Any benefit to a prime lens

[glennaeichmann]

I’ve had an Olympus camera with IBIS but unfortunately I broke it.
im thinking about a Nikon Z50 as a replacement.
I like to travel as light as possible and my m43 kit is the very small 12-32 and 20mm prime lens. I use the prime when the light dims.
my question is this: on the Nikon z50, which doesn’t have IBIS, is there any point in the unstabilzed small primes over the stabilized 16-50 zoom? They seem to be brighter by a stop, but the image stabilization in the slower zoom lens gives it three stops. So aren’t I better just using the zoom in low light?
am I missing something?

[WillyB]

A "Nifty 50" prime is great natural eye lens. It's my go to lens for the everyday situation.

There have been a lot of great photos taken over the decades without a stabilized lens.

[JeffreyG]

Stabilization helps with camera movement, but not subject movement if you are shooting action. A faster lens increases motion freezing at the cost of thin depth of field (which is good when you want it, not when you don’t).

I used to use fast primes for sports and astro. I find F/2.8 zooms to be fast enough with modern sensors.

[Mike G]

Prime lenses usually have greater potential optically to produce sharp images, whereas a zoom lens' optics are by necessity a compromise for making decent images throughout the zoom range. That said, I think only a very serious amateur or pro photographer will utilize that extra optical quality; it is most needed for enlargements, selling pics, etc. A casual shooter making memories for family & self probably won't see the benefit under most circumstances.


When I was shooting slide film for 3D (stereoscopic) pairs to be mounted and viewed in a backlit, magnifying stereoviewer, I could appreciate the crispness of a good prime lens. With digital photos viewed mostly on screen, it's hard for me to see any difference between primes and zooms.

[JeffreyG]

Originally Posted by Mike G

Prime lenses usually have greater potential optically to produce sharp images, whereas a zoom lens' optics are by necessity a compromise for making decent images throughout the zoom range.

This is less and less the case, especially with modern professional level zooms. My Canon 100-400 (the V2) is sharper than the 300/4 I used 15 years ago.

Plus some primes put emphasis on other things, like defocus performance or just having super fast maximum apertures.

Basically…..no rules are hard and fast and most modern zooms are so sharp, sharpness isn’t going to be a reason for primes. Color, aperture, defocus appearance all might be.

[John in Santa Cruz]

yes, bokeh aka defocus performance. my other prime is Canon's EF85/1.8, and it has gorgeous bokeh wide open.

[JeffreyG]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

yes, bokeh aka defocus performance. my other prime is Canon's EF85/1.8, and it has gorgeous bokeh wide open.

But poor chromatic aberrations. I used Canon’s 85/1.2 for some time. Excellent sharpness and defocus appearance. Also so-so coma and chromatic aberrations. Also insane purple fringing when pushed.

Anyway, I think there was a time when design wasn’t up to the challenge of great zooms and primes really were better optically.

Now, I’d buy a prime for the specific set of performance (focal length, aperture, optical features) but avoid generalities. I’d only use a prime over the three zooms I’m using now if I needed something specific (probably, faster). For example, a 300/2.8 is always handy…….but expensive and heavy so I usually just make the 100-400 work.

[John in Santa Cruz]

Originally Posted by JeffreyG

But poor chromatic aberrations. I used Canon’s 85/1.2 for some time. Excellent sharpness and defocus appearance. Also so-so coma and chromatic aberrations. Also insane purple fringing when pushed.
...

mine is the EF85 f/1.8 USM, and I've never seen purple fringing with it on my EOS 60D, even wide open. I think the 85/1.2 was a much older lens, from the old Canon non-autofocus series.

[awaiting recreation]

The z50 with that little zoom lens makes for a lightweight, compact system that produces excellent images and videos.

If you want to add capability later any Z-mount lens is compatible or you can get the FTZ adapter, which adds compatibility with tons of reasonably priced f-mount Nikon lenses. For example, f1.8 50mm & 85mm primes are outstanding bargains whether used or new.

