@@xyzct Could be the character, I suppose the more character there is, the more the costs are gonna be, its just how it is, I prefer finding the tighter ones, less costs but performance can be as good if not sometimes better in varied situations.
My favorite part of using prime is just less hassle with messing with settings. You KNOW what your focal length and just work with that. Often I forget to compensate my shot if I’m shooting on a 50mm then zoom into 300mm. Honestly they both rock.
I just started in photography and am using just primes (50 1.8, 35 2.0, 20 2.8) eventually I'll get to a zoom, but right now, I'm learning aperture, shutter speed and iso. Maybe in the fall.
I'm heading to Spain and thinking about which camera lenses to bring. I tested carrying three lenses and my camera in a heavy leather backpack for a whole day to see how it feels. I really like my Sigma 105 f1.4 lens because it takes great photos, but it's heavy and might be too much to carry around. So, I'm planning to take a Sigma 14 mm 1.4 and a Tamron 28-70 f2.8 lens instead. They are lighter and still good for taking different kinds of photos. I'll be shooting in RAW + JPEG with a picture profile that looks a bit like Kodak Portrait 160 film.
Hi Joris, What lens did you use for this video? Im looking to create talking head videos for social media in a similar setting to yours. Currently went straight in and bought a Sony fx30 and a tamron 28-75mm F/2.8. The frame i have is so close even when zoomed right out.
The point about not shooting wide open ALL THE TIME is one that's often missed and something I try to always keep in mind. I know i've had this thought: somehow you start to feel that if you don't do that, you're "wasting" a more expensive prime lens when in reality, it's easy to forget we also pay for ergonomics, size/weight, AF speed, IQ consistency, etc... the wide aperture isn't the only reason to buy a good quality prime (or zoom for that matter). Luckily it's REALLY hard to buy a "bad" lens these days; there are just different degrees of good ;-)
Light is so complicated. Hobbyist photography i believe is different in mind set. Having a low aperture lens allows you to, when in manual mode and shooting raw, have more control over your iso and especially your shutter. Important when shooting hand held. But for steet photography, where f8 is “ideal” you may not need low aperture, but then you’re limited on other areas such as portraits where sharpness may not be as desirable. But understanding that control over you’re aperture is the base and all other factors form from that. It’s not only low light but also diffused light. Ok done ranting
Prime lenses not necessarily have better image quality for eg. Canon 24-70 L lens is a lot sharper and less chromatic abbreviation than it's 24mm 35mm 50mm Lseries primes. Lens manufacturing technology has advanced so much that prime lens advantages had narrowed down to only larger aperture and better barrel distortion and the latter can be fixed in software. Thus prime lens only advantage is probably larger aperture....
@@xuanzheng1049 size is also a huge advantage, as is cost. A prime lens with an equivalent aperture and optical quality is always cheaper and smaller. In many cases these advantages are significant.
@@andreas1701d the example I just gave proved the opposite. The canon 2470 is lighter comparing to carrying 3 prime lenses, and cost less considering buying 3 L lenses, image quality is better across all focal length.
@@xuanzheng1049 that's if you try to cover the entire focal range of a zoom. If you compare a quality 24mm lens (say the Sony 24mm f1.4 GM) with the Sony 24-70 GM II, it's far smaller and lighter. Given that the 24-70 is newer, it's on par image quality wise, though the gap between 1.4 and 2.8 is also massive. So while you proved that 1 lens is lighter than 3, that's not a fair or useful comparison. Carrying lenses in a backpack is not the same as holding a camera and having it weigh 700g vs 1200g.
What about for architecture and landscapes? On one hand you barely need the focal flexibility of a zoom lens in when shooting those situations, and on the other hand you never need to go so high on aperture for bokeh from a prime either.
One could argue that the prime is superior due to less glass. I'd guessfor someone shooting buildings and architecture a zoom might be useful at times though?
I've replaced the 18-45 which was the kit lens for Canon R50 with 18-150. Added a variable ND filter. It's a great combo. Very versatile combination for almost all the scenarios!
