Soldato
I'm thinking of ditching my Tamron17-24mm ( though I'm still undecided) and replacing it for the 16mm viltrox f1.8. I would potentially be using it in full frame mode and aspc mode on a A7riv. Anybody have any thoughts on this?
Zooms v Primes
- Thread starter ethan
- Start date
Soldato
General consensus is that primes are faster and sharper across the entire frame. Zooms are generally more compromised, with the most modern ones typically remaining sharp at all focal lengths but often have softer corners/strong vignetting until they are stopped down. Zooms don't need swapping out when you change focal length, can be annoying and in some environments can let dirt in.
Without knowing what kind of photography you're into, such an ultrawide lens might be a bit too wide for a general walkabout lens. Go through your photo library and see if you can identify the focal length(s) where most of your photos are taken.
I've tried a number of lenses so far but definitely think primes can make you think a lot more about the composition. If you can move with your feet for the photo, you can make any focal length work
Without knowing what kind of photography you're into, such an ultrawide lens might be a bit too wide for a general walkabout lens. Go through your photo library and see if you can identify the focal length(s) where most of your photos are taken.
I've tried a number of lenses so far but definitely think primes can make you think a lot more about the composition. If you can move with your feet for the photo, you can make any focal length work
Last edited:
For the most part I'm a landscape shooter. I have the 24-70mm GM. I'm lacking a sharp