Zoom lens vs prime lens (1 Viewer)

[helenol]

Is there really so much difference in the quality between a zoom lens and a prime lens?

As I'm going for the 100-400 IS, (eventually!) I am a little concerned I may be compromising on quality here. Is the quality difference minimal?

The thing that does put me off buying a variety of lens is the fact one has to change them more often, thus (to my way of thinking) increasing the chances of dust getting into the camera. My idea was to keep the 100-400 attached to the camera most of the time, or is this bad practice?

Any thoughts on this? Thanks.

PS - Apologies is this has been discussed before, if it has, pls direct me to the appropriate thread!

 

[rezMole]

Primes are better quality, but, it's all down to compromise. I'd love a Nikon 500 or 600mm prime lens, but the cost is just more than i'm willing to pay. I am more than happy with my Tamron 200-500.

Personally, i believe the greatest improvements i can make in my photography are in technique - not what equipment I use. I've just added 3 Red Kite pics to my gallery. I'm sure i can do a lot better, but I doubt a prime lens would have improved the pictures any. Take a look - i know you like Red Kites!

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/18597

 

[Tyler Vargo]

I don't really think the quality increase (which really isn't much) is worth the extra money and loss of versatility. Plus, with a prime, If you need to zoom out to get a good shot you're out of luck.

 

[bosquebirds]

Hi, Helen.

I was doing the same questioning last October. I ended up purchasing the 100-400mm, and I'm glad I did. However, it was a good decision for me because of the ways I encounter the birds I photograph.

All of the data, both from lens testing and anecdotal reports, says that a prime lens is likely to produce a better, sharper image than a zoom. The problem is that a 400mm prime IS lens will cost many times more than the 100-400mm, will be bigger and much heavier, so you probably won't be able to handhold it without some discomfort and it will be more awkward to carry. If you plan to just be stationary and use a tripod, the less expensive non-IS lenses will work very well. However, if you plan to walk or hike, or you want to be able to respond quickly to a flying bird, the 100-400mm works very well. It's not too heavy once you're used to handling it and it tucks into itself fairly compactly. When I walk with mine, I cross the camera strap over my body and swing the camera just to the back of my waist. That way, it doesn't bounce around like a longer lens would and it's quite secure.

I would estimate that over 90% of my photos are at the 400mm end of the lens. However, when you are photographing a large or fast-moving bird, it's very nice to be able to zoom back a bit. An unexpected pleasure for me has been how well the lens can work for close-ups of flowers and butterflies/dragonflies. The detail is amazing, even handheld, and the bokeh is very smooth. The challenge is getting adequate depth of field, but I'm learning to work around that. I find the zoom capability to be far more useful for these close-ups.

I need to point something out about this lens that's not so great. You mentioned your concerns about dust and not wanting to change lenses too often. Unfortunately, this is a real vacuum cleaner (hoover!) and sucks up dust like mad if you're like me and take several hundred exposures nearly every week-end in the outdoors.

Between costs and the laws of physics, every lens will be a compromise. Just look at how you do your birding photography and make your decisions based on that. The jump up to the DSLR will make such a difference in what you're able to capture. The difference in responsiveness is amazing!

I wish you well in your deliberations. You have a lot of wonderful times to look forward to whatever your decision.

Ingrid

 

[madmike]

Wot lens

Hi Helen,
Firstly, glad to hear your old man is OK.
I managed to have a good look at and test the Canon 300mm F4 IS lens and the Canon 100-400 IS jobbie the other day.
They both weigh about the same (both are quite heavy on the camera)
and I thought the results were pretty much the same - ie both are very good lenses. However, the flexibility of the zoom was quickly apparent.
I was able to enlarge the handheld photos that I took on a dull day by 100% on PS and still get reasonable detail.
Over the past months when looking at photos on BF, all the images I've seen taken with the 100-400 have been extremely good.
I was in Jessops the other day, and they had the 100-400 len at £1189, but said they would do it for £1049!!!
I'm sure there are other good lenses about, but for the money I feel the 100-400 would be a good buy.
It's the one I'll get when I can afford it!

