Prime v Zoom

[Mickw]

Hi Bob and all. A while back i posted a dilemma in that i did not know what lens to choose for bird photography and some wildlife. My 5D didnt really have the reach but i had a 400D i bought a couple of years back. After listening to advice from here and other places i found i needed a light lens, didnt need zoom (shooting so fast i didnt need it) and for the same reasons didnt need stabilisation. I used my head and chose a 400 f5.6. This was my first proper prime. I have experience of the 180mm f3.5 macro for small stuff but this was a first. I found firstly that i need decent light as the lens isnt to fast but when i get decent light i love it, hand held, light and tough, proper L series quality. Im now saving for the 500f4 (or 600). What i have found has thrown me a bit, prime sharpness. Now ive got some of Canons top zooms, 16-35f2.8 MK2, 24-105f4, 70-200f2.8 IS and they are fine, but the image quality of my prime just kicks butt. Its so sharp, the colours so vibrant (i use my 5D except for birds) its quality even with a 1x4 converter. I never thought i would see much differance but i am. Side by side the pics just look better. This is a dilemma. Im now sold on primes. My mate has a full set for his Nikon 16 up to 200. He swears by them. Im totally happy with my zooms i just wonder, now i have used a prime, i could sell my zooms and invest in primes. They are cheaper for those at say f2.8 although i would need a few say 14mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 150mm 200mm. I know they are harder work but the end result has me sold. But....is it worth it? Do you find primes do produce a sharper image? Are they that much sharper, better colours, lighter etc etc. Just wondered what you guys think.

Mick

[Bob Atkins]

Some primes produce higher image quality than some zooms, but it's not always the case that there's a huge amount of difference. I don't know that it's worth giving up the convenience of zooms (not having to switch lenses) or the convenience of carrying just two lenses rather than a bagful of primes.

It might be a comprimise to just pick up a couple of primes that cover the focal lengths you use most. Maybe start with the EF 85/1.8 USM for portrait work. Compare it with your zoom and see how you like it. I'd guess that the faster aperture will be the major selling feature rather than absolute sharpness and contrast.

[Mickw]

Thanks for the advice Bob. Thats what i was planning. Pick up a prime id use most. The lens i tend to use most is my 24-105 f4 as it does most things very well. Ill get a couple of second hand primes and see how i go. Im currently saving up for my super tele lens. Just wondered. I know the 500f4 is a top lens, as good as they come but wondered your thoughts on the 400 DO and the 400 f2.8 as alternatives. Less reach but faster. They would be used for wildlife.

Perhaps a better way of putting it is, if you went out on a shoot and had to take more of your stunning pics of wildlife, what would you take? What do you take?That advice would be good enough for me. I know it depends on the season, light and subject but whats your top lens combo?
Mick

[Bob Atkins]

I think I'd take a 500/4. The 400/2.8 is even heavier than the 500/4 and has less reach. The f2.8 is nice, but f4 is usually enough. The 400/4DO is nice in that it is smaller and lighter, but I'm still not 100% convinced of the diffractive optics idea. It does have some drawbacks.