I Need to add to the video. Prime lenses are great for making the videos / photos from the same photoshoot connect while editing or posting. when you see video with the same focal length Its simply flow better. same thing when you uploading small album. Zoom lenses: Sports, Extreme sports, Evemts, Planes and Animals. Prime lenses: Video Sets, Portraits, Studio, Cars, Models, Macro, and Architecture. The only option I can see myself taking Both is Street Photography and Travel. While traveling its amazing to have Zoom all around lens + prime lens for Elite shots while you got the time for it
it's funny for the longest time i had this weird "snobby" train of thought were zoom lenses were for tourists and if i needed to get close, then get close to the subject! buuuut, i realized that is just silly, and now my lumix 12-35mm M4/3 is pretty much my go-to lens when i'm just out having fun, and what's extra funny is will, more times than not, just put it on my BMPCC OG, put a 1/8 black mist filter and a variable ND and it's like what else is there? yeah my 4k and 6k g2 are amazing cameras (and i will put the 12-35 on the 4k as its primary lens) but yeah, having that versatility of having wide-ish angle to pretty tight (allowing for the M4/3 crop) just makes going out and shooting super fun and no rigging, and a camera that fits in a simple satchel and that i can carry around all day and not even think about it! oh yeah dat sensor tho!
Primes used to be better. The tech on zooms has come a long way in 40 years. Primes were always sharper on film. Nowadays it's a matter of preference. The lense that gets the job done is the best lense.
Prime lenses are better for most things until you get into the telephoto range.. at that point Zoom takes over. I do prime from 11mm to 85mm and everything past that is telephoto zoom. 70-200 GM II. I'm with you on the pixel peeking... I have been using vintage Takumar lenses over my high end Sony G Master stuff because I prefer the imperfections they produce.
Ok I’ve been on this topic for so long, that being said, if you’re going to spend the money, long term, invest in the best Zoom that you want the lowest MM. if you want 14mm, get a a 14-24mm. The 14mm will be extremely sharp and you’ll have the option to compress and build your own “trinity” unless you’re a professional and have a set mm in mind, you can then invest in prime. Quality zoom is, imo. The best base. You’re not actually “zooming” with a high quality glass, you’re changing the focal length, that’s why “zoom” lens weigh more, more elements.
Pros and cons for each. I personally leave my 50 1.8 on my camera and take a zoom and another longer prime/macro. Sometimes, I have a goal for the day and other times it's just simply "I'm leaving this 50 on for the day and we'll see what happens". I do have a 14-30 for the landscape photos when I'm feeling those as well.
I also have a 50mm 1.8 and i really love that lens, but it’s indeed not always the best choice to shoot with. Most of the time I shoot landscapes and it’s possible to shoot landscapes with this lens, but I need that versatility of my other zoom lenses to. Most of the time I’m using my sigma 18-55 f2.8 just because I have that wider angle but also that little bit of zoom. Even in landscape photography you don’t always have the time to change lenses 😁 fun vid Joris
For beginners, I recommend a high quality standard range zoom for the following reasons: 1. If you start with a prime, you will likely buy more primes to make up for the limited focal length, and that can quickly add up in both cost and weight (if you bring all of them along). A great zoom might cost more up front than a single prime, but can in the long run still be cheaper than the focal lengths it replaces. 2. If you have a collection of primes, how often will you ACTUALLY take the time to switch them when you're shooting? You may very well decide after some time out in the field that you'll let that fleeting, unexpected subject go for now, because you either don't have the time or energy to make the switch every time you see something interesting at a new distance. With a zoom, you can still get that shot. 3. Right from the get-go of your photography journey, with a zoom lens you will start seeing and thinking about the effects of different focal lengths, compression of the background, and nearness to subject, instead of waiting until you get more primes. 4. [If you want to get advanced] With a zoom lens, you can perform a dolly zoom (look it up) using your feet instead of a dolly to find the optimal focal length for your given subject/composition. Now imagine how much of a hassle THAT would be using primes! If you start with and learn to use a zoom, you will be better equipped to know what primes you may later want to buy and exactly what they will do for your photos.
"I think sharpness is over-rated. All that pixel peeping is useless" I'm going to scream. Not everyone uses a camera purely for aesthetic art purposes. I occasionally do photogrammetry 3d scanning work, and sharpness is *everything*. I need to capture images with as much detail and as little artifacts as possible. It's incredibly frustrating trying to find comparisons though, because everyone assumes you want to take artsy photos with shallow DoF & lens effects.
In recent months I’ve picked up a 22mm lens and a 50mm lens for my Canon M50. I’m liking both for different reasons. But they are greatly improved over the standard kit lens the camera comes with. But not having a zoom does take some getting used to.
