Prime or Zoom lenses on your DSLR?

[photophorous]

Hi Everyone,

If you use prime lenses on your DSLR, please let us know why, what for, and how you think they compare to current model zoom lenses.

For many years now, zoom lenses have been accepted as a high quality alternative to primes. As DSLRs took over the market, all the camera mfgs started making digitally optimized zoom lenses, but there are very few digitally optimized prime lenses. So, I'm wondering how yesterday's prime lenses stack up against today's zoom lenses. Are the digitally optimized zooms better, equal, or is it still a slight trade-off of picture quality for convenience?

Thanks,
Paul

[another view]

As a former DSLR owner I generally used zooms. I'd use fast primes when f2.8 wasn't fast enough but preferred to use zooms because any time you change a lens on a DSLR is a chance for getting dust on the sensor. I have an 80-200 f2.8 Nikon and a Sigma 10-20 and (had) a Tokina 28-80 f2.8. All are great lenses, especially the Nikon and the Tokina (although the reviews here on it wouldn't lead you to believe it). The Sigma is no slouch either, and the image quality is very impressive for a 10-20mm lens that's as small and inexpensive as it is.

The only lens I had problems with on my DSLR was the Nikon 20-35 f2.8. That was a very expensive professional lens when it came out (but I got mine used). It never was as good with film as my 20mm f2.8 prime but still good enough that I sold the 20mm. On digital, the main problem of course was that it wasn't wide anymore but image quality just wasn't there either. The Sigma 10-20 took care of all of that. Fun lens!

[mjs1973]

I shoot a combo of both zooms and primes, but most of the time it's a zoom. My primes are the 50mm f/1.8. I use this lens when I want a sharp, light weight lens, or if I need more speed in low light situations. My other prime is a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. I use this lens mostly for macro shots. I have also used it for shooting some football and baseball because it's my longest f/2.8 lens. My zooms are either way to wide, or way too slow for shooting sports.

[jeffp]

digitally optimized doesnt mean anything other than they project a smaller image circle, so the lens itself can be smaller. other than that, theyre still the same as yesteryear's zooms. each still has their own pros and cons, and each has their place to be used. there arent many (if any? ive never seen one) digitally optimized primes because they are already really small, and there would be no advantage to making them lighter by redoing the design to throw a smaller image circle.

[photophorous]

digitally optimized doesnt mean anything other than they project a smaller image circle, so the lens itself can be smaller. other than that, theyre still the same as yesteryear's zooms. each still has their own pros and cons, and each has their place to be used. there arent many (if any? ive never seen one) digitally optimized primes because they are already really small, and there would be no advantage to making them lighter by redoing the design to throw a smaller image circle.

I've read that digital sensors are more demanding in terms or sharpness and micro-contrast than film is, although I don't really understand why. This lead me to believe that either the digitally optimized zooms have to be better than their film counterparts, or that the older designs of the prime lenses wouldn't perform as well on a DSLR, thus minimizing any advantages they had with film. I thought there were also some differences in lens coatings, but I'm not sure. It just seems like since digital took over, less people use primes, and I'm wondering why.

Sigma makes a 30mm f1.8 lens for DSLRs, to replace the 50mm "normal" in film usage. There may be others from 3rd parties, but that's the only one I know of.

Paul

[jeffp]

I've read that digital sensors are more demanding in terms or sharpness and micro-contrast than film is, although I don't really understand why. This lead me to believe that either the digitally optimized zooms have to be better than their film counterparts, or that the older designs of the prime lenses wouldn't perform as well on a DSLR, thus minimizing any advantages they had with film. I thought there were also some differences in lens coatings, but I'm not sure. It just seems like since digital took over, less people use primes, and I'm wondering why.

Sigma makes a 30mm f1.8 lens for DSLRs, to replace the 50mm "normal" in film usage. There may be others from 3rd parties, but that's the only one I know of.

