Prime vs Zoom - what's your pick?

[Kermit power]

Evening all,

As I look to upgrade to full frame, I'm pondering which lenses to go for.

I've got a Sigma 150-600 with 1.4x TC which I expect I'll stick with just because of the size and weight of carrying multiple telephoto primes, but for shorter lengths, I'd much prefer to build up a collection of primes.

I'll definitely be buying a fast 50mm, as I've made a lot of use of my 28mm on a crop body, and will probably look for a used 20mm as well.

Would I miss the flexibility of a 28-70mm or similar? I'm inclined to think I won't now that I'm no longer having to fit shots around impatient toddlers!

What do others think?

[singlecoil]

I think only you can say which would work best for you. When I had a full frame camera I had a 24-70, a 70-200 and a 2x convertor. Never felt the need for a prime but that was me, not you.

[Simpo Two]

Unless you need the faster speed of primes I think you'd just be slowing yourself down and have more to carry around.

[DIW35]

A fast 85mm is nice for portraits on full frame.

[Kermit power]

Simpo Two said:

Unless you need the faster speed of primes I think you'd just be slowing yourself down and have more to carry around.

It may just be because I've never spent 4 figures on a lens, but I've always found image quality to be better with primes by a sufficient margin to justify it, at least with shorter lenses. I certainly wouldn't lug around multiple primes over 100mm, and only have that one because it's a macro lens.

[singlecoil]

Kermit power said:

It may just be because I've never spent 4 figures on a lens, but I've always found image quality to be better with primes by a sufficient margin to justify it, at least with shorter lenses. I certainly wouldn't lug around multiple primes over 100mm, and only have that one because it's a macro lens.

I can well imagine that the cheaper zooms would disappoint. The Canon L series don't.

[tog]

35mm, 85mm and 135mm cover most things for me. I have zooms as well, but prefer using primes unless I really need the flexibility of a zoom. The 135mm I use in preference to a 70-200 almost all the time as it is small, light and fast. I have a wide zoom, but I'd really like to add a 24mm prime, or maybe a 20mm.

I would add that I have good L-lens zooms, so I use primes chiefly because I prefer the simplicity of working with them (and for the wider apertures) rather than for any perceived quality benefit.

Edited by tog on Sunday 16th January 23:02

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

I think only you can say which would work best for you. When I had a full frame camera I had a 24-70, a 70-200 and a 2x convertor. Never felt the need for a prime but that was me, not you.

This, if they are L series (which SC says he had). There’s an improvement to be had using primes but if you are outside shooting different things the versatility of these two L zooms makes up for the marginal gain from using a bag of primes.

For indoor portraiture, a fast 85mm prime is a great choice, but you can still get great portraits with either of those zooms at the 70mm end of their range.

[sociopath]

I have 24x70, 28x300 16x35 and 70x200 L lenses

I also have 50, and 100 primes.

I very rarely take anything out except the 24x70 (or 28x300 if I want the extra zoom), the quality is exceptional and I don't think I've ever wished I had a prime instead. In fact I could have saved a fortune if I'd only bought that lens, and probably not missed a single shot

[Kermit power]

That's almost exactly the list I've been considering!

I'm thinking maybe the 28-70 L f4 might be worth getting second hand. Between the IS on the lens and the IS in body, I can't imagine ever needing the 2.8 to avoid shake, and could use 28mm or 50mm primes if I want it for DoF.

Either way, until RF lenses get more sensibly priced, used EF L glass seems the logical choice.

I might also need a 70-200 for shooting things like my son's rugby, as my 150-600 is just too heavy for that!

[Simpo Two]

Kermit power said:

I might also need a 70-200 for shooting things like my son's rugby, as my 150-600 is just too heavy for that!

Remember that if you're going to FF you lose about a third of the 'range'. To get the same FOV as a 200mm lens you'll need about a 300mm lens.

[DavidY]

Kermit power said:

That's almost exactly the list I've been considering!

I'm thinking maybe the 28-70 L f4 might be worth getting second hand. Between the IS on the lens and the IS in body, I can't imagine ever needing the 2.8 to avoid shake, and could use 28mm or 50mm primes if I want it for DoF.

Either way, until RF lenses get more sensibly priced, used EF L glass seems the logical choice.

I might also need a 70-200 for shooting things like my son's rugby, as my 150-600 is just too heavy for that!

Tamron 24-70 F2.8 Di VC USD SP can be had fo similar money to Canon 24-70 F4L - my step daughter bought a s/h one from LCE with warranty for £375, it was in excellent condition (boxed with all paperwork). She uses it to great effect on an R6 with EF adapter. SO F2.8 can be had without breaking the bank.

[tog]

Kermit power said:

Either way, until RF lenses get more sensibly priced, used EF L glass seems the logical choice.

The non-L RF primes seem pretty reasonably priced, by Canon's standards. I'm using the R5 only with EF lenses and they all work very well.

[sociopath]

Kermit power said:

That's almost exactly the list I've been considering!

I'm thinking maybe the 28-70 L f4 might be worth getting second hand. Between the IS on the lens and the IS in body, I can't imagine ever needing the 2.8 to avoid shake, and could use 28mm or 50mm primes if I want it for DoF.

Either way, until RF lenses get more sensibly priced, used EF L glass seems the logical choice.

I might also need a 70-200 for shooting things like my son's rugby, as my 150-600 is just too heavy for that!

Just remembered I don't have my 70-200 anymore, I never used it as it wasn't powerful enough for decent sport photos.

Re the 24-70, you might not use the f2.8, but it will still be a lot sharper at f4 than the f4 version will be itself. Depends whether you can justify the cost or not.
I used to be a wedding photographer part time so that was my go to lens. The 28-300 was my sport lens. Everything else was just spares tbh

[Derek Smith]

Back in the days of 35mm, I found a second-hand 85mm prime for sale locally. I had three zoom lenses. I used to illustrate magazine articles and the 85mm soon became the go-to choice for the majority of images; one might say, the prime lens.

A lot of my shots were taken indoors and occasionally undercover. I had a manual flash, and using the prime lens meant much simpler calculation.

As someone said, whether a prime lens is for you depends on what your needs are. I can't justify the cost for my current usage.

[Simpo Two]

Derek Smith said:

A lot of my shots were taken indoors and occasionally undercover. I had a manual flash, and using the prime lens meant much simpler calculation.

Using flash when undercover would seem inadvisable... you never caught the Bodie & Doyle doing it...

[anonymous-user]

Kermit power said:

I might also need a 70-200 for shooting things like my son's rugby, as my 150-600 is just too heavy for that!

At the risk of looking like “that guy”, use a monopod with the 150-600 and you’ll never look back.

[Kermit power]

BlackWidow13 said:

Kermit power said:

I might also need a 70-200 for shooting things like my son's rugby, as my 150-600 is just too heavy for that!

At the risk of looking like “that guy”, use a monopod with the 150-600 and you’ll never look back.

I have done just that. Actually the bigger issue thinking back was the number of times that 150mm was too long, but of course going to FF will change that significantly.

[BrokenSkunk]

What about enjoyment?
I carry a couple of old manual primes just for fun. A 28mm f2.8 and a 50mm f1.7. I'm on Micro 4/3, so double the focal lengths for full frame equivalent.

I don't "need" either.In the bag is also a 14-140mm. But it's fun to chuck an old lens on and work with it's constraints.

I guess it's about whether you see the camera as a tool or a toy.

[Dr Jekyll]

When do you really notice the quality difference? Will it show on a laptop screen or a print without extra enlargement?