Cheers,

madmike

 

[postcardcv]

How do people rate the image quality of the Canon 400mm f5.6L USM compared to the 100-400 IS. I know that this prime lens doesn't have IS (but I normally have a tripod with me anyway), but it is a couple of hundred cheaper.

 

[edenwatcher]

Hi Helen,
I bought the 100-400 IS just over a year ago (long before I decided which digital SLR to go for!) as it provided the one-lens-fits-all solution that I was looking for. I have not regretted it for an instant, and finally switched from film to a 20D about 3 weeks ago.

Here is a dotterel I photographed on Sunday ...

Rob

 

[Corax67]

Hi Helen,

I have used a wide variety of prime & zoom lenses over the years and now have a select collection of both.

For general work high quality fast zooms are invaluable (i.e. 70-200 & 18-50 f2.8) giving versatility & excellent image quality - i have recently had prints made up at 20"x16" taken with my Canon 20D/Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which are pin sharp.

For specific work such as macro photography then I stick to prime lenses (my preference being the Canon 105mm f2.8) and this is only because of the nature of the subject rather than a quality issue.

As always its a case of buying the best lens you can afford and modern manufacturing techniques mean that independant manufacturers lenes are always a good value option.

Good luck with your photography

 

[jiminlondon99]

I am trying to make the same choice and found these sites useful;

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=39&sort=7&cat=2&page=2
300mm f4 100% good user feedback

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=19&sort=7&cat=27&page=2
100-400 f4.5 94% good user feedback

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml
and just to widen the debate?

I am leaning towards the 300mm prime + the 1.4* tele converter......i think. The one thing I am sure about is I will read the threads with interest?

I already have the 75-300 IS so my plan is to keep it as it is small and light?
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/

I have attached a cropped pic from the zoom lens as an example, I hope the prime L-lense will give a bit more "punch" to the pictures?

Let us know what you decide.

jim

 

[postcardcv]

Having been thinking about his subject a lot lately I thought I'd do a little (not very scientific) test.

So I went to my local camera shop with my 300D and Sigma 170-500 zoom to try it against the secondhand Sigma 500mm f4.5 hsm they have in. As it was at shops the test was a brick wall - shots through both lenses look good on the camera screen and on the computer... until I zoomed into 100%.

 

[robski]

So the question is are you going for a trade-in Postcardcv ?

 

[postcardcv]

So the question is are you going for a trade-in Postcardcv ?

I certainly want to - but the prime is still a lot of money even secondhand. That said my wife seems agreeable to the idea (though I think more of the music and video collection will have to go), if so my zoom will probably be for sale on here in a couple of weeks...

 

[helenol]

Wow, some excellent replies there.

rez, whatever gave you the idea I like redkites?

Tyler, thanks for the post, I am thinking along the lines of you regarding the loss of versatility.

Ingrid, an excellent post, you make some very good points there, I did have concerns about the dust, you've just confirmed them! I am rather pleased at your comment regarding close-up work for flowers etc. Good stuff.

Rob - thanks for the post, it is convincing me that the way to go is zoom lens. btw, nice dotterel!

Karl - thanks for the input, some good info there. I wont be making prints as large as you have though, bit still nice to hear they are pin sharp!

jim - I've also thought of the 1.4 but I have decided against it. Thanks for the links, will be taking a look at them.

I think on balance, I am going to stick with my original decision, and go for the 100-400. Who knows, maybe in the future I could invest in a couple of prime lens, but for now, it will be the zoom. But then I saw Postcards two photos...hmm.... which leads me to sigma! Ho hum.

PS - Just had a quick glance at one of the links Jim gave, and some people have commented on the response time of the auto focus, surely it can't be that slow?

