# fixed focal vs. zoom



## 99csvtoledo (May 14, 2008)

what are the advantaged/disadvantages of fixed focal lenses and zoom lenses. im thinking bout buying a new lens with my stimulus check this is  why i ask


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 14, 2008)

It is generally accepted that fixed focal or prime lenses provide a better image quality.... prime lenses do have the more primitive zoom function consisting of your right and left leg... if you are one legged zooming is even harder using a prime...

and Zooms.... well.... they Zoom... but I'm sure you already know this...

Personally I couldn't live without zoom... but many people on this forum endorse the use of a 50mm prime as an excellent training tool...  So it really depends on what your photographic intentions are...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (May 15, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> It is generally accepted that fixed focal or prime lenses provide a better image quality.... prime lenses do have the more primitive zoom function consisting of your right and left leg... if you are one legged zooming is even harder using a prime...
> 
> and Zooms.... well.... they Zoom... but I'm sure you already know this...
> 
> Personally I couldn't live without zoom... but many people on this forum endorse the use of a 50mm prime as an excellent training tool...  So it really depends on what your photographic intentions are...




im sorry what?  zooming on a prime lens? I assume you mean focusing? =\


----------



## Battou (May 15, 2008)

prodigy2k7 said:


> im sorry what?  zooming on a prime lens? I assume you mean focusing? =\



No.... He means walking towards or away from the target.




I am one of those people who will endorse the prime lens, Thay are better, you just have to walk a little more or change lenses. Of sixteen changeable lenses in my collection only two are zooms.

There are a few users around here who should be able to better explain exactly how they stack up to each other than I ever could, so I'll leave it to them.


----------



## SBlanca (May 15, 2008)

to be honest im actually looking into this now (past few days) all i can say is that really a zoom sounds like a better deal than a prime....for me zoom gives you what a prime does and more because of the zoom function...but if you guys say that a prime has better image quality.......

i dunno, maybe someone could say what the advantages of prime are over zoom, would be great to know


----------



## Josh66 (May 15, 2008)

I'm not an expert or anything, and I know there are a lot of other threads about this - so a quick search of the forums will turn up more information than I can tell you.  (Maybe...  I tried searching "prime vs. zoom" - not a single result came up.  I know there's threads on that out there though.)

I personally prefer primes, although there are situations where a zoom is just more convenient.  Primes are typically faster than zooms, so if you plan on using available light a lot that could be something to consider.


----------



## asfixiate (May 15, 2008)

Once I'm where I want to be skill wise as well as equipment wise i'm probably going to at all times keep a 50mm, 85mm, and maybe 16-35.

Those will cover my main areas of interest and when I can only bring one lense that is easy to carry the 28-135.

whenever the shot really matters and I don't want to edit the photo really I wip out my 50mm which smokes its so fast and shoot away.

Primes for me are the way to go as for the price of one L lense I can have a few prime lenses that produce better images.


----------



## Kanikula (May 15, 2008)

Since buying a prime lens, im truley converted! That lack of a zoom was a huge benefit to my photography, forcing me to concentrate more on composition rather than being on the lazy side, feet firmly planted in one spot!

That said though, zooms have alot of versatility to them which the primes do not.


----------



## Steph (May 15, 2008)

SBlanca said:


> i dunno, maybe someone could say what the advantages of prime are over zoom, would be great to know


 
To me some advantages of prime lenses over zooms are: 

- Speed. Fast prime lenses are cheaper than fast zooms. For example, a f/1.4 50mm lens is much cheaper than a f/2.8 24-70mm zoom (2 stops slower BTW).
- Image quality (although with modern designs the difference might not be as clear as it used to be a few decades ago).
- Depth of field markings on the lens barrel of a prime lens are very convenient for hyperfocal focusing (those are inexistant on most zooms).


----------



## DWS (May 15, 2008)

they each have their place.....I love my Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 indoors, especially in low light areas where I do not want flash......outdoors, zooms come into play too, and offer increased flexibility


----------



## Village Idiot (May 15, 2008)

DWS said:


> they each have their place.....I love my Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 indoors, especially in low light areas where I do not want flash......outdoors, zooms come into play too, and offer increased flexibility


 
+1

Different tools for the job. You can get near prime quality zooms...they just usually cost over $1000, but often have other useful features (IS/VR).


----------



## SBlanca (May 15, 2008)

im almost considering giving primes a look hahaha

what im not too keen about is for example wanting to shoot something that's in a place where i can't physically get to and not being able to zoom in


----------



## Josh66 (May 15, 2008)

SBlanca said:


> im almost considering giving primes a look hahaha
> 
> what im not too keen about is for example wanting to shoot something that's in a place where i can't physically get to and not being able to zoom in


In MY personal experience (which may be much different than yours), that doesn't happen a lot - and if it does I have plenty of time to change lenses.


