which do you use- fixed or zoom lenses

[Fat Boy]

Hello photo people,

I would like to know from the more expierienced whenther you use fixed lenses or zooms. I used to use zooms when I was in the Canon systen but when I went to Nikon I went all fixed. I now have a F100 and am going to zooms again. Do you find that the zooms are the same quality as the fixed? I'm talking the pro type lenses.

I await your responces,

Thanks,

Fat Boy

[Michael Fanelli]

Hello photo people,

I would like to know from the more expierienced whenther you use fixed lenses or zooms. I used to use zooms when I was in the Canon systen but when I went to Nikon I went all fixed. I now have a F100 and am going to zooms again. Do you find that the zooms are the same quality as the fixed? I'm talking the pro type lenses.

I have 3 primes (20mm, 50mm, 90mm macro) and two zooms. The zooms do most of the heavy lifting.

Although zooms can't exactly match the quality of primes, the difference is so small as to be irrelevent in most cases.

[photoguy2004]

The question wheather to use fixed or zoom lenses. Well, I think that can be debated but in my honest opinion, It's my belief that fixed (fast) lenses are the only way to go. Don't get me wrong, you can still get outstanding quality photos from zoom lenses. It depends on what your shooting and your budget. If your shooting landscapes and have a sturdy tripod and don't have a big budget for lenses, then zooms will do the trick and think you will be very happy with the outcome. If your shooting sports on the other hand, Fixed (FAST) lenses are the only way to go.

[Asylum Steve]

If, in fact, you're the one and only Fat Boy from the old site...

Michael's comments about lens selection reflect the way a lot of pros work now, too. It's not so much an either/or as much as a combination of the two...

For the longest time, I was strickly a prime shooter. Images of my models and portrait subjects could be easily divided between full, wide, and tight shots. I had accumulated a decent assortment of lens lengths, and switching lenses during a shoot was no big deal.

Well, when I switched from the Canon F1 to the EOS line, I needed new lenses. It was around this time that I began to rethink the whole zoom-prime thing, and whether I was just being stubborn insisting on primes only.

Still, it wasn't until I went digital with the 10D that I got my first zoom, a wide angle one. It just made sense for a number of reasons. One, as Michael says, the quality is so close now, any difference is non existent for anything but maybe technical photography. Two, the zoom really does make changing the framing of a subject much less of a chore, and so makes my shooting much more responsive to what I see in the moment. And three, with a digital sensor, the fewer time I have to change lenses, the less chance of dust and crud making its way into the camera body.

I still use primes in the critical 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm focal lengths. So, as soon as I add a good tele zoom, I think I'll have most everything covered...

Hello photo people,

I would like to know from the more expierienced whenther you use fixed lenses or zooms. I used to use zooms when I was in the Canon systen but when I went to Nikon I went all fixed. I now have a F100 and am going to zooms again. Do you find that the zooms are the same quality as the fixed? I'm talking the pro type lenses.

I await your responces,

Thanks,

Fat Boy

[Jeff82]

I use both, but still prefer primes. My favorites prime lenses are a Nikkor 60mm macro lens, and a Nikkor 180 2.8. My one and only zoom is a Nikkor 28-105, which I also really like. It's not so much an issue of zooms versus primes as much as it's a matter eventually working down to the few lenses that I really like to carry around and use. Also, since I shoot a lot of macro photography, there are few truly macro zooms. For me it also comes down to a weight and bulk issue. I like the better consumer zooms in preference to the larger, more expensive and heavier pro zooms at lesser focal lengths, and then prefer primes to zooms at longer focal lengths. It's purely a matter of personal preference. I think the image quality differences are minimal.

--Jeff

[Ronnoco]

Hello photo people,

I would like to know from the more expierienced whenther you use fixed lenses or zooms. I used to use zooms when I was in the Canon systen but when I went to Nikon I went all fixed. I now have a F100 and am going to zooms again. Do you find that the zooms are the same quality as the fixed? I'm talking the pro type lenses.

I await your responces,

Thanks,

Fat Boy

Well, zoom lenses have more glass in them, and tend to be longer which adds a whole series of problems...light transmission to corners, glass and barrel distortion, flare, internal reflections, precision placement of lens elements from the interior of the camera where the film sits,...to mention just a few. Minor variations from perfection in all these areas leads to a loss in quality. Zoom lenses also tend to be slower in terms of f stop and require more light.

So the zooms are not the same quality, simply because they have more technical problems to deal with and therefore have to compromise in some areas. If you look at tech. specs, you will find that different zooms are set to work best at certain f stops.
In other words, the quality might be great at f 8 for example, but technical compromises are made at f 4 or f 5.6 The same is certainly true for fixed lenses as well, but the quality variations are not quite as great.