-JPape

[Vermilye]

Another big difference between zooms & prime lenses is size & weight which will be smaller & lighter in a prime. I've also found that prime lenses focus a bit faster than zooms. While an inexpensive zoom may show more quality problems, I agree with Jeffrey; pro versions of zoom lenses are usually as sharp as a prime and the overall quality is acceptable.

For what it is worth, I used Lightroom to check lens usage, and while I have far too many lenses, it shows that with full frame Nikon DSLRs in my current library I shot around 6500 with a 16mm - 35mm f:2.8, 9000 with a 24mm -70mm f:2.8, and 1500 with a 80mm - 400mm f:4.5 (a non pro but pretty sharp lens).

Over the same period I shot 250 images with a 105mm f:2.8 Macro, and 350 with a 300mm f:2.8 prime. Less than 100 each for a number of other prime & zoom lenses.

[JeffreyG]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

mine is the EF85 f/1.8 USM, and I've never seen purple fringing with it on my EOS 60D, even wide open. I think the 85/1.2 was a much older lens, from the old Canon non-autofocus series.

EF 85.1.2 L USM II, not really an old lens, but the optical design is similar to the older V1.


In any case, you may have simply not shot your 85/1.8 in high contrast. I had one, it would fringe pretty badly too if you shot high contrast.


Unfortunately for the OP, I have extensive experience with Canon lenses, and some with Sony E-mount lenses, but I don't know the Nikon range very well.

[John in Santa Cruz]

huh, I've never seen an "L": prime lens, I thought the L was reserved for the professional zooms, with low dispersion glass elements.

[JeffreyG]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

huh, I've never seen an "L": prime lens, I thought the L was reserved for the professional zooms, with low dispersion glass elements.

All of the Superteles are L primes 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 etc. And there are several L primes otherwise, usually exceptionally fast for focal length etc. Offhand I recall 14/2.8, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2.

[John in Santa Cruz]

Originally Posted by JeffreyG

All of the Superteles are L primes 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 etc. And there are several L primes otherwise, usually exceptionally fast for focal length etc. Offhand I recall 14/2.8, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2.

I learn something new every day! I'll admit, about the only L lens I have any experience with was the 70-200/2.8 L IS that I rented and hauled around a 4-day music festival, man that was a heavy bugger, but it sure did take nice pics under stage lighting..

[MrLynn]

Can't address the expert comments here, but I generally use zoom lenses, for the flexibility (mostly 18-135mm on my Canon Rebel for snapshots and scenery, and a Panasonic 'bridge' FZ300 25-600mm zoom when out looking for birds and other critters.

I did buy a Canon 28mm prime lens (which is close to 50mm on a full-frame), mainly for its very light weight on a prospective air trip to Peru that was cancelled in Spring 2020. I have found it pleasant to use for general photography; just means you have to get closer to your subjects, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The lens is sharp. Takes me back to the days when I traveled with screw-mount Leicas, when changing lenses took some time.

[oldwave]

Been shooting since 1966, first with rangefinder compacts cameras, then a Nikon F series with prime lenses (F, F2, F4) Medium Format cameras a Mamiya C330 and a Mamiay 6. Then with Canon digital 20d 60d and now an EOS R6 with a combination of adapted EF Zooms and an R series Zoom (kit). I have a number of prints and zooms in EF at least two L glass series.
I shot weddings and portraiture as a weekend warrior. Now I mostly do 2 to 4 camera video shoots with cinema cameras of my music events and house concerts and an independent film or two.

The advances in lens design with modern zooms in the new mirrorless cameras is outstanding combined with built in correction in the RAW conversion software. A Nikon Z50 with a kit zoom will give you outstanding results . You can pixel peep etc. A lot of the decision depends upon the application: Are you taking professional portraiture to sell? Then you would want a fast medium zoom or a dedicated portraiture lens etc. Wedding Photographer ? Two zooms covering wide to moderate telephoto . Old school would have a wide angle 24 or 28, a 35 or a 50 an 85 or 100 and a 135 and a 200 etc. A good starting place is medium wide to medium telephoto 24 or 28 to 100 etc. Your budget and your intended application will be your guide. Even on the low end of mirrorless cameras you will get outstanding results.