I basically see my zoom lenses as "boxes of primes". My 70-200/2.8 is a collection of 70, 85, 105, 135 and 200mm primes all in one package. It is very convenient, I just have a smaller aperture compared to actual prime lenses. Primes are much more specialized. Zooms are all about convenience and versatility. Personally I always carry 4 lenses with me: 2 short primes and 2 telephoto zooms. The primes are for landscapes and more general shots while my tele zooms are for animal photography. And for the latter flexibility is very important.
Use both. I carry an olympus 12-60mm 2.8, and it's an incredible lens for so many things. I also love my Pancolar 50mm 1.8 or my helios lenses for their character and amazing bokeh. I agree about sharpness being overrated. I think composition and subject matter is much more important and sometimes the vintage lenses while imperfect..render with so much character.
Love your videos because it's very useful for beginners like me. Right now i have zve10 kit lens and sigma 30mm now planning to buy Tamron 17 70 is that good idea ? For videography and photography both
Hi bro, I'm also in your same situation. Did u buy Tamron apsc lens 17-70mm f2.8? Does It suck dust due to an external zoom barrel? How is the low light, is f2.8 enough?
@@hari_fyi 2.8 is not bad in low light and in evening low light it gives wonderful picture quality. And sharpness also good. But stabilization ok ok only
If I could use my Fuji 16-55mm zoom all the time, I would. But its f2.8 makes my crop sensor camera struggle in low light (people who say crop sensors are as clear in low light as full frame sensors are wrong), and pushes me to stand back and zoom to 55mm when I want ok background blur/bokeh (which loses the intimacy and 'in the action' of a wider angle). So I have to supplement it with a prime. If I only want to carry one lens, for lightness, then the choice depends on weather, time of day and likely subjects.
Given equivalent focal range and aperture a photo/video shot by a modern high-end zoom is indistinguishable from one shot by a prime in every way that matters. Thank you, Joris for not feeding into the hype. * I own and love my prime lenses but almost all my work (paid & personal is with zooms these days).
Truth is, how do you compare a claw hammer 🔨 to a rubber mallet? Both use the same principle as a hammer but you can't pound a nail with a rubber mallet and the same goes for a prime vs. telephoto... It depends on how you're going to get the shot and/or what your taking a photo of...
when I changed to digital years ago went out shopping and got 24-70, 70-200 zoom and they were great. but when covid hit I only used 100mm and 85mm at home studio and loved them. as I was doing so much product photography got myself what I thought was the ultimate lens for this 90mm Tse mark 2 but when compared to 100mm it seemed sharper and cost £200. asked 10 people in a blind test and agreed.
I may be amateur, but my amateur opinion why would it make you lazy? I use prime when things are happening slowly. As in portraits or long walks. I use zoom at my children's games, my go to is 100 to 400, and even with that, I jump in and out of my 2x doubler. I don't have time to think about the story in soccer. And even with those, I can't stay put maybe because I'm an amateur and use my feet to make up for my lack of experience. My son and his GF asked me to do a portrait, and I used a prime 85 and a hellos 44. I wasn't moving much there because my subjects were in frame at a certain distance. I kinda feel like I lay the opposite on this assumption about lazy zoomers, but then again, I've always been an antagonist.
I heard the problem with zooms, is the lenses zooming in sucks dust into the glass creating more noise? Is this possible? And primes get less dust issues? Cheers!
This can happen to zooms that extend externaly (24-105 f4 for example). Small amount of dust is not a huge deal. Primes are sealed and therefore have less dust problems. For beginners/amateurs, the 24-105 and a prime (35/38 1.8) as a combo are my recommendation.
@@JorisHermans are you coming again because the biggest festival of Varanasi which is dev Deepawali is on 7th of Nov and it is great festival for creators.
Absolutely - Prime lenses are better than zoom lenses. But if the zoom lens is truly of premium quality, then the difference in quality is surely not at all tremendous, and nothing to worry about. What you want to avoid are the super zooms - lenses with a range of something like 28mm to 200 mm. More often that not ... the greatest advantage of a prime lens is the greater likelihood of having a maximum f/1.4 aperture, or even better. Hmm, but Nikon has a piece of crap zoom lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.4. Totally insane! Quality? Non-existent -
You literally can't zoom with prime lenses. So how can you say they are better. Just because at the same mm and aperture it looks slightly better? A zoom lens offers more. So it's better.
