What is the big difference between shooting with Primes and Teles?

I don't get it.

Educate me OSP...

i wish i could. i dont know the technicalities of why, but they are better quality. everything is tack sharp. you lose quality with zooms.i have switched over to only primes. i now own no zooms. i am zoomless. but my cup runneth over with primes!

pros for primes:

In terms of image quality prime lenses win hands down. This is because prime lenses don’t have as many internal elements as zoom lenses, meaning image quality is much sharper and saturation much more balanced.For a photography beginner prime lenses will force you to move in or move out to physically change the perspective of your subject. They will totally remove your mindset of “I’ll just zoom in to get closer” - they’ll make you use your feet to zoom and make you much more aware of the importance of good framing. Prime lenses are also much sharper than their counterpart zooms at the same focal lengths, heavy cropping an image produced through a prime lens will give you a much better result than cropping an image from a zoom lens. They also tend to have faster aperture speeds and are lighter than their zoom counterparts.Prime lenses are much less versatile than zooms, I wouldn’t be caught using them in a very important situation where image subjects are switching rapidly as shots will be missed. If you have the time to make images and are shooting for your own personal satisfaction, prime lenses are a perfect solution.

advantages of zooms:

Zoom lenses are the most common lenses on all camera types, both DSLR & Point and Shoot. How often do you see a simple Point and Shoot camera with a fixed focal length lens?Zoom lenses are perfect for situations where you don’t have the time to keep changing lenses every half hour, or need the versatility to be shooting landscape one minute and wildlife high in the branches of trees 30 seconds later. In the aspect of versatility and function when you’re on the go, having a zoom lens will save you many headaches and many missed shots.

conclusion:

Personally, I would follow the philosophy of Duncan Davidson, Apple event photographer goes by. Zoom lenses for work when time is everything and prime lenses for personal work where you have time to spare and time to “make” shots.Both lenses have their place for different types of shooting, jobs and people. I would recommend not kitting out your bag solely with either prime lenses nor zoom lenses. Consider having a couple of each in there and then further assess your needs after a few shooting assignments.No matter what you currently have in your kit the main elements are always solid, take your time, discover how you shoot, and “make” images instead of take.

Ahh... ok.. Thanks Tami!

well that really is about it. i noticed a huge difference in my work after i purchased the 50 1.4. then i got the 135L 2.0. even more fun. and now i have a 15, a 24 and an 85. i just sold my wide zoom, because the quality was poor, i was not happy wtih it at all. i love the primes, they really do force you to think more about what you are doing. but i use them for everything, including weddings. almost all of my work on my site is done with primes with the exception of the formals.

also just from an image quality difference...

big-fast primes tend to have noticeable fall-off (when shot at big apertures) and also have MUCH better bokeh than their zoom counterparts--a difference a lot of photographers use to their advantage.

This is mainly cuz primes can go wider than their zoom counterparts, so a 50 f1.4 shot at f1.4 will have better bokeh than a 24-70 f2.8 shot at 50mm and f2.8.

On the flip side, you also have smaller depth of field, and it's harder to get in focus shots.

Primes are also appear sharper than zooms.

This is a great answer as with the rest of the information from Tami but I have to say that very recently the Nikon 24-70, 14-24 and the 70-200 2.8VR are rocking zooms that look like primes. The flexability in the 24-70 and 70-200 and the quality makes them the way to go IMO. With very low light the fast primes are a good choice 1.4's and 1.2(Canon)

It's very simple. Primes are magical. Of course, I'm kidding...kinda.

The super shallow depth of field combined with a full-frame camera (with further reduces DOF), results in images that seem to pop out at you almost as if they are 3D. It is so cool.

BTW, I now shoot only primes and converted about 2 months ago.
Cory

i'm now completely converted. just sold my 17-55IS yesterday and took delivery on my two new ones.

I use the 85 1.8 and 35 1.4. I use them more than any of my zooms except for the 70-200 2.8. The sharpness, the contrast, the bokeh. Much easily attainable with a prime than wtih my zooms. I absolutely LOVE my primes. I especially love them during low light conditions. I am also thinking of getting the 50 1.2

I shoot with the 85 f1.2 and like Corey said...it is magical. I was very against using primes when I first started, but now I am shooting with the 24L, the 85, and the 135L. I still have a 24-70 on for some of the day, as well as the 70-200, but in different times of the day I love my primes.

How about the image quality of an L series ZOOM, versus a non-L series (but fast) prime? Ex: A 24mm f/2.8 prime vs. a 17-35mm f/2.8L zoom

Not worrying about convenience, etc. STRICTLY image quality. Contemplating some lens purchases myself...

b.u.m.p...........

I've been thinking about going to all primes for about a year. A friend of mine has the 85mm and that thing is like BUTTER!
Thanks for everyone who has replied... I appreciate it...
Mike, I think the your set up is probably where I will end up... I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY like the 24-70 f2.8... Most of the time at the reception thats what I have on my main body...

I love primes, but in the semi-controlled chaos of a wedding day, zooms are our tool of choice for photojournalistic coverage. 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 pretty much is it. When the situation allows, the 135 2.0, 24 1.4 and 50 1.2 rocks.

i could shoot the whole day with my 70-200mm - LOVE it. every time i use it, i love it more and more.
BUT, i love my 15mm fishy wishy and 100mm macro, too.

16-35 for groups and 24-70 just because the range is fabulous.

that's pretty much my whole bag of tricks.

ahhh, yes. Love 'em both as well, those are the super fun ones. The others are the "work" glass (but still fun).

lighter and faster and sharper. For me, moving around gives me more inspiration and I don't really need a zoom.

Neil - Make Light Real.com
Charlotte NC Wedding Photographer

I agree...lighter, faster, sharper..I am a PRIME GIRL!!!

For the right situation, that works. For us, we try to minimize the moving around as much as possible during the ceremony, speeches, etc. Sometimes, by the time you move to get the shot, the moment is over. For catching candid emotional moments, you cannot match a 24-70, 70-200 combination. Yes, it's heavy to lug around. But we get paid a lot of money to lug it, so we do. Primes rock for sure, but I suppose it just comes down to using the best tool for your style (or situation).

Primes kinda make me think a little more. But also the second i touch one, of my 2 cameras, i know what focal length it will be. No zooming, just right what i expect every time i bring it to my eye. So much light can come in with a 1.4 that i think i can almost see in the dark.

I shoot 24 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 for about 85% of my coverage now. 70-200 for the long churches, and a 10-20 zoom for the ultra wide on my 30d and 40d.

I think everyone has periods in time where they try zooms and primes. But they are all just tools to do a job. It's the way the person behind the camera uses those tools that actually makes the images. I started with zooms and the cheap primes, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, and 85 1.8. Eventually i will probably have the 85 1.2, because well it's FAST and sexy.

The moment is always before you, always passing, never leaving, never ending

the question is can you get into that moment

I quit using a 70-200 over a year ago and leaving the thought of impossible behind has been liberating. My experience was that the 70-200 pushed me too deep into the crop and I lost context more often than not. If you have to be out of the context to shoot it then a long lens works but I'm not sure if I can understand something if I"m not participating.

If Bresson did it - I can too.

<a href="http://makelovereal.net/category/wedding-photographer/"><img src="http://neilcowley.com/weddings/2006/baseball_fans/images/baseball_fans_29.jpg" alt="" width="675" height="450" border="0" /></a>

<a href="http://makelovereal.net/category/destination-weddings/"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1242/1196044160_c95df540d2_o.jpg" alt="" width="675" height="450" border="0" /></a>