100 for my GFX100s kit and, yep I love it. My only qualm with it, is that at f4 and f32 all that beautiful sharpness is compromised quite a bit. If I need to play with focal depth beyond that range, I use the primes. Try a comparison through all the f/stops and see if you notice.
When I shot Canon FD mount with film, I only shot primes. Switching to Canon EF mount, I was okay with the 24-70 f/2.8 but disliked the Kit lenses and third-party lenses. For Canon RF lenses, even the kit lenses are great and very hard to discern appreciable differences between them and “L” series glass (other than speed) in terms of contrast using the B&H Photo lens testing image. I have a couple of fast primes, but don’t get as much use as the 2.8 trilogy.
it's not just about sharpness
zooms have a lot more distortion in general which gets electronically corrected so you might not see it but the correction degrades image quality
Nice. For me the prime vs zoom debate used to be based on what internet people told me was going to be important, and then I’d build hypothetical scenarios in my head about when I’d appreciate having one or the other. Then one day I was recording a haircut video using a 1.2 lens at F8 and later that day I shot a portrait using another F1.2 lens at F8, so that night I wound up buying a cheap old 24-105mm F4 to replace them both. Never looked back, never wondered again if I’d made the right choice. It’s kinda cliche but I can only answer “prime vs zoom” for me, not for anyone else 😂 I do greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this, and the other topics you cover, as well.
I recently bought the Tamron 35-150mm F2 - F2.8 and think this to be the perfect all-rounder. Yes, I still have and use a wide range of primes for unique occasions but for the most part the modern high-tech zoom is the way to go.
Yep. Much better sensor sensitivity and quality means I am perfectly happy with light 2.8 primes now.
I like them smaller. I like them faster. And I like to think less about having to pick a focal length. Primes will always be my choice. One isn't better, one is better for me.
Perfect timing on this! As a festival photographer, I use zoom lenses for obvious reasons but this year I'm completely redoing my portrait portfolio and I'm in the market to purchase my first prime lens. Great stuff!
I'm in the Sony ecosystem. I get excellent performance with my zooms. The 24 to 105 is my go to lens. I do own a couple of G Master primes but only because they have large apertures for low light. I cant justify spending thousands on large aperture zooms. I also dont understand why anyone wants a f/1.0 or f/0.95 lens. My best photos usually end up in the f/1.8 to f/2.0 range. I dont care for or need razor thin DOF.
When I was in high school, the teachers mantra was "zoom with your feet". I had a 50 1.8 and that was all. Did my best, but still ended up cropping.
With zooms, if not rushed, I rarely crop. Horizontal and vertical from same spot both framed well.
How new a camera body do you need to have for the image sensor to give you negligible noise even at ISOs like 6400 and above? When did the sensors get good enough? I'm getting back into photography, especially photojournalism to support my main job as a reporter. I'm on a Canon 5D Mark iii, which I mostly love, but indoors and in low light I feel like there's a lot of noise in the images in low light. Realistically, my beat involves a lot of work inside at conferences, inside factories, and other places with uncontrolled or dodgy lighting. Any thoughts, comment section (or OP)?
Not an expert but I'd say from about 2017/18. Maybe search some cameras from that era, there will be "noise" tests and RUclips videos "is this camera worth it in 2024". I shoot with a 2016 and 2017 M43 and ISO 3200 is maybe the limit but I am shooting concerts at ISO 6400 and using DXO Photolab with great results. That been said some used cameras that hold up well are still pricey, the market knows :-). Good luck
With studio portraiture, f/8 and big watt-seconds from the para, so 70-200 because no need for the prime. But I still want it because my head and heart are at war. 🙄
I don't know that I would say, "Nobody wants Bokeh." It depends on the situation. If I'm shooting portraits in studio with a black or basic color background, great, F8 all day. But if I'm shooting outside with moonlights and want to really frame my subject I'll shoot F4 or F5.6 to get some nice depth work, I love shooting with the sunset behind my subject through trees to get those pretty golden swirlies. To say nobody wants bokeh is silly...the better thing to say would be, nobody needs F1.4 anymore. I still primarily shoot primes, but I am also getting ready get a good zoom to make some shoots easier.