----------



## SBlanca (May 15, 2008)

but what  I mean is not in the case of having 3 or 4 lenses, its in the case of having a 50mm only...and you see something that's a bit out of reach...with another you should be able to get it whilst with a 50mm you might not be able to and miss out on a great shot opportunity...thats what i mean..


----------



## AndrewG (May 15, 2008)

Using a prime lens of any focal length will force you to think about your composition rather than using your DSLR zoom as a glorified point and shoot camera.
Images will also be crisper and sharper than with zooms and maximum will be bigger enabling you to take pictures in situations where the light levels wouldn't suit a zoom-unless you were using a tripod.


----------



## AndrewG (May 15, 2008)

SBlanca said:


> but what I mean is not in the case of having 3 or 4 lenses, its in the case of having a 50mm only...and you see something that's a bit out of reach...with another you should be able to get it whilst with a 50mm you might not be able to and miss out on a great shot opportunity...thats what i mean..


 
You just have to work a bit harder to get that shot-it might involve walking!


----------



## ShutterGlam (Sep 19, 2009)

Well, I have the 50mm (fixed focal) and I absolutely love it for shooting portraits. It focuses in on the subject and blurs everything surrounding it. I love it and you can buy them used as cheap as $80. In my opinion every photographer should have it in their kit because it's so inexpensive and they produce a great portrait. Once I got mine it has barely left my Nikon D90. 
But....at the same time I love having the option of a zoom lens because it gives me the ability to get subjects that are farther away.


----------



## flyin-lowe (Sep 19, 2009)

What brought this back to life? I was ready to get on Google and try to figure out what this new stimulus check was all about, then I realized then thread is a year and a half old


----------



## patrickt (Sep 19, 2009)

I started shooting before zooms so I still have a soft spot for primes. That said, it's primes for superior optics and zooms for convenience. I really enjoy using my 35mm, 50mm, 77mm, and 100mm but on a day-to-day basis I normally leave home with my 17-70 zoom on the camera.

I live and shoot in a city and of course you can shoot a prime and move back and forth as you compose. But, it really isn't always practical. I got quite angry at a tourist who had a wide-angle prime on his camera so he joined the Easter Procession of Silence to take pictures. That meant no one else could take pictures with having a fat tourist in ridiculous shorts in his shot.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 19, 2009)

SBlanca said:


> but what  I mean is not in the case of having 3 or 4 lenses, its in the case of having a 50mm only...and you see something that's a bit out of reach...with another you should be able to get it whilst with a 50mm you might not be able to and miss out on a great shot opportunity...thats what i mean..



I may be a little late replying...but-

For the cost of ONE good zoom, you could buy two, or _probably_ three good primes.

Why would you _only_ have a 50mm?

I think 50, 85, and 135 would be ideal - but that's me.

It sounds like you're comparing a good prime to a crap zoom.  Primes are cheaper, that's a fact - not open for discussion.  A zoom of the same quality as a prime will cost several times more.  Not to mention that there are no (or very few, and very expensive) zooms that are as fast as the primes that are readily available.

Name one f/1.4 zoom.  Heck, even 1.8.  I don't know of any (that doesn't mean there aren't any).  2.8 is usually the fastest zoom you'll find.


----------



## bp4life71 (Sep 19, 2009)

I think professionals who work doing weddings, events etc. will have primes because the quality, as everyone states is superior.

For the other 99%, its all about convience...and a prime lense is NOT convenient. It is human nature, that if you have to go a few extra steps, then you just wont do it.

Personally, not having a zoom would be a complete Pain in the rear. If I was a pro doing portraits, then i certainly would have some primes...but guess what....99% of us are not pro and just take pictures as a hobby.

I'll be getting the 50mm 1.8 soon.  This will be the only prime that I ever own unless I find one laying on the ground or get one as a gift.  The only reason i'm getting this one is because my wife owns a daycare center (160 kids) and on holidays the children get their pictures taken with santa, easter bunny etc.

The question is this, are you trying to make money off your pictures?  If the answer is no, then the IQ between the prime and a good zoom are not going to matter.  

This is all just my opinion and not based on anything I researched.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 19, 2009)

bp4life71 said:


> ...but guess what....99% of us are not pro and just take pictures as a hobby.



...So you should settle for crappy gear?  Maybe not "crappy", but certainly not "optimal".

How much money you make from your photography shouldn't determine the quality of gear you buy...


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 19, 2009)

bp4life71 said:


> It is human nature, that if you have to go a few extra steps, then you just wont do it.



You might be lazy, but here you are implying that all humans are just as lazy as you.

Taking two or three steps is not very hard for me to do.  If you can't manage that, maybe you _should_ just stick to your zooms...


