Primes vs Zooms

Ryan K · February 10, 2005

Can anyone explain the differences between using primes and zooms in terms of image quality? I mean, if one were to put a kit of Zeiss primes against a Zeiss zoom (say, 11-50mm) would there be any striking differences? Are we talking vignetting? Depth of field inconsistenies? Is there *that* much difference?

Rik Andino · February 10, 2005

Primes are usually faster than zooms

And their image is usuaully slightly better than zooms...

Depth of field and focusing is also an issue...

The thing is a good zoom lens is very expensive

(sometimes can cost as much as the price of a camera)

Good primes don't cost as much

And since they have less inner mechanism can work easier than zooms

Meaning they don't need to be maintained as much as zooms

They don't have to be calibrated as much as zooms

Primes are usually low-maintance and can be fixed easier than a zoom

There are also image factors between primes and zoom lens

A 50mm prime lens will look diff. from a zoom lens at 50mm

It's really a complicated and it's easier to show than tell.

Most cinematographers perfer to use prime lens over zooms.

The best thing to have is a set of primes complimented with a zoom lens

But if all you can afford is a zoom lens for your camera

It can be very useful and sometimes convienient, though not necessarily better.

Adam Frisch FSF · February 10, 2005

The zooms are really getting good, though. Today there isn't much image quality difference between a good new zoom and a new set of primes.

John Ealer · February 10, 2005

In general:

Primes

1. Don't focus breathe.

2. Are, in general, lighter for handheld and steadicam.

3. Have fewer pieces of glass, so there's less veiling flare; deliberate lens flares (to my taste) generally look better in primes than in zooms.

4. Are usually faster, usually with a max aperture between T 1.3 and 2.1.

Zooms:

1. Save you from having to change lenses out, which saves time on set, especially when you're up on a crane or in an underwater housing.

2. Give you the ability to subtly change focal length during a camera move to get just the shot you want, even though you can't, say, lay the dolly track exactly where you want.

3. Often have max apertures in the range of T2.8 to T4 and beyond.

4. Make for a much better production still when you're standing next to the rig looking defiantly at the setting sun.

J

Patrick Neary · February 10, 2005

the biggest advantage of a zoom happens when your grips have just spent 30 minutes laying track and setting up a dolly shot and the director looks at the tap (or through the eyepiece, if they're old-fashioned) and says "tighter" :)

Sam Wells · February 10, 2005

the biggest advantage of a zoom happens when your grips have just spent 30 minutes laying track and setting up a dolly shot and the director looks at the tap (or through the eyepiece, if they're old-fashioned) and says "tighter" :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jeez Patrick then you just move the Titanic in a few yards closer. Why is this *your* problem :D

What d'ya mean "now we can't see the iceberg"

Really this is an overgeneralized question, and it could get 100 answers depending on what specific optics you are talking about.

99 aside, I would say that primes force a certain discipline or philosophy on you in that you will tend to think in terms of space and volumes instead of merely image size.

Both have their uses, that's why they sell both.

-Sam

Kim Sargenius · February 20, 2005

Primes

1. Don't focus breathe.

2. Are, in general, lighter for handheld and steadicam.

3. Have fewer pieces of glass, so there's less veiling flare; deliberate lens flares (to my taste) generally look better in primes than in zooms.

4. Are usually faster, usually with a max aperture between T 1.3 and 2.1.

To that I would add one major difference - primes have closer minimum focus. A few zooms have minimum focus that makes them rather challenging to work with, which means I generally tend to use zooms at their longer end.

Quite a few zooms I have come across (although I haven't had a chance to use the Optimo yet) seen to have a bit of a 'dead' spot somewhere in the range.

Kim Sargenius

cinematographer

sydney

Max Jacoby · February 20, 2005

To that I would add one major difference - primes have closer minimum focus.

The exceptions to that are of course the Primo 14.5-50 Zoom and the Hawk 46-230mm anamorphic Zoom which both are also Macro Lenses. Even the Optimo 24-290mm has good enough close focus to do really close shots on the long end. And that lens, just like the short Optimo as well, doesn't breathe at all.

Kim Sargenius · February 24, 2005

The exceptions to that are of course the Primo 14.5-50 Zoom and the Hawk 46-230mm anamorphic Zoom which both are also Macro Lenses. Even the Optimo 24-290mm has good enough close focus to do really close shots on the long end.

Unfortunately quite out of my league at the moment :(

Kim Sargenius

cineamtographer

sydney

Nate Downes · February 24, 2005

I have a set of primes and a few zooms. I match them up carefully, but in general, even the cheapest prime compares well to my expensive zooms. Now my new Zeiss prime, that thing is damned near the most perfect lens I've ever used. Pity it's only for 16mm cams.