Shallow depth of field is a useful tool, so there's still a purpose for prime lenses.
Bokeh is still an important tool that can make an image look way better (or worse).
It's just a tool. I don't get it why some people hype or hate it.
If I'm walking around with a 24-70 I tend to return it to the 35mm position between shots so I know when I raise the camera what I will be seeing immediately.
I shoot micro 4/3 and had a chance to compare the Panasonic/Leica 10-25/1.7 vs the 25/1.4 and 9/1.7 primes. They are all excellent, but I felt the 10-25 was actually a little sharper at 25 than the prime lens. The only issue is that it's quite expensive and heavy(for a m4/3 lens, at least)
I think this is fair! Iv
Mainly been a zoom user myself and turn the zoom ring until it’s good to go but primes for sure imo provide that perspective that needs to be understood and appreciated. Iv done one studio shoot and swapped between 4 lenses one was a macro but id need more bodies to soley use primes in that situation
I shoot events and zoom lenses are so convenient. A pair of zoom lenses cater for all my needs while keeping the weight of my carry-bag down.
I've backed zooms for 40 years and never regretted it. Many reasons, despite maybe the loss of pixel peeping IQ and max aperture of F4 or so.
Currently have RF24-240 and RF100-400. They are excellent IQ for the money. Well great regardless. In camera lens correction for jpegs is the key! Even affordable tor APS-C bodies with the option to go FF later on! Don't rate them on CRAW.
Tamron and Sigma make great zooms as well. Sigma now licensed for Canon R series mount.
Bokeh is over-rated. Regardless, you don't need a F1.8 portrait lens to create it! True!
I'm at the point where I don't touch my primes. I love the versatility of the zoom lenses. Now I do shoot primarily sports and the zoom is king for me. We obviously can't get as close as we want so having a zoom is helpful especially when the action gets closer. When I do portraits I typically use my Nikon 24-70 2.8 and it produces great quality images especially with studio lighting.
For my portrait work my EF 70-200 2.8L ii lives on my camera, it’s a beast of a lens and saves going to the gym but it covers 75% of the focal lengths I need and saves swapping lenses all the time.
All good points, but there's still room for other approaches. I do a lot of videos of basically static people with the back wall not all that far away. If I'm going to get any subject separation I want the widest aperture I can get my hands on. Also most of the time I'm working with very similar dimensions all round so one single prime will do me for the majority of jobs.
I cover a lot of events, and I’ve noticed that I use my zoom lens almost exclusively at its extreme ends, either fully zoomed in or out. I’ve simply grown so accustomed to the look of, for example, 200mm, that I treat it like a prime lens with the added flexibility to adjust quickly if something moves closer.
My go-to setup is a dual-camera system: one with a 70-200mm lens and a second with a 35mm or 50mm lens, depending on the situation. Additionally, fast lenses with focal lengths of 50mm or below are very affordable, so I don’t have to worry about having a backup stored in my car.
I have been a keen amateur photographer since the mid 1980s. Primes vs. Zooms has been a passionate debate over much of that time. When I was younger I really liked the versatility of zooms, even though back then the quality wasn't supposed to be all that. But I really wasn't printing big, so they were fine for my use.
My first lens, and only lens for a long time, was the nifty fifty, which I grew to hate. I hated it because I felt that it was never wide enough, and never long enough. It was always the wrong lens.
Over the last decade or so since full frame sensors have become affordable to hobby photographers, and I am in a better position financially, I have amassed what I would consider a full photographic kit. My kit includes zooms covering everything from 17mm all the way to 300mm, which hits almost all that I would ever want to do, without the need to carry the monster lenses. I also had a 35mm prime left over from previous kits, and I bought 50mm f/1.8 for very cheap, and a 105mm Sigma macro lens (which I love).