@@Stierenkloot - A zoom lens offers far more flexibility. But a premium quality prime lens offers somewhat better image quality than a premium quality zoom lens. A prime lens also offers a larger maximum aperture. I use both sorts of lenses for whatever the situation might demand.
A 35mm prime is a zoom lens. Zoom with your feet and crop in Photoshop. Forget about high resolution final images. The only people who need them are landscape photographers or technical photographers. Most people are too damn ugly to suffer the abuse of a high resolution portrait.
“The bigger the hole, the better the low light performance.”
I agree Joris.
Not sure why they cost more, though.
@@xyzct
Could be the character, I suppose the more character there is, the more the costs are gonna be, its just how it is, I prefer finding the tighter ones, less costs but performance can be as good if not sometimes better in varied situations.
My favorite part of using prime is just less hassle with messing with settings. You KNOW what your focal length and just work with that.
Often I forget to compensate my shot if I’m shooting on a 50mm then zoom into 300mm.
Honestly they both rock.
"sharpness is overrated" // "use what works for you"
THANK YOU!!!!! ❤
So how come people wear eye glasses to correct their vision if sharpness is overrated.
Once again, nothing but honesty (which is greatly appreciated 🙏🏻)
Excellent as always Joris - cheers man 👊✌
I just started in photography and am using just primes (50 1.8, 35 2.0, 20 2.8) eventually I'll get to a zoom, but right now, I'm learning aperture, shutter speed and iso. Maybe in the fall.
Excellent and Nailed the Subject 100%. And I do agree with you, dear,
I'm heading to Spain and thinking about which camera lenses to bring. I tested carrying three lenses and my camera in a heavy leather backpack for a whole day to see how it feels. I really like my Sigma 105 f1.4 lens because it takes great photos, but it's heavy and might be too much to carry around. So, I'm planning to take a Sigma 14 mm 1.4 and a Tamron 28-70 f2.8 lens instead. They are lighter and still good for taking different kinds of photos. I'll be shooting in RAW + JPEG with a picture profile that looks a bit like Kodak Portrait 160 film.
Hi Joris, What lens did you use for this video? Im looking to create talking head videos for social media in a similar setting to yours. Currently went straight in and bought a Sony fx30 and a tamron 28-75mm F/2.8. The frame i have is so close even when zoomed right out.
I'm using a 35mm on my A7S III but that's a full-frame sensor. The FX30 has a crop sensor so to get the same angle of view you'll need a 22mm.
The point about not shooting wide open ALL THE TIME is one that's often missed and something I try to always keep in mind. I know i've had this thought: somehow you start to feel that if you don't do that, you're "wasting" a more expensive prime lens when in reality, it's easy to forget we also pay for ergonomics, size/weight, AF speed, IQ consistency, etc... the wide aperture isn't the only reason to buy a good quality prime (or zoom for that matter).
Luckily it's REALLY hard to buy a "bad" lens these days; there are just different degrees of good ;-)
Light is so complicated. Hobbyist photography i believe is different in mind set. Having a low aperture lens allows you to, when in manual mode and shooting raw, have more control over your iso and especially your shutter. Important when shooting hand held. But for steet photography, where f8 is “ideal” you may not need low aperture, but then you’re limited on other areas such as portraits where sharpness may not be as desirable. But understanding that control over you’re aperture is the base and all other factors form from that. It’s not only low light but also diffused light. Ok done ranting
Prime lenses not necessarily have better image quality for eg. Canon 24-70 L lens is a lot sharper and less chromatic abbreviation than it's 24mm 35mm 50mm Lseries primes. Lens manufacturing technology has advanced so much that prime lens advantages had narrowed down to only larger aperture and better barrel distortion and the latter can be fixed in software. Thus prime lens only advantage is probably larger aperture....
@@xuanzheng1049 size is also a huge advantage, as is cost.
A prime lens with an equivalent aperture and optical quality is always cheaper and smaller. In many cases these advantages are significant.
@@andreas1701d the example I just gave proved the opposite. The canon 2470 is lighter comparing to carrying 3 prime lenses, and cost less considering buying 3 L lenses, image quality is better across all focal length.
@@xuanzheng1049 that's if you try to cover the entire focal range of a zoom. If you compare a quality 24mm lens (say the Sony 24mm f1.4 GM) with the Sony 24-70 GM II, it's far smaller and lighter. Given that the 24-70 is newer, it's on par image quality wise, though the gap between 1.4 and 2.8 is also massive.
