Prime Lenses Are Becoming Less and Less Relevant

[West Coast Birder]

Provocative article on FStoppers.... (link at the bottom):

I understand that zoom lenses have come a long way over the years. Now, we've got some zooms that have pretty small constant apertures, like Canon's 28-70 F/2 while still having very high optical quality. I get the advantage and convenience of a zoom and it is probably the answer for most people, but I'm not sure I'm on board with the notion that they can replace a F/1.2 or F/1.4 prime. There's something about the quality you get from those kinds of glass that just jumps off the page.

Anyway, the article is here:

Prime Lenses Are Becoming Less and Less Relevant | Fstoppers

Think prime lenses are still unbeatable? Think again—modern zooms are challenging everything we once believed about the best lenses.

fstoppers.com

 

[DeniseGoldberg]

Thanks for the link to the article, very interesting.

The only prime lens I have is an 80mm F/2.8 macro. I don't see a zoom replacing it.

 

[paddler4]

I think this has been true for a long time. Unless you have a specialized need (like Denise, I do macro, and true macro lenses are primes), I don't see a reason to carry primes. Other than a macro, my only prime is a nifty that I bought because I was shooting in a hospital and wanted the f/1.8. I think I've used it two or three times in the last 6 years.

 

[Kuma5]

At the end of the day to me it was nit picking. Most viewers seldom saw what the creator did when editing the image to even know. Granted there are those with keen visual acuity that can pick out subtle areas. I shot tons with the EF 100L that I could generally spot those images from others. As far as detecting which lens among Nikon, Fuji or Sony, I could not so if that means the differences from prime and zoom, the manufacturers succeeded.

On another realm it is like the mechanic wrenching using a combi wrench or ratchet socket. Did it really matter how the fastener was loosened? Maybe I'm just not that overly critical so long as the image pleased the client and myself in the day.

 

[Mr Chodes]

I don't think the general idea is new.
The Sigma 18-35 1.8 was released in 2013. Their 24-35 f2 was 2015.
The Canon 100-300 2.8 was mentioned, Sigma 120-300 2.8 was a 2005 release.

"Modern zooms are still heavy, but primes have also grown in the quest to produce competitively priced third-party options. Large-aperture primes can be hefty, so if you stack multiple primes, you might end up carrying more total weight than one or two zooms."

That can be true. It can also be false. Both Canon and Sony make 70-200 2.8s which are definitely not heavy. I'd say they're remarkably light weight.
Sigma have made some 'hefty' primes but their 50 1.2 is 745g, compared to Canons 950g.

Then there is Samyang 45 1.8 at 162g!

What I think are becoming less relevant are boxes. ie, Zoom boxes and prime boxes.
There are lenses. They have a broad range of characteristics.

I suppose just saying 'zooms have been improving for at least 10 years and will probably continue to do so' won't generate any income.

 

[Joeseph]

I've yet to see anything from a zoom that resembles an EF 85mm f/1.2 (or RF equivalent)

 

[paddler4]

I've yet to see anything from a zoom that resembles an EF 85mm f/1.2 (or RF equivalent)

True, if one wants really fast glass, that's a reason to look at primes. I have zero interest in f/1.2.

In terms of quality, I doubt many if any people viewing a print from an image made with that lens and an EF 70-200 f/f II at, say, f/4.5 would be able to tell the difference

 

[Scott M]

I use prime lenses more as a small, light weight complement to my larger, heavier zoom lenses. The RF 16mm f/2.8 is a nice wide angle complement to the RF 24-105L on the R62. The RF 28mm f/2.8 pancake is a nice faster lens complement to the RF-S 18-150mm lens on R10 for light weight travel. The RF 50mm f/1.8 works well for me as a small, fast indoor lens on the R62 during family events.

 

[Sincity]

I see primes still making a difference.. Take the Canon RF 70-200 zoom with18 lens elements in 15 groups. And then a prime Nikon F 180mm which has 8 lens elements in 6 groups. That prime lens having less glass in the way of the sensor has to make a difference. Then with the glass elements having some variance from sample to sample would add it the corrections you would need to the process when using zooms.

Is the zoom ~~Gud enuff~~ for the people who buy them?? Maybe..I would think camera makers would love to change mounts every 20-30 years so photographers can buy a new lens to replace the lens that works for the last 20-30 years. But I am getting off-subject.

 

[Kuma5]

Was thinking of the film days when I was using the Minolta MD series prime lenses. I thought they were good in the day. I did not see a dramatic difference in the 50/1.7 Minolta and or 50/1.8 Nikon AF when moving into the F4s rig. The ED zoom glass excellent yet by then I was dominantly using the 35-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8. An old 105/4 AIS for softness in portraits and the 50/1.8 were the only primes in my Nikon days.

With Canon EF, the 50/1.4, 40/2 and 100/2.8L. All excellent with the 40 and 100 being very well used for my projects. No complaints with the 24-70/2.8L V1. I rented the 70-200 and 300 when needed. The 300/4L quite good. Did not get to try the 300/2.8.

 

[Quickben]

Provocative article on FStoppers.... (link at the bottom):

I understand that zoom lenses have come a long way over the years. Now, we've got some zooms that have pretty small constant apertures, like Canon's 28-70 F/2 while still having very high optical quality. I get the advantage and convenience of a zoom and it is probably the answer for most people, but I'm not sure I'm on board with the notion that they can replace a F/1.2 or F/1.4 prime. There's something about the quality you get from those kinds of glass that just jumps off the page.