 

[Neil]

PS - Just had a quick glance at one of the links Jim gave, and some people have commented on the response time of the auto focus, surely it can't be that slow?[/QUOTE]

Yes it can be. I upgraded from a 10year old Nikon 300mm f4 to a Sigma 170-500mm APO for the extra reach and zoom feature. It was good for birds under 10metres and where zooming was an advantage but was too slow for flight shots and fast moving birds, so I bought the Nikon 80-400mm ED VR. Quality-wise it was a little better than the Sigma , particularly against the light but not much faster comparing 400 with 400mm. I'm still missing a lot of photos close around me because of the speed (I missed a Common Tailorbird from 2 metres who sat still on a branch and looked at me for3 seconds) . I spent three days at our local wetlands last week photographing flying egrets and herons(including Yellow Bitterns) from the hide with the Nikon80-400. They were coming at me and by me from all directions . I didn't get one decent photo in three days and my old Nikon 300mm would have done better. Don't forget that that at 400mm end you have an f5.6 lens which is never going to focus fast. I'm going back out with the 300mm Nikon next week and am saving up for the new version which is much faster and will work fast with a tele (Nikon 300mm f4 ED AFS).
good luck with your decision, Neil

 

[robski]

Helen your be surprised how fast a Canon ring USM rear focus system used on their better quaility lens can AF. About 2 to 3 times faster than the 18-55mm Kit lens you had replaced. In good light they can AF from near to far focus in less than a second. Usually over shorter changes it's a split second. The Kit lens believe or not is a tad faster than some of the older Sigma.

Robert

 

[postcardcv]

Well I cracked and got the Sigma 500m lens that I was trying out the other day. Took it out to test 'in the field' today, and am very impressed with it. I've put a few pics taken with it in the gallery, the details it gets is amazing.

Here is a 100% crop from a pic of a blackbird - feather detail is excellent.

 

[robski]

Postcardcv I'm green with envy :bounce: - I don't plan to upgrade my telephoto till later in the year |:S|

Robert

 

[postcardcv]

I doubted that I'd be upgrading for a years, and only looked at the Sigma prime out of curiosity. The I was really taken by it, and my wife (bless her) knows how much it means to me and encouraged me to buy it. I'm very glad she did as so far I'm loving the results, now I can't wait to get up to the coast and get some more photos taken.

 

[MikeB.]

Hi Postcard,

Following Helen's thread here, and thinking about upgrading my much (and loved) used 100-400 to a 500mm - it is such a chunk of money though; assuming you are using it on a Canon, do you find any compatability issues with the Sigma?

And yes, after running around in the bush in the dusty dry season in Africa, the 100-400 needs to go in to Canon, again, for another clean, on my next trip home, which i'd recommend having done regularly depending on use and costs only about GBP10. (And another sensor clean). No dust visible in the optics, but the diaphragm seems to have got 'sticky' and about one shot in five is now completely over exposed.

Running about after three beautiful Ross's Turacos this morning which were in the upper canopies, came to take the shots, then realised there was no memory card in the camera or in my bag - mutter, mutter mutter!

 

[helenol]

PS - Just had a quick glance at one of the links Jim gave, and some people have commented on the response time of the auto focus, surely it can't be that slow?

Yes it can be. I upgraded from a 10year old Nikon 300mm f4 to a Sigma 170-500mm APO for the extra reach and zoom feature. It was good for birds under 10metres and where zooming was an advantage but was too slow for flight shots and fast moving birds, so I bought the Nikon 80-400mm ED VR. Quality-wise it was a little better than the Sigma , particularly against the light but not much faster comparing 400 with 400mm.
good luck with your decision, Neil[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info Neil. I must admit to dithering again now! So much for my decision a couple of posts above!. I'm not buying any lens until I've read more about the pros and cons.

Robert - I'm afraid you've lost me there, re the rear focus system. I'll have a mooch around, see what I can read up about it.

Postcard - Congrats on a marvellous purchase! I'm going to check out the gallery right now.