Zoom gloom or prime is fine?

W

wildtracks

Suspended / Banned
Messages
222
Name
Martin Prothero
Edit My Images
Yes
I am sat poised ready to hit the pay here button, while looking at a nice pic of a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I want a walk around lens and figured that the faster the better and the quality of a prime over a zoom is obvious.

But I have also wondered about the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (HSM). Fast enough? Sharp enough? More useful?

D40 body and kit lens but I also have a nifty 1.8 and a Sigi 10-20 already.

Phone a friend if I had one!

Any advice out there and if so, shouldn't you be working!
 
My personal preference for a walk around lens is to have the zoom feature over a prime - gives me a few possibilities without carrying other lens.

If this is what you want to do (i.e. camera and single lens) then I think you will regret not getting a zoom lens when you come across a situation when you needed it.
 
:agree: as walkaround I'd always go for a zoom.
My primary lenses are both f2.8 and are top notch opticaLy (if you see what I mean).
I do have a couple of primes. 105 f2.8 macro and a 50 f1.8 but the latter doesnt get used much.

A good quality zoom is not going to be as good as a top notch prime, but I'll sacrifice that for the versatility of a zoom any day.
 
Thanks for that Vinny. I have the kit zoom, which I can keep in my bag alongside whatever I choose here. The 2.8 will obviously just replace it, whereas the 1.4 will do lots of things it would never dream of but will have to be swapped out if I need a different focal length.

A nice decision to have..which one of these nice things will I have to play with in a few days. I can't afford to make a mistake though. (is there a tremble smilie?)
 
Paul, thanks also. You posted as I was typing!
 
For a walk around lens the zoom makes more sense. A fast prime is incredibly useful but mainly for walking around in low light ;)
 
Thanks - most of my work is under canopy of woodland and in the UK that means low light even in mid summer!

It is sharpness that I really want and was wondering whether the 18-50 is up to the job?
 
Anyone else with comments on the Sigma 18-50 2.8 for sharpness or the Sigma 30 1.4 for a walk around?
I'd be interested to hear you thoughts.
 
Thanks for the links. I know the site too well! :lol:
 
What sort of shots are you taking in woodland as this will have a fundamental influence on your choice of lens.
 
My line of work is instructor for a bushcraft and nature awareness company as well as an environmental artist. I want to take everything from super wide landscapes (I have the 10-20mm for that) as well as capture people making friction fire and building bivis etc.

I also am very interested in animal tracks and signs and so need to have decent close up facility if not actual macro.
But as I mentioned earlier, on my kit lens I seem to mostly gravitate to 18, 30ish and 50ish, hence wondering if a couple of primes might suffice (I already own a 50mm).

I feel the need for the faster lenses as it s often very low light in them there woods.
 
I'd go for the prime every time. I much prefer the way it forces me to look at the world and be that tad more creative.

It's all too easy to plant your feet somewhere with a zoom and rotate until the unwanted disapears or the wanted fits in. I find that I just do that bit more thinking, climbing, crawling and creating with a prime.

But then, I'm not quite normal. :D
 
One of the things that you're going to have to take into consideration, along with the speed of the lens, is the depth of field that you require to get the subject matter in focus. Obviously the wider the aperture the less depth of field you have, so if you need >f/2.8 to get things in focus then there's no point worrying about going for a f/1.4.

The following is useful for working out depths of field at different apertures and distances with various lenses http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
 
Thanks for the link. I have a 20 year hobby semi-pro photographic background, shooting on slide film and have used large format quite a bit too. I am, however, new to digi and and very humbled by all the kind links and info that people have helped me with already. So many thanks to all.

I guess I am really trying to convince myself that I need the flexibility of a zoom, when really I have conditioned myself to 'see' in 28mm 50mm and 80mm which are the primes I had for my film SLR.
 
I found the hardest thing to take in to account when I switched from film to digital is the fact that you can switch ISO settings at will, so what would previously have required a change mid-roll to a faster film can now be done at the touch of a button. One minute I'm shooting with 100 ASA then next I'm at 800 or 1600 if necessary to get the shot.
 
Yes, I still haven't got used to it. I forget. I am reluctant to bump up the ISO because I was used to shooting on slow slide film for best quality and hardly ever used ASA 200 or above. The D40 will let me go to at least 800 without me even noticing.

I am also amazed at the difference between the DoF offered by so called similar lenses. I would never dream of getting so much in focus with a 50mm at f/5.6 as I get now. I love it!

I just bought a Sigma 10-20mm and from about f/8 you are focusing to within a few feet, fantastic for landscapes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top