Anyway, now that I have a complete kit, the 50mm which I previously hated starts to make sense. Recently I have been leaving the heavy zooms behind and just going around town with my three prime lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 105mm, in a small bag. I am leaving the big zooms (most f/2.8) behind not because of the weight, but because it makes people around me uncomfortable with the "professional equipment". So I have been going out with the three small primes, two of which are tiny, and people are not so intimidated anymore when I photograph around them. Presumably they don't feel intimidated with the small kit, so they relax, which makes going around an urban setting so much more enjoyable. Finally I am even starting to really love the nifty fifty for its compact size, wide aperture and natural field of view.
For the occasions where size is irrelevant I will continue to carry my big zooms. I don't mind the weight at all, and they really do make superb lenses these days. But for walking about town, a small kit is more inconspicuous.
So these days, at least for me, image quality is no longer the driving reason for using primes. I can print massive picture from both, and indeed have some big prints from my zooms on my walls, which look superb. But I am still choosing to go out with primes for reasons other than purely for image quality reasons.
And yes, when I take my primes out, the main lens of choice most of the time, is that darn nifty fifty!
I feel like my 28-105 F4 is my most handy lens, but nothing beats the 40mm 2.8 for the sharpness and weight combo.. even if I use a big camera, it's just a perfect normal lens for pictures as I see them. I think F4 zooms plus a prime normal or portrait/macro lens depending on your style of work. And maybe a big telephoto if you do wildlife. But the 28 50 135 of yesterday is a 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 F4 trio, imo. ~600 for wildlife.
I mostly shoot weddings, corporate events, family photos, school sports portraits, in which case I almost always use zooms. Most of my primes sit in my bag untouched and neglected.
I love zoom lenses. The standard on my camera is a zoom lens (the absolutely fantastic Tamron 35-150 F2-F2.8). That said, wow do I disagree with you.
Bokeh is not done. For an extreme example, look at the F mount Nikon 85mm F1.8 - the old one with the aperture ring. For a REALLY extreme example, look a one of the reflector telephotos with the donut bokeh.
Next up is the straight physics of it. All things being equal, the in-focus part of your shot with capture detail better at faster apertures.
You have a workflow that works for you, knock yourself out. I am not kicking my primes to the curb even if I mostly shoot zooms.
When my primary cameras were micro 4/3 I needed primes in lower light but the actual best lens I owned was a 12-40mm f2.8.
Agree with you totally, wish more people would be on board with this
There is in-camera lens correction manufacturers now use to help their lens performance.
One of the elephants in the room not being discussed much is how mirrorless has allowed manufacturers to re-design lenses without having to worry about a mirror box anymore. Leica M-series lenses weren't (aren't) only better because "they were better," they were better because of the reduced distance between rear element and film plain. Now mirrorless camera manufacturers have gained that advantage too. They've also largely done away with anti-aliasing filters for even greater sharpness (at the expense of higher risk of moire).
For the last few years I've been using primes on my Lumix S5, and it was great except I was having to change lenses a lot. I recently bought the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN II Art, and although I wouldn't go near an architectural job with it, the quality is pretty stunning. I still prefer to use primes for that reason of knowing what you'll see as you lift the camera to your eye, but I lose nothing in sharpness with the Sigma, even wide open (albeit I lose a stop of light).
As for bokeh, bokeh can get in the bin. It was always ridiculous to be discussing the out-of-focus areas of a photo. Just another way to discuss photography without discussing subject, content, intent or meaning.
I was a "Primes only" shooter for years until I switched from a Sony A6500 to the Sony A7IV and bought the Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM II. I'm not sure what magic they're using but the G Master second generation zooms with Sony are 100% prime level quality. I still use my 35mm F1.4 GM, but their "holy trinity" of zooms rival everyone else's prime lenses IMO.