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.
These new f2 zooms closed the gap some.
Also, the f1.8's. Well, the only one that I know, Sigma 28-45 f1.8.
18-35/1.8 and 50-100 /1.8 for aps-c
I have the 100-400mm mII and a prime L lens among others. No difference in IQ that's perceptible. Yes, larger aperture for very low light makes a difference at times but cannot overcome the absolute versatility of the zoom.
Mostly. I run 3 camera bodies with 3 lenses during my wedding day so I'm pretty close. Lol
I agree, the zoom thing isn't the massive compromise that it used to be. I use a variety of Nikon Z lenses and they're all very good. Even comparing the 24-120 (which I love for travel) to the legendary 50mm 1.8, you can only spot a sharpness difference at pixel peeping levels. What it means is that apart from very low light situations, I don't feel like I'm 'stuck' with a zoom. Having said that, I still get the most photographic joy from a prime - it's fun, and they can weigh less if you're just bobbing about.
Info for thought! As far as the prime lenses vs the telephoto and a prime being Fast Glass like 1.2.1.4 or 1.8 and also on a high mega pixel camera. As a Astro Photographer and member of the wide fast glass people using the PhotoPills app Spot Stars where you input your camera model, pixel amount info camera, lens millimeter and aperture you will find first going from a 12MP to say a 61MP your shutter speeds will get faster in other words 25s to 30s for a 12MP to 15s or less for a 61MP. Then using say a 12mm f/2.8 or a 14mm f/1.8 or even the popular 24mm f/1.4 and even longer lenses you will also find shorter SS and then on a 61MP camera you will just use most times as short as 1 to 2 seconds. It is basically the stars and elongation for Astro. But when normal city night or even indoor captures you will get to use shorter shutter speeds to avoid movement in a night image. And using a telephoto lens zooming in at a higher MM and greater MP camera you could get way with SS less than 1 sec. and using Auto ISO maybe even faster SS meaning no flash is needed also added with IS/OSS telephoto lens even shorter SS. Most primes do not have IS or OSS making a telephoto an even better choice and hand holding captures being able to move around without sticks also. Looking back at the film days a low aperture lenses where made for hand holding vs having to use a tripod.
Also ADD a camera with ISO Invariance camera means even with the added faster shutter speeds and added higher Auto ISO's in the end processing an image to get brighter just increasing exposure will give yo that brighter night or inside image.
All images hand held mainly because there was light, 2. was done with a A7S but using a bungee cord around my belt when I found out no tripods allowed in the cave but it was lit. 4. increasing exposure in post but also people were lit by a hotel above the sand dunes to the right.
This article, prime vs. zoom, is a reprint from the 1960's, right? The issue is long-since settled. One is as good as the other and you choose the one that serves your need at the moment. As for ƒ1.8 zooms, many, many photographers, me included, have no need for such large apertures and the extra weight they add to the kit.