Anyway, the article is here:

Prime Lenses Are Becoming Less and Less Relevant | Fstoppers

Think prime lenses are still unbeatable? Think again—modern zooms are challenging everything we once believed about the best lenses.

fstoppers.com

I don't even think it's just the ultra fast apertures that zooms can't replace, some primes have something special about them in micro-contrast, colour rendering, 3D rendering etc. I've just re-bought a Zeiss 2.8/21 Distagon. It's only 2.8 but I always found there was something about the images it produced that wasn't immediately attributed to the normal metrics.

 

[Lester Wareham]

I don't even think it's just the ultra fast apertures that zooms can't replace, some primes have something special about the in micro-contrast, colour rendering, 3D rendering etc. I've just re-bought a Zeiss 2.8/21 Distagon. It's only 2.8 but I always found there was something about the images it produced that wasn't immediately attributed to the normal metrics.

I agree, even the best zooms tend to have higher levels of Astigmatism (different microcontrast performance in the sagittal and meridional directions) this impacts the quality of bokeh etc.

 

[Skygod44]

Provocative article on FStoppers.... (link at the bottom):

I understand that zoom lenses have come a long way over the years. Now, we've got some zooms that have pretty small constant apertures, like Canon's 28-70 F/2 while still having very high optical quality. I get the advantage and convenience of a zoom and it is probably the answer for most people, but I'm not sure I'm on board with the notion that they can replace a F/1.2 or F/1.4 prime. There's something about the quality you get from those kinds of glass that just jumps off the page.

Anyway, the article is here:

Prime Lenses Are Becoming Less and Less Relevant | Fstoppers

Think prime lenses are still unbeatable? Think again—modern zooms are challenging everything we once believed about the best lenses.

fstoppers.com

(I've seen a real and noticeable trend in your posts recently, Sam.
And I like it. )

As for me, shooting micro 4/3, the zooms are MUCH bigger than the primes.

And I've spoiled myself by buying plenty of both!
Luckily, Missus Skygod mk3 is completely disinterested in my gear, so I'm sure she won't even notice when I buy an OM-3 later this year.

On topic though, if I want to be all arty-farty-creative, doing street photography right in amongst my subjects, there's no way I'd want to use a fat, heavy(ish) zoom lens.

The so-called "quality" from the lens is almost the last thing I'm concerned with.
All my MFT primes do give me great results, but it's the tiny dimensions which are unbeatable.

Focusing (sic) on image quality was, imho, just an excuse to write the article.

Cheers for now,
Simon

 

[tony-s]

The last two lenses I bought were the Voigtlander 18mm f/2.8 and 27mm f/2 pancake lenses. No pancake zooms that I know of!

 

[Wilt]

Fixed Focal Length (FFL) used to be faster aperture, less distortion, higher resolution than Zoom...

1. fast ISO sensors made fast lens apertures less necessary
2. in-camera distortion corrections for given lenses make FFL less necessary
3. now even faster apertures in zooms make shallow DOF found in fast FFL even less of an advantange

So the unique advantages of FFL are diminishing in value.
What remains is that a single FL mounted on a body is the smallest and lightest combination. So if you do not need multiple FL, FFL can be the lightest and most unnoticeable (to the subjects)., one of its few remaining advantages.

 

[Anton Largiader]

I have tried some primes and I have to say I am a zoom guy. I do keep the primes around in case I decide I want f/1.8 for some reason (or f/1.2 on the R7 with the SpeedBooster) but I rarely do.

 

[tony-s]

Fixed Focal Length (FFL) used to be faster aperture, less distortion, higher resolution than Zoom...

1. fast ISO sensors made fast lens apertures less necessary
2. in-camera distortion corrections for given lenses make FFL less necessary
3. now even faster apertures in zooms make shallow DOF found in fast FFL even less of an advantange

So the unique advantages of FFL are diminishing in value.
What remains is that a single FL mounted on a body is the smallest and lightest combination. So if you do not need multiple FL, FFL can be the lightest and most unnoticeable (to the subjects)., one of its few remaining advantages.

And cost. Those fast, large aperture zoom lenses are quite expensive.

 

[Wilt]

And cost. Those fast, large aperture zoom lenses are quite expensive.

...but if you compared the cost of ownership of 3-4 FFL fast lenses to the cost of one fast zoom?!

 

[davholla]

Personally I have only managed to get photographs of fireworks with a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM (I am sure that others have with zooms) (not that an expensive lens)

IMG_2058_Fireworks by davholla2002, on Flickr
I have a Canon R7 now with a better focus so maybe that would work with a zoom

Also my macro lens are primes

 

[RDKirk]

I've always been primarily a portrait photographer, and my style was never an attempt to get just one eye in focus.

Back in the manual focusing days I could not focus accurately with less than an f/2.8 aperture. Even split-image focusing aids worked better with fast lenses (and there were such focusing aids designed to work specifically with fast lenses).

Back when fast films were grainy, I also reached for the "fast" lenses.

These days, with auto focusing and good-looking ISO 800, I can't say honestly that I can't live forever at f/4 for my particular purposes.