So while you proved that 1 lens is lighter than 3, that's not a fair or useful comparison. Carrying lenses in a backpack is not the same as holding a camera and having it weigh 700g vs 1200g.
thank you
What about for architecture and landscapes? On one hand you barely need the focal flexibility of a zoom lens in when shooting those situations, and on the other hand you never need to go so high on aperture for bokeh from a prime either.
One could argue that the prime is superior due to less glass. I'd guessfor someone shooting buildings and architecture a zoom might be useful at times though?
You are right and wrong, well explained!
I've replaced the 18-45 which was the kit lens for Canon R50 with 18-150. Added a variable ND filter. It's a great combo. Very versatile combination for almost all the scenarios!
I Need to add to the video.
Prime lenses are great for making the videos / photos from the same photoshoot connect while editing or posting.
when you see video with the same focal length Its simply flow better.
same thing when you uploading small album.
Zoom lenses: Sports, Extreme sports, Evemts, Planes and Animals.
Prime lenses: Video Sets, Portraits, Studio, Cars, Models, Macro, and Architecture.
The only option I can see myself taking Both is Street Photography and Travel.
While traveling its amazing to have Zoom all around lens + prime lens for Elite shots while you got the time for it
it's funny for the longest time i had this weird "snobby" train of thought were zoom lenses were for tourists and if i needed to get close, then get close to the subject! buuuut, i realized that is just silly, and now my lumix 12-35mm M4/3 is pretty much my go-to lens when i'm just out having fun, and what's extra funny is will, more times than not, just put it on my BMPCC OG, put a 1/8 black mist filter and a variable ND and it's like what else is there? yeah my 4k and 6k g2 are amazing cameras (and i will put the 12-35 on the 4k as its primary lens) but yeah, having that versatility of having wide-ish angle to pretty tight (allowing for the M4/3 crop) just makes going out and shooting super fun and no rigging, and a camera that fits in a simple satchel and that i can carry around all day and not even think about it! oh yeah dat sensor tho!
I want 12 35 as everyone says it's so versatile, but I am going with a 15mm f1.7 because the aperture
Primes used to be better. The tech on zooms has come a long way in 40 years. Primes were always sharper on film. Nowadays it's a matter of preference. The lense that gets the job done is the best lense.
Prime lenses are better for most things until you get into the telephoto range.. at that point Zoom takes over. I do prime from 11mm to 85mm and everything past that is telephoto zoom. 70-200 GM II. I'm with you on the pixel peeking... I have been using vintage Takumar lenses over my high end Sony G Master stuff because I prefer the imperfections they produce.
Ok I’ve been on this topic for so long, that being said, if you’re going to spend the money, long term, invest in the best Zoom that you want the lowest MM. if you want 14mm, get a a 14-24mm. The 14mm will be extremely sharp and you’ll have the option to compress and build your own “trinity” unless you’re a professional and have a set mm in mind, you can then invest in prime. Quality zoom is, imo. The best base. You’re not actually “zooming” with a high quality glass, you’re changing the focal length, that’s why “zoom” lens weigh more, more elements.
Pros and cons for each. I personally leave my 50 1.8 on my camera and take a zoom and another longer prime/macro. Sometimes, I have a goal for the day and other times it's just simply "I'm leaving this 50 on for the day and we'll see what happens". I do have a 14-30 for the landscape photos when I'm feeling those as well.
I also have a 50mm 1.8 and i really love that lens, but it’s indeed not always the best choice to shoot with. Most of the time I shoot landscapes and it’s possible to shoot landscapes with this lens, but I need that versatility of my other zoom lenses to. Most of the time I’m using my sigma 18-55 f2.8 just because I have that wider angle but also that little bit of zoom. Even in landscape photography you don’t always have the time to change lenses 😁 fun vid Joris
For beginners, I recommend a high quality standard range zoom for the following reasons:
1. If you start with a prime, you will likely buy more primes to make up for the limited focal length, and that can quickly add up in both cost and weight (if you bring all of them along). A great zoom might cost more up front than a single prime, but can in the long run still be cheaper than the focal lengths it replaces.
2. If you have a collection of primes, how often will you ACTUALLY take the time to switch them when you're shooting? You may very well decide after some time out in the field that you'll let that fleeting, unexpected subject go for now, because you either don't have the time or energy to make the switch every time you see something interesting at a new distance. With a zoom, you can still get that shot.
