Prime vs Zoom - what to do

jamesoliverstone

jamesoliverstone

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,145
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I thought I might pose this question to those far more knowledgeable in the nikon lens range.

I have found over the last year that I am using my zooms less and less, and my primes are my weapon of choice ( I am in love with my 85 1.4 :D )

I have already invested to get the "holy trinity" as some nikon users call it.

I was wondering if it would be possible to trade / sell these 3 lenses to replace them with a good range of primes?

Now, I know the 50mm and 85mm 1.4 are awesome (I have them both) but I dont know what the quality of the other primes are like as I have never used them.

I would like to cover my range of focal lengths if possible with primes for my FF D700.

So, if you could sell / trade the following lenses at current market rate, what you you replace them with prime wise?

14-24mm 2.8
24-70mm 2.8
70-200mm 2.8 VRII

As I say, I already have the 50 and 85, and I know the quality of the above lenses is simply stunning, so I want to know what primes I could replace them with that would be of the same or greater image quality without spending any additional money.

Thoughts?

I was thinking about a superwide (14mm) perhaps a 35 and a 135 ? What about other brands such as tokina, sigma etc...
 
Last edited:
You have three fantastic zooms there - I have them too - you'd be crazy to sell them for primes - which are less versatile and not any better IQ unless you look at everything at 200%.
 
I have to agree. The standard of those zooms matches most primes unless you pixel peep to extemes and you have the versatility to go with it. To sell them for primes would be madness IMO.
 
I agree they are heavier - but worth it. If you have enough primes to cover that range then the weight may not be so different.
 
I've done exactly what you're proposing James, over the last 18 months or so. I basically ignored the 14-24 as I never seemed to go there, same with the long end of the 70-200.

I replaced with 24, 35, 50 and 85 f/1.4 and 105 f/2 dc

I can safely say it was a great decision, suits my shooting style well and makes me think about my shots a lot more. I think my photography is better for it. I finally made the jump when I realised I had a very expensive lens I went out of my way to avoid using (the 70-200):shrug:

However two things also spring to mind. I don't think my bags any lighter, maybe a little but not so as you'd notice. (A quick look shows the primes add up to 3.2kg, but the zooms to 3.4kg)It also certainly wasn't a cheaper option either.



Hugh
 
Last edited:
awp said:
I agree they are heavier - but worth it. If you have enough primes to cover that range then the weight may not be so different.
Click to expand...

boyfalldown said:
(A quick look shows the primes add up to 3.2kg, but the zooms to 3.4kg)
Click to expand...

That answers that then ;)

Thanks for the info Hugh, I too think that perhaps primes suit my shooting style better (ie. I tend nowadays to really setup my shots so the flexability of a zoom is no longer a consideration).

But, part of me thinks that I might miss that flexability when it really matters... hmmm choices choices.

I will lookup the current prices of the nikon primes.

Has anyone got experience of the 3rd party makes?
 
Hi James,
I went on the same path... starting with the Holy Trinity. Later I developed a great kit of primes. My best kit is 24/1.4, 35/2 Zeiss and Nikon, 85/1.4 SIgma and 180/2.8 Nikkor. I use the combo 24 and 85 for 75% of what I shoot and I could not be happier. I still keep the Trinity of zooms for some jobs that require them... but I feel I can do well if I renounce completely.
 
The zooms though are 2.8 or slower the primes are a lot faster. Slower primes will reduce the weight for sure I would have thought assuming they exist. Also depends on how many steps you want to cover I guess 4-5 primes should be sufficient. Not very up with FF primes.

On the other hand I can't see how you'd be replacing the brilliant 14-24, the 24mm prime is not wide enough.

On a slightly tangential note I am trying to reduce the bulk of my camera gear (although nothing as huge/heavy as yours it still bothers me at times) so I bought a 35mm for my D40 to see how I get along with a prime. Am falling in love and am falling in love fast which means a G3(GF3?)+20mm prime should be very much in my future.
 
Last edited:
You would not be crazy in my opinion to sell the zooms and go for primes.

The only negative is the lack of versatility, but if your shooting style and photographic genre suit slower shooting, then there really are no negatives to using only primes.

I'm debating selling my 17-55 2.8 Nikon currently. I never go wider than 28mm so I've paid for glass I don't need. I'll probably buy a digital back and a wider lens for my mamiya next
 
I've got two canon bodies and that for me made a huge difference.

I'll put a 24-70L on one and a F1.4 prime on the other. That way I get the compose/shoot/fast combination of the zoom and the bokeh/IQ of the prime on the other.

I would also be tempted to put a 24/35mm prime on one and a 85/100 prime on the other.

One of the best things someone has told me is to make sure that you visualise that angle of view of all the things you look at so you know what the shot will look like with a prime before you put the camera to your eye.
 
Personally, I would go 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 and perhaps 135 f2. I actually want to do this myself but I can't give up the flexibility of the zooms.
 
jamesoliverstone said:
14-24mm 2.8
24-70mm 2.8
70-200mm 2.8 VRII

As I say, I already have the 50 and 85, and I know the quality of the above lenses is simply stunning, so I want to know what primes I could replace them with that would be of the same or greater image quality without spending any additional money.
Click to expand...