----------



## bp4life71 (Sep 20, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> bp4life71 said:
> 
> 
> > ...but guess what....99% of us are not pro and just take pictures as a hobby.
> ...


 
I didn't say you had to have crappy gear even if its just your hobby.  My meaning and intent was to say, the difference in quality for what MOST hobbyists do, ie. saving on their computer and no big prints, would not even be noticed...so is it worth the money for that 500.00 hobbyist lense as opposed to that 1500.00 lense.  That is what I was implying.

As far as your laziness post, what I was meaning is that most people would not walk that extra 50 yards to grab a shot, as most hobbyists are just taking pictures with no intent on getting that BEST shot.

Again, I would say that most people on this forum (including myself) would take the extra steps to get that photo...but reality is, the fact your on this website constantly means you are a more die-hard hobbyist.  Im talking about the general public as a whole.

Who pissed in your cornflakes by the way?


----------



## bp4life71 (Sep 20, 2009)

I'll also say this, the people on this forum have been incredibly helpful...but i'll also say, I have never been on a forum where there is also so many incredibly rude people.  I guess you have to take it with a grain of salt....or maybe thats normal for people in the photo realm.  I dont know, I'm new to this so can't say for sure, but there is ALOT of very rude people here.

Maybe mad because they can't sell their pictures after buying all that top notch equipment?  Wink!


----------



## DScience (Sep 20, 2009)

SpEEEEED!


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Sep 20, 2009)

I am a newbie but here is my two cents anyway. I just got a canon 85mm USM F 1.8 prime and love it. It is fast, it shoots better in low light, and I have a 2x kinko teleconverter if I want to make it longer. I will probably get the 50mm next, but the little use that the 85mm has gotten so far lets me know that it was a good choice.


If you want speed, low light shooting, and also sharper AF, go with the Prime. If you are worried about needing distance. You can get a teleconverter for like $70 bucks and a 50mm prime f1.8 for $99 just incase you need to bump up to 100mm and sacrifice a little.


Think of your average zoom as the old saying "Jack of all trades, king of none" It covers all of the bases but makes sacrifices to do it. A prime is a no nonsense quality lense that does one job...take good pictures, and thats all. ( well usually anyway )


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 20, 2009)

SBlanca said:


> but what  I mean is not in the case of having 3 or 4 lenses, its in the case of having a 50mm only...and you see something that's a bit out of reach...with another you should be able to get it whilst with a 50mm you might not be able to and miss out on a great shot opportunity...thats what i mean..



I see what you're saying, but the counter-argument is that what if there is very little light and/or you either are not allowed to use flash or your flash won't illuminate the subject due to distance?  At the least you can get a shot and crop it.  Ideal maybe not, but better than no image at all, or a blurry image due to a slow shutter speed.  

Both types definitely have their places, and I wouldn't give up either of my primes, nor either of my zooms... Not having to dick with the zoom function actually allows you to focus on the composition.  I've found that I notice more things in the frame(that shouldn't be there) with a prime vs. a zoom.


----------



## klikdimitri (Sep 21, 2009)

Going with prime lens or zoom lens is always a basic question for beginner, including myself.  Currently I have both zoom and prime lenses for different purposes.  If you want only 1 all-round lens then go for mid zoom lense such as 17-85mm or 18-55mm and it will serve you for most of your need.  Should your budget permit, go for 'fast lens' such as f/2.8 to enable you to shoot at low light without having to use flashlight.  I almost do not use any flashlight since I love the natural tone.
However, nor of my zoom lenses can compete the clarify, crisp and blur effect (bokeh) of my 50mm f/1.4 lens which has been my favourite lense for close up low light lens.
So, you have to decide which way to go.  As for me, I went for both.


----------



## Dao (Sep 21, 2009)

bp4life71 said:


> I'll be getting the 50mm 1.8 soon.  This will be the only prime that I ever own unless I find one laying on the ground or get one as a gift.




Once you get a fast prime lens, your decision may change.

Fast prime lenses are fun to play with (of course, I am not a pro). And they usually cost less than a good quality zoom lens.


----------



## Battou (Sep 21, 2009)

bp4life71 said:


> For the other 99%, its all about convience...and a prime lense is NOT convenient. It is human nature, that if you have to go a few extra steps, then you just wont do it.
> 
> Personally, not having a zoom would be a complete Pain in the rear. If I was a pro doing portraits, then i certainly would have some primes...but guess what....99% of us are not pro and just take pictures as a hobby.



I'm a hobby shooter...My primary shooting equipment consists of twenty one primes and three zooms, two of those zooms never get used. The point of a hobby is to ocupy ones spare time...just how efficent of a time ocupier is it when the hobbiest is relying on the convienience of stationary photography?


----------



## YoMoe (Feb 10, 2010)

This thread has been so helpful. Thank you!


----------