3. Right from the get-go of your photography journey, with a zoom lens you will start seeing and thinking about the effects of different focal lengths, compression of the background, and nearness to subject, instead of waiting until you get more primes.
4. [If you want to get advanced] With a zoom lens, you can perform a dolly zoom (look it up) using your feet instead of a dolly to find the optimal focal length for your given subject/composition. Now imagine how much of a hassle THAT would be using primes!
If you start with and learn to use a zoom, you will be better equipped to know what primes you may later want to buy and exactly what they will do for your photos.
You should make a video using this as a script 😉🙏🏻
@@JorisHermans Thanks for the suggestion Joris, but I get enough hate as it is, don't need the prime gang after me too lol
This answers so many of my questions as beginner. Thanks!
@@Nerdle777 Thank you!
Wish I knew this before buying two primes😭
"I think sharpness is over-rated. All that pixel peeping is useless"
I'm going to scream. Not everyone uses a camera purely for aesthetic art purposes. I occasionally do photogrammetry 3d scanning work, and sharpness is *everything*. I need to capture images with as much detail and as little artifacts as possible. It's incredibly frustrating trying to find comparisons though, because everyone assumes you want to take artsy photos with shallow DoF & lens effects.
Obviously he’s not talking about 1,000+ reddit karma nerds like you
"The bigger the hole the better it will perform". Hmmmmmmmm
Underrated comment
Well, yes! He specified under low light.
What school did you went ?
Can you make a video of your journey winning award of documentary project?
Sure, what would you like to know specifically?
I prefer zoom because it means I can do everything with only one lens, but I’m saving up for a 50mm f/1.8 prime for low light
depends on application, they should both be useful. informative 7mins.
I love this video, man. Lots of useful, practical information for a camera amateur like myself.
In recent months I’ve picked up a 22mm lens and a 50mm lens for my Canon M50. I’m liking both for different reasons. But they are greatly improved over the standard kit lens the camera comes with. But not having a zoom does take some getting used to.
I basically see my zoom lenses as "boxes of primes".
My 70-200/2.8 is a collection of 70, 85, 105, 135 and 200mm primes all in one package. It is very convenient, I just have a smaller aperture compared to actual prime lenses.
Primes are much more specialized. Zooms are all about convenience and versatility.
Personally I always carry 4 lenses with me: 2 short primes and 2 telephoto zooms. The primes are for landscapes and more general shots while my tele zooms are for animal photography. And for the latter flexibility is very important.
I love zoom lenses and I know it's too much to ask for but I just wish they were smaller with bigger apertures haha
The bigger apertures lenses are more expensive, but they give off better background blur
Use both. I carry an olympus 12-60mm 2.8, and it's an incredible lens for so many things. I also love my Pancolar 50mm 1.8 or my helios lenses for their character and amazing bokeh. I agree about sharpness being overrated. I think composition and subject matter is much more important and sometimes the vintage lenses while imperfect..render with so much character.
👏🏻
The big sensor and more Mega pixel is answer.
if you have more , you can make it happen better after shooting or edited the image.
Love your videos because it's very useful for beginners like me. Right now i have zve10 kit lens and sigma 30mm now planning to buy Tamron 17 70 is that good idea ? For videography and photography both
Hi bro, I'm also in your same situation. Did u buy Tamron apsc lens 17-70mm f2.8? Does It suck dust due to an external zoom barrel? How is the low light, is f2.8 enough?
@@hari_fyi am enjoying the Tamron 17 70 bro
@@hari_fyi 2.8 is not bad in low light and in evening low light it gives wonderful picture quality. And sharpness also good. But stabilization ok ok only
If I could use my Fuji 16-55mm zoom all the time, I would. But its f2.8 makes my crop sensor camera struggle in low light (people who say crop sensors are as clear in low light as full frame sensors are wrong), and pushes me to stand back and zoom to 55mm when I want ok background blur/bokeh (which loses the intimacy and 'in the action' of a wider angle). So I have to supplement it with a prime. If I only want to carry one lens, for lightness, then the choice depends on weather, time of day and likely subjects.
Thanks, Joris. Very well said and presented. Have a great day! 😀
Given equivalent focal range and aperture a photo/video shot by a modern high-end zoom is indistinguishable from one shot by a prime in every way that matters. Thank you, Joris for not feeding into the hype.