Despite all this, it really comes down to the fact that the convenience of zoom lenses permits a photographer to get some shots that he/she would miss, by having to change fixed lenses. Framing is much, more precise because it can be done faster with a zoom lens. On the other hand in low light, a very fast fixed lens can get a shot that would be impossible with a slower zoom.

I use both.

Ronnoco

[Sebastian]

Talk to anyone who has shot extensively with both, and 80% of them will say use pro zooms, the rest will be stubbornly defending primes. Primes have their place. A comparable prime will be smaller and lighter, but will NOT guarantee better results. I did some research into the 200mm f/2.8L comapred to the 70-200 f/2.8L and everyone that's used both said at 200mm, wide open, there was almost no difference, and once you stop down it sompletely disappears.

Pro zooms are so close, most people can't tell them apart. My Nikon 80-200 was just as crisp as my 85mm f/1.8, and my 70-200 L is even sharper. Technology keeps improving, get whatever will guarantee you your shot, don't get hung up on differences that almost require machines to detect.

EDIT: The 80% number is just made up, suffice to say most pros use zooms with the exception of long glass for sports in the 400 f/2.8 and up range. Although zooms exist in those ranges as well, the new Sigma for example is supposed to be excellent.

[racingpinarello]

I have used both, and cannot tell a difference between quality. Using my Nikon 17-35 vs my Nikon 24mm or Nikon 28mm, they both delivered amazing results. My reason for using primes is the weight, and my personal style of shooting.

I use my 28mm lens for 90% of street use. I use my 24mm for 90% of landscape use. I like those lenses a lot. This is my travel photography kit, and with my Mamiya 7 with a wide angle lense, it is all that I need.

Now..when I go to Canon (pre-ordered my Canon 1d mk2 today) I will use zooms zooms zooms. This is my sports, local travel, and lifestyle camera. Zooms are very convenient for framing and saving time.

Whatever lens you get, just get good quality glass in either a zoom or a prime. Both deliver pro results.

Loren

[Liz]

I've used both zooms and primes. I recycled my lenses when I purchased the Rebel 300D. Presently I have one zoom - the Canon 28-135 IS. The rest are primes: Canon 20mm/f2.8, 50mm/f1.4, Canon 85mm/f1.8; and my only "L" lens, Canon 200mm/f2.8.

These are all my favorites, although I will say I use the 50mm probably more than the rest for various reasons - one being the fact it is lighter so I take it when I go into the City, and use it more on vacation, or when I want to travel lighter. I used the IS lens more with 35mm camera. I really don't know why, except I seem to prefer the primes since I sold the rest of my zooms.

Liz

Hello photo people,

I would like to know from the more expierienced whenther you use fixed lenses or zooms. I used to use zooms when I was in the Canon systen but when I went to Nikon I went all fixed. I now have a F100 and am going to zooms again. Do you find that the zooms are the same quality as the fixed? I'm talking the pro type lenses.

I await your responces,

Thanks,

Fat Boy

[another view]

Which one? Both.

I usually go for the zooms unless there's a reason I want a prime. Low light can do it - an 80-200 2.8 weighs over 3 lbs and is a lot more to hand hold than my 85 1.4 at the same aperture - plus I've got two extra stops to work with. Zooms are nice, especially on DSLR's because every time you change lenses you have a chance of getting dust on the sensor.

[kkraczek]

This is very interesting to me, as my photo class instructor has delivered several lectures on the advantages of prime lenses. I have just gotten into photography myself, and had been considering a 28-135 lens when my instructor basically talked me out of it. I do prefer shooting in lower light situations, so I can see the advantage of the faster prime lens. But is it really worth it? Now I'm not so sure.... help! P.S. I also like taking nature shots, and had my heart set on the Canon 200mmL 2.8. Is there a comparable alternative in a zoom lens that won't sacrifice quality? Unfortunately, $1000.00 for a lens is pretty much out of the question as well...

[Sebastian]

This is very interesting to me, as my photo class instructor has delivered several lectures on the advantages of prime lenses. I have just gotten into photography myself, and had been considering a 28-135 lens when my instructor basically talked me out of it. I do prefer shooting in lower light situations, so I can see the advantage of the faster prime lens. But is it really worth it? Now I'm not so sure.... help! P.S. I also like taking nature shots, and had my heart set on the Canon 200mmL 2.8. Is there a comparable alternative in a zoom lens that won't sacrifice quality? Unfortunately, $1000.00 for a lens is pretty much out of the question as well...

Well, the only 200mm zoom that compares to the 200 prime is the 70-200. Not from experience, but from what I was told by owners of both. I suggest you look into the Sigma, Tokina and Tamron offerings in the 70-200 2.8 range. They are very good alternatives at somewhat more reasonable prices.

The reason he talked you our of the 28-135 is probably due to its small aperture. The prime is much larger glass, making it better in low light.