Paul

the "digitally optimized coatings" is more snake oil than anything. it does the same thing as coatings on older lenses from everything ive seen, used, and read. ive had prints from 35mm and my dslr from the same lens and the contrast and whatnot from each were not noticeably different.

with the coming of digital, many more people have gotten into photography, or at least bought DSLRs, because its free after the initial cost, unlike film. alot more people find it to be worthwhile when they dont have to keep buying and developing film. zoom lenses are just more convenient, and most people dont even replace their kit lens.

it seems the digitally optimized primes just cut down more on weight by removing the aperture ring and shrinking the image circle and as you said, made in a focal length that might not have been that popular back in the days of 35mm.

[Loupey]

...It just seems like since digital took over, less people use primes, and I'm wondering why.

I think jeffp hit the nail on the head by stating that more people are getting into photography. I can't count how many times I hear people, with obviously minimal knowledge of photography, asking the salemen, "will this help me photograph fill in the blank?" In an age when convenience and instant gratification are king, the zooms fit the need nicely. With so many consumers coming on-line, the zooms dominate the lens market with new buyers especially.

I've always used primes. But when I finally got serious with digital, I started with 3 zooms. Having nothing to compare them to, I thought their performance was OK - definitely not earth shattering. So I started buying primes again, and I'm back to using primes nearly all the time. Even the non-L primes outperform my L-zooms in every way except, of course, zooming.

Lens designers must find the best compromise for the range of focal lengths they are covering. This compromise will always be that - a compromise. It will never be on par with a design that is optimized for one specific focal length. Sure newer materials and coatings will continue to make this gap in performance narrower to a point that "close" may become "close enough" that no one can tell the difference except in the largest of enlargements. But we're not there yet.

I do use my zooms once in a while. But typically when I'm doing something when I don't need the highest performance - kids' birthdays, general family stuff, walking around when photography isn't the main concern - images you know you aren't going to be making a 16" x 20" print of. So it just depends on the need.

[SmartWombat]

I do use my zooms once in a while ... images you know you aren't going to be making a 16" x 20" print of.

But I have to argue here, your blanket statement about 16x20 and zoom really isn't true.
With my 24-70 L f/2.8 and the 1DSmkII I was able to produce 20x30 prints, no problem.

I have to admit that each was tweaked in Lightroom to remove colour fringe, sharpening and colour was adjusted, and a few spots removed. But I do that no matter what zoom lens I use.
OK I cheated and sent them out to Snapfish during their 50% special one day offer

[deckcadet]

the "digitally optimized coatings" is more snake oil than anything. it does the same thing as coatings on older lenses from everything ive seen, used, and read. ive had prints from 35mm and my dslr from the same lens and the contrast and whatnot from each were not noticeably different.

Technically, digitally optimized coatings are designed to do one thing: reduce reflections on the rear element. The problem lies with the low pass filter on top of the sensor, which can reflect stray light back on to the rear element of the lens. This can then cause additional lens flare.

The thing is, even some lenses that aren't "DX" or "EF-S" or "DC/DI-II" have been at getting basic optimizations for digital cameras since at least 1999...so the latest generation of a lot of these lenses have some improvements built in.

[deckcadet]

As far as my own practices go, I currently own 2 zooms and 6 primes. Don't get all happy, prime people, I only use 2 or 3 of the primes very often and I'm currently short one of my usual ranges of zoom.

I'm quite fond of primes and they have a lot to offer. Many of today's zooms are good enough to beat a ton of modern primes, though, so my only modern primes are my long telephoto and two fast Voigtlander SL manual focus lenses. The rest are all 20+ year old lenses.

I'm not buying any more primes unless they're brand new designs from this point out, with technologies designed to cut down on flare, speed up AF, and reduce color aberrations. Unfortunately these are the weaknesses of a lot of primes, in particular fast primes, which is where my interests lie.

[photophorous]

Thank you all for commenting. The poll results are coming along pretty much the way I expected, and from the discussions taking place here, it sounds like digital has not really changed the zoom vs. prime debate.

Paul

[cyberlord]

I find my OEM primes are way sharper than the OEM kit and 3rd party zooms. But zooms have there place especially if they are good ones.