* I own and love my prime lenses but almost all my work (paid & personal is with zooms these days).
Truth is, how do you compare a claw hammer 🔨 to a rubber mallet?
Both use the same principle as a hammer but you can't pound a nail with a rubber mallet and the same goes for a prime vs. telephoto... It depends on how you're going to get the shot and/or what your taking a photo of...
Yes! It’s the person behind the camera. You’re absolutely right.
You earned a subscriber. I liked that sentence "it's just the person behind the camera, not the lens."
I like your example of shooting race cars... since that's exactly what I do 😅
when I changed to digital years ago went out shopping and got 24-70, 70-200 zoom and they were great. but when covid hit I only used 100mm and 85mm at home studio and loved them. as I was doing so much product photography got myself what I thought was the ultimate lens for this 90mm Tse mark 2 but when compared to 100mm it seemed sharper and cost £200. asked 10 people in a blind test and agreed.
I may be amateur, but my amateur opinion why would it make you lazy? I use prime when things are happening slowly. As in portraits or long walks. I use zoom at my children's games, my go to is 100 to 400, and even with that, I jump in and out of my 2x doubler. I don't have time to think about the story in soccer. And even with those, I can't stay put maybe because I'm an amateur and use my feet to make up for my lack of experience. My son and his GF asked me to do a portrait, and I used a prime 85 and a hellos 44. I wasn't moving much there because my subjects were in frame at a certain distance. I kinda feel like I lay the opposite on this assumption about lazy zoomers, but then again, I've always been an antagonist.
P.s. I'll admit my go to in any situation that let's me do it is my hellos 44. I guess it's a prime.
One question : can all lens change the appature?
I use the smartphone to make shoots at short range for miniatures so zoom is a good friend of mine
Great video Joris! I love your point of view...all great points. Use what you like...and use the right tool for the job!
I heard the problem with zooms, is the lenses zooming in sucks dust into the glass creating more noise? Is this possible? And primes get less dust issues? Cheers!
This can happen to zooms that extend externaly (24-105 f4 for example). Small amount of dust is not a huge deal. Primes are sealed and therefore have less dust problems. For beginners/amateurs, the 24-105 and a prime (35/38 1.8) as a combo are my recommendation.
thanks a lot for that great viedo
What about a prime a and zoom lens at the same focal length? Is the prime better because of the lower f stop and better blurred?
Same blur at same f-stop but one might be sharper or "better". Depends on build quality and design not the f-stop.
LOVELY💯🙏
Thanks.. loved how you went into details. Definitely cleared some doubts.
Thank you, great video
5:08 LOL
Yes !
So basically save your money and shoot with in iPhone
Save your money & iPhone doesn't go together 😅😅😅
Well said !
Hey Joris, would you recommend a zoom lens or a prime lens for real estate photography?
Not a real estate expert but I can imagine you'll need wide focal lengths for interiors. 🤔 In my opinion, a good starter is the classic 24-70.
@@JorisHermans thanks!
@@soni835 This is if you're shooting full frame!
Sir I want to ask you when you came to Varanasi 👍❤️
May, 2018 🙏🏻💯
@@JorisHermans are you coming again because the biggest festival of Varanasi which is dev Deepawali is on 7th of Nov and it is great festival for creators.
Absolutely - Prime lenses are better than zoom lenses.
But if the zoom lens is truly of premium quality, then the difference in quality is surely not at all tremendous, and nothing to worry about.
What you want to avoid are the super zooms - lenses with a range of something like 28mm to 200 mm. More often that not ... the greatest advantage of a prime lens is the greater likelihood of having a maximum f/1.4 aperture, or even better. Hmm, but Nikon has a piece of crap zoom lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.4. Totally insane! Quality? Non-existent -
You literally can't zoom with prime lenses. So how can you say they are better. Just because at the same mm and aperture it looks slightly better? A zoom lens offers more. So it's better.
@@Stierenkloot - A zoom lens offers far more flexibility. But a premium quality prime lens offers somewhat better image quality than a premium quality zoom lens. A prime lens also offers a larger maximum aperture.
I use both sorts of lenses for whatever the situation might demand.
A 35mm prime is a zoom lens. Zoom with your feet and crop in Photoshop. Forget about high resolution final images. The only people who need them are landscape photographers or technical photographers. Most people are too damn ugly to suffer the abuse of a high resolution portrait.