The debate over prime and zoom lenses has been going on for years. For a long time, it was simple: prime lenses offered superior image quality, while zoom lenses provided versatility. But technology has changed, and the old rules no longer apply. If you’re choosing between these two types of lenses, there’s more to consider than the traditional trade-offs.
Coming to you from Scott Choucino with Tin House Studio, this insightful video breaks down why the prime-versus-zoom argument isn’t as straightforward anymore. Historically, prime lenses were considered “fast” due to their wide apertures, like f/1.2 or f/0.95. These lenses were essential when film and early digital sensors struggled with low light. However, they came with drawbacks—narrow depth of field and a reliance on “bokeh” to sell their appeal. The obsession with out-of-focus background quality reached its peak during the late 2000s, and now, thankfully, it has subsided.
Prime lenses were also known for their sharpness, which early zoom lenses couldn’t match. The 24-70mm f/2.8, a common choice for wedding photographers, was versatile but often lacked sharpness at wider apertures. Photographers used primes like 35mm or 85mm for critical shots. However, with advancements in lens technology, these distinctions have blurred.
Choucino discusses his shift from being a dedicated prime lens user to embracing modern zooms. He shares how using a Sigma Art zoom for video made him reconsider his stance. While prime lenses still excel in sharpness, zooms have improved to the point where the differences are often imperceptible, especially in practical use. This realization came while editing recent portrait work where a zoom lens delivered results indistinguishable from a prime. While technical charts might still favor primes, real-world results don’t always reflect these minor advantages.
For still-life photography, prime lenses remain a strong choice, offering unmatched detail and consistency without issues like zoom creep. Documentary work also benefits from primes due to their fixed focal lengths, which allow for instinctive composition. However, for studio and portrait work, where flexibility matters more than speed, zoom lenses now hold their own. Modern zooms provide sharpness, versatility, and reliability that make them a practical choice. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Choucino.
This is an interesting and frequently misunderstood topic. We did a zooms vs primes comparison test a few years back and totally expected to say that the primes were sharper at the matching focal length, but it wasn't true at all - professional primes and zooms were indistinguishable at the same aperture and focal length.
But with primes, you frequently need to crop to reach the optimal effective focal length for your composition, and any time you cropped, the prime was distinctly LESS sharp than a zoom that could optically match the focal length without cropping.
BUT, a two-stop advantage (like comparing an f/1.4 prime to an f/2.8 prime) in low-light situations creates a DRASTIC advantage for the prime - like going from Micro Four-Thirds to Full-Frame. When you can shoot wide open and the zoom camera isn't shooting at the base ISO, the primes produce MUCH better images, with less noise and greater detail.
And, of course, the option of opening up the aperture and getting more subject separation can produce noticably better images in some situations. Bokeh doesn't have to be over the top, and it isn't mandatory with a fast lens, but professionals appreciate the option to open-up a prime in some circumstances. Zooms don't give you the same options.