24/1.4
35/1.4
50/1.4
85/1.4
135/2
200/2 (£££)

Pick one wide, one normal and one tele. They don't have to be consecutive focal lengths. Personally I'd just pick whatever focal lengths I use the most and go from there (which would be 24, 35 or 50, 85 - a big enough change in perspective for each focal length). But it all depends on what you shoot.

Pragmatically, however, I'd keep the 14-24 as it's as good as any other UWA prime. The 24-70 is a bit superfluous if you have a 35 or 50 + 85, so that would go. the 70-200 would stay. So you have lots of flexibility at the extreme ends.
 
A friend of mine told me how moving to primes improved his composition significantly. Having to move around to frame up a scene made him really thinking about what he was doing and explore different viewpoints and angles. I thought this was nonsense until I tried it myself. Yes you can force yourself to do it with a zoom technically speaking but you really never do. You always end up getting lazy and using the zoom.

As I said, it sounded like hocus pokus nonsense to me until i tried it. Now I plan to move to primes one day :)
 
135 2 and a 200 2 should be on your shopping list. if you have the money for the 200 2 of course. i have a 400 2.8 and it is truly beyond amazing..
 
Thanks for all the info everyone! lots to churn through and think about.

I have looked at prices, some of them seem quite reasonable and others are well, just plain silly!

Certainly after getting the 85 1.4 I havent really bothered that much with the 24-70 much, as I found myself framing my subjects specifically to use the 85 as its such a wonderful portrait lens. In fact, it was my main weapon of choice for most (if not all) my subjects in Africa.

I find myself increasingly thinking that I could just go to Cambodia with just my 50 and 85 and come back with wonderful photos.

As I really break down my work, I very rarely do any landscape shots and certainly never shoot wildlife, sports etc, so why bother with the reach of the 70-200 and I really only ever use the 14-24 when I was inside mud huts in Africa trying to make use of the space.

I am starting to think that I could ditch all my zooms and buy a wide prime and perhaps the 135 for portraits when I want a little more compression. (I rarely shoot portraits at the 200mm end) and the price of the 200 f2 :eek:

Choices Choices!
 
As a sidenote, the only time the zooms are useful was when I took the camera with me on days out with the kids where I dont have time to muck about changing lens, but now I never bother with the D700 for (normal) photography as I have the Panasonic GF1 for that now...
 
Have you had a look in Lightroom (assuming you use it) and checked out the focal lengths you use the most?

Even with zooms you tend to find you establish a working distance that you are happy with and in Lightroom its easy to find out what that translates into in focal length.

I tend to find that journo type candid(ish) portraits are about 135mm for me on my DX body, 85mm will also work but the 24-70 is next to useless for me and I struggle to find a reason to hang onto it - although I do know that indoors its a better fit.

On that basis I wouldn't both to get primes to cover the wide range of the holy trinity, I'd carefully analyse what you are doing now and pick a couple of primes to suit. Something for candid portrait with a happy working distance (85 or 135) and something wider, say a 35 or maybe the 50 for indoors or full body or to take in some background too.

By limiting your choices I don't think it limits the possibilties, certainly not when it comes to carefully thought out photography.

BTW I really like your work!
 
Gonna throw one or two in the mix for you.

I see you are using a d700 (which I don't have experience of) but...

105mm micro/macro nikkor on the d300 produces excellent shots - seen a few posts on the home page about *** getting the vr version.
150 or 180 sigma macro/doubles as a telephoto and 1:1 ratio might suit, but they aren't small or light. If possible see about borrowing the lenses or hiring them to see whether they suit what you shoot?

Other than that, perhaps look at the older manual lenses or m42 mount? Cheaper option to get more zoom and some have great iq.


Only zoom I had was the 18-200 vr mki... although a good starter, didn't compare to the primes. Only zoom I now have is the uwa tokina 11-16 (unfortunately doesn't work on a d700) and you have the wide/ultra wide covered.


The other thing (that already has been posted) is to find out what range you use the most on the zooms, and whether you need a little more reach...
 
interesting thread. I have been thinking of going the other way, from primes to a zoom.
I mainly use a 20mm or 24mm 1.8 but have been looking at the 12-24 2.8
 
They serve different purposes. I use 24-70mm and 70-200mm vr2 for wedding/event work. But for portrait, I almost always use primes. There's nothing like shooting at close to wide open on 85mm 1.4, and it's lighter than 70-200mm by a long way. I know you want to free up the cash, but trust me, if you sell 85mm, you'll regret it.
 
Why restrict yourself to either all primes or zooms? It's a case of having the best tool for the job? I use wide zoom, mid primes and 70-200. Although if something is going to be left behind it is the 70-200 and I hope I don't need the extra focal length.
 
I probably should have been a bit clearer, it is possible to have a wide zoom and tele primes. It isn't a case of one or the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top