Prime vs. Zoom

JCJackson · Jun 2, 2010

I'm a fairly recent convert to MF - about 6-7 months. I have been using a Pentax 645N with a 75mm prime and a 200mm prime. Mostly I am shooting slower films (50 - 100 ISO) with tripod striving for very sharp, detailed, low grain negatives. I have been very pleased with the ability of these lenses to deliver just that. I am considering an 80-160mm (FA) zoom to fill in all the focal lengths between the primes, and for portrait work. Will there be a discernible difference in sharpness with the zoom as compared to the primes?

Jeff Kubach · Jun 2, 2010

I always though that primes were better than zooms as far as sharpness. I'm not sure about the 80-160 zoom. It may not be a heck of whole difference in the long run. I would give it a try!

Jeff

Sirius Glass · Jun 2, 2010

I have been happy with zoom lens in 35mm.

I have only used primes in MF because the Hasselblad-Zeiss zoom lenses are so expensive. Besides, I already have the range covered with primes.

Steve

jamesgignac · Jun 2, 2010

I shoot with primes...mostly due to their availability, affordability (relative), and the fact that (at least with my bronica systems) I could keep two great primes for the weight and bulk of one zoom lens...plus zooms just give you another ring around the lens to fiddle with and I just can't be bothered - stepping forward or backward (with or without a tripod) is usually an option available to me and I find I work better this way.

I didnt' used to be like that - when I first started I hunted forever for a zoom for my ETRSi...then found it, bought it, used it very little, and put it back into the marketplace.

stp-montana · Jun 2, 2010

While primes have a reputation for better sharpness than their zoom counterparts (a reputation that is generally deserved), the Pentax zooms may be one of the few exceptions. The 80-160 and 45-85 Pentax zooms are exceptional zooms. The 45-85 is generally regarded as sharper at 45mm than the 45mm prime. I use both of these zooms on my Pentax 645 (NII) without any qualms regarding sharpness.

JCJackson · Jun 2, 2010

Thanks you for this helpful response. I will zoom without qualm, but still check it out at 16x20!

Poisson Du Jour · Jun 2, 2010

Zooms have come a loooong way since the awful optics of the 1980s. Here on APUG, passion and pain has been played out between exponents of both who fiercely proffer that one is superior to the other. Not necessarily so! Doesn't Leica now have zooms? Who else? And the marques? Of course. Canon, Nikon, Pentax all have excellent optics build on solid R&D. I have confidence in my Canon zooms but also my Canon primes as I'm trained to know how to get the best benefit from both, not just relying on what others tell me, or any fancy enumeration on the lens barrel just good old fashioned knowledge and experience.

TareqPhoto · Jun 2, 2010

I use primes as well, but hope i can find a zoom which give me more range equivalent to 24-70 or 70-200 in DSLRs, i saw one zoom for Mamiya RZ67 Pro which is 100-200, didn't find one zoom for Hasselblad 500 series even i am sure there is, so i think i better stay with primes.

ContaxRTSFundus · Jun 7, 2010

TareqPhoto said:
I use primes as well, but hope i can find a zoom which give me more range equivalent to 24-70 or 70-200 in DSLRs, i saw one zoom for Mamiya RZ67 Pro which is 100-200, didn't find one zoom for Hasselblad 500 series even i am sure there is, so i think i better stay with primes.

I have been consistently impressed by Mamiya's zooms. The 55-110 and 105-210 were both outstanding 645 lenses - I simply added the 45 N, 80 1.9, 150 2.8 (and my old 140 Soft Focus!) and I could cover 99% of my needs - selling my other, slower primes paid for the 2 zooms that replaced them.

The Mamiya 100-200mm zooms for the RB & RZ (35mm equivalent 48-97mm) are also remarkably sharp and free from distortion. A useful tip is, if you're using cameras like a 'Blad or Mamiya RZ, you should be able to hire a zoom for a day and then review the results. It won't cost too much and you'll have empirical proof of their worth - or lack of it.

Q.G. · Jun 7, 2010

Poisson Du Jour said:
Zooms have come a loooong way since the awful optics of the 1980s. Here on APUG, passion and pain has been played out between exponents of both who fiercely proffer that one is superior to the other. Not necessarily so!

I agree completely.

Mind you, that doesn't mean that the zooms made, what?, 20 - 30 years ago have become better lenses, now that their present day brothers and sisters have.

So the anti-zoom sentiment still is justified, as far as old gear is concerned. And i believe that many of us here have heaps and heaps of old gear, and are looking for more old gear to heap on those heaps of old gear.