[John in Santa Cruz]

I used to shoot fairly serious amateur, starting in the mid 70s with a Pentax MX 35mm, later graduating to a Pentax 6x7 medium format, shot some 4x5 on borrowed cameras, etc. Most of my best work was landscape stuff.

I went digital with an EOS Elan (film) when our first kid was born (1990) because my wife just flat couldn't focus a camera and her pictures were awful. Later got a couple digital P&S cameras (Nikon Coolpix 950, etc), then a Canon EOS 350D in 2005. That got upgraded to a 60D in 2008, and later I picked upa EOS M with the 22mm pancake lens to use as an 'everyday carry'.

I kind of lost interest in 'serious' photography somewhere along the way, and now mostly just use my cellphone, since the cell cameras got so good, and I was just taking pictures for travel and fun, and documentation. I've had a Pixel first generation, Pixel 3a, and now a Pixel 6a, each took excellent pictures given the inherent limitations of a tiny wide angle lens, etc.

[oldwave]

Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz

I used to shoot fairly serious amateur, starting in the mid 70s with a Pentax MX 35mm, later graduating to a Pentax 6x7 medium format, shot some 4x5 on borrowed cameras, etc. Most of my best work was landscape stuff.

I went digital with an EOS Elan (film) when our first kid was born (1990) because my wife just flat couldn't focus a camera and her pictures were awful. Later got a couple digital P&S cameras (Nikon Coolpix 950, etc), then a Canon EOS 350D in 2005. That got upgraded to a 60D in 2008, and later I picked upa EOS M with the 22mm pancake lens to use as an 'everyday carry'.

I kind of lost interest in 'serious' photography somewhere along the way, and now mostly just use my cellphone, since the cell cameras got so good, and I was just taking pictures for travel and fun, and documentation. I've had a Pixel first generation, Pixel 3a, and now a Pixel 6a, each took excellent pictures given the inherent limitations of a tiny wide angle lens, etc.

My photography bug came back with the interest in film and video, as I always loved technology and making complex things. Now I am dealing with timecode, shot matching, color correction and editing. Hey Everyone has to have a hobby. We host house concerts so I film them and give our artists nice quality mulitcamera video of the performance. Too old to delve into into as a pro but 30 years ago I would have gone a different way .

[escape artist]

Hi: All snap shooters... My Olympus OM1 w/ multiple lenses sits at home in the bag. My P&S Panasonic w/ Leica zoom sits in my pocket. Now I just have to remember to snap a pic now and then.
It's almost time for Niagara Wine Escape '22 Alf
escape artist N.S. of Lake Erie

[Selkirk]

I have a mix of Nikkor primes and zooms. I tend to favor zooms for event/action photography...or any situation where I have a limited window of opportunity to compose and grab the shot.

I'll use primes in situations where I have more time/control over the shot, such as studio work, portraiture, macro images, etc. I also still prefer primes for long focal lengths (300mm).

Having said that, I agree that zooms like the 24-70f2.8 really don't sacrifice much (if anything) in the way of quality for 35mm full frame digital. Even my my old trusty 80-200f2.8 is plenty sharp for the work I do. I've also been impressed with some of Nikon's modern, less pricy, slower F-mount zooms (the 70-300f4.5-5.6VR comes to mind).

I should mention that most of my photo work is either in a studio environment using strobes or fast shutter speed action shots in generally good outdoor light, so neither image stabilization nor super fast primes (>2.8) are a terribly important feature for me.

I'm not very familiar with the newest generation of mirrorless formats, but I use an old Nikon J1 with the 10-30 kit lens for casual/personal photography and snapshots. I find that it's fine for the purpose.....