Fred255 opened this issue on Aug 04, 2009 · 32 posts
Meowgli posted Wed, 05 August 2009 at 4:17 AM
Interesting thread... I suppose common wisdom dictates that at any given focal length a prime of comparable price will usually outperform a zoom.. so if we're talking absolute quality of image, it's gotta be primes every time. There ARE good zooms out there (of which I own a couple) which do the job over 90% as well and add a whole degree of convenience... and I think that's really the tradeoff - convenience vs. constant lens-changing (risking allowing dust onto the sensor) in the name of slightly better image quality. I would say, if you're buying lenses mainly for studio work where you have the time to set everything up "just so" then go with primes... time isn't of the essence and you can readjust as needed. I find zooms invaluable when on the move though..
I have spent a good deal of time using the Tamron 28-300 VR, a lens designed as a kind of "all in one" lens solution, and though you do make some sacrifices in terms of absolute image quality (AF could also be improved), the convenience of not changing lenses makes it a perfect travel companion, and you're far more likely to nail those split-moment opportunistic shots than if you're fannying about switching lenses the whole time. Better to have to spend 10 mins in photoshop correcting the shot than to have missed it altogether....
Regarding my own gear, see my homepage for a full list...
My first experience with a prime was with the "nifty fifty" Bruce mentions, having only used the 18-55 kit lens previously. In terms of image quality, blows it out of the water. I am constantly recommending it to people still shooting with the kit lens. And it's cheaper. So with zooms you're paying for the convenience...
My latest addition is a 28-75 f/2.8 which nicely fills the gap between my 10-20 and 75-300... good walkround lens, and my firm first choice for portrait/ product/ studio photography. For getting the perfect angle on a shot it's much easier to twist the zoom ring a small amount than have to totally rearrange the tripod and refocus... in this respect it's a joy to work with compared with the 50mm, which also doesn't focus nearly as close....
Next on the list is hopefully the 70-200 f/4 L with 1.4x extender, and I'll ditch the 75-300... I think at longer focal lengths than that though, I'd be looking at going with primes.... 400mm/ 500mm etc... but those things ain't cheap!! Investing in such glass would make me really feel like I had to justify the expense, and probably wouldn't do so unless I chose to go the route of professional wildlife photographer, spending weeks in wilderness at a time - you'd just feel really really cheap if you were in the right place, right time, looking at a stunning scene, and you didn't have the equipment to do it justice....
For me then, zooms for the time being.... the convenience is a deciding factor and if you're aware of their limitations (likelihood of higher CA etc.) you can work around their small foibles.
Adam