So beware of the zoom!

funkpilz · Jun 7, 2010

I don't need that many lenses, and I can't stand heavy cameras, so it's primes for me. But I have no prejudice against zooms either.

Pumal · Jun 7, 2010

I always shoot primes, especially the old. Couldn't tell you much about modern Zooms in MF

Christopher Walrath · Jun 7, 2010

You say it is for portraiture. Do you foresee a need for speed in your workflow in the room? Will you be shooting a lot of young children or mainly adolescent and adults? Do you have tons to throw at glass or are you in the 'need-to-pick-and-choose' boat? Primes are lighter, faster (aperture), slower (speed of use), less expensive. Zooms hold to the contrary (heavier, smaller max apertures, quicker to use, mo expensive). So it comes down to what you want and what you need and the balance you find in between the two.

Oh, and I prefer primes but love zooms so I cannot help you there. (LF not really applicable in this discussion I suppose.)

epig · Jun 11, 2010

TareqPhoto said:
I use primes as well, but hope i can find a zoom which give me more range equivalent to 24-70 or 70-200 in DSLRs, i saw one zoom for Mamiya RZ67 Pro which is 100-200, didn't find one zoom for Hasselblad 500 series even i am sure there is, so i think i better stay with primes.

The Schneider Varigon 140-280mm f5.6 comes to mind for 500 series Hasselblads as well as for the 2000/200 series. There was also the (Fuji)Blad 60-120 FE lens for the 200 series.

Eric

jime11 · Jun 11, 2010

yes - the 140-280 for 6X6 & the 125-250 for 6X4.5

http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/vgn_56_140-280.pdf
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/vgn_56_125_250.pdf

c.louis · Jun 13, 2010

Prime lens usually have lower f/Stop while consumer grade zoom lens usually start from F5.6... If you zoom closer to your subject you might not get to your lowest f/stop.

Zoom lens also might more vulnerable to chromic abbreviation

tlitody · Jun 13, 2010

maximum f-stop may be a limitation for dof effects and also because the viewfinder will be dimmer. For portaraits do you really want bitingly sharp images anyway. A slight softness to the image is usually more flattering to the subject.

I remember seeing a full face photo of a TV presenter on a magazine cover. She was considered to be a bit of a looker. I rekon the tog didn't like her. He must have used a macro lens. You could see every skin pore and blemish on her face and the image was knife edge sharp. Made her look like a gorgon.

TareqPhoto · Jun 14, 2010

epig said:
The Schneider Varigon 140-280mm f5.6 comes to mind for 500 series Hasselblads as well as for the 2000/200 series. There was also the (Fuji)Blad 60-120 FE lens for the 200 series.

Eric

Where i can find that Schneider Varigon 140-280mm f5.6?

Q.G. · Jun 14, 2010

Places like KEH and eBay.
They are not very rare items.

But mind that you get the one you need, i.e. one with shutter for 500-series Hasselblad. There also was a version without shutter for 2000-series Hasselblads.

It's a big, heavy and slow lens. Not cheap either. Are you sure you want one?

Sirius Glass · Jun 14, 2010

Q.G. said:
It's a big, heavy and slow lens. Not cheap either. Are you sure you want one?

The man has GAS that will not quit!

Cropline · Jun 14, 2010

I have the Bronica ETR 45-90.It's OK,nothing spectacular.As far as Schneider goes for the 645 Bronica,I have read that the 125-250 was good.Also the 110-220 f/4.8 gets excellent reviews.

L Gebhardt · Jun 15, 2010

I have zooms and primes for 35mm. I only use primes with medium and large format (obviously). In no case have I found myself wishing for a zoom with medium format. In fact just going out with one or two lenses tend to give me more keepers than when i take the zoom. I don't know why, other than I need to move more and moving makes me see more options.

TareqPhoto · Jun 15, 2010

L Gebhardt said:
I have zooms and primes for 35mm. I only use primes with medium and large format (obviously). In no case have I found myself wishing for a zoom with medium format. In fact just going out with one or two lenses tend to give me more keepers than when i take the zoom. I don't know why, other than I need to move more and moving makes me see more options.

Also it forcing or tighten you a bit, with zoom i always confuse if i should use this focal length or that, but with prime there is only one focal length so i have to frame the scene myself and move for composition and make it easier, and with zoom i feel more lazy, just stand here and rotate back and forth, how easy.

Pumal · Jun 15, 2010

The idea is to go out with an idea in mind. Therefore; one or 2 Primes will do it.

skahde · Jun 15, 2010

Pumalite said:
The idea is to go out with an idea in mind. Therefore; one or 2 Primes will do it.

And back in the lab generous cropping will do the rest...

Prime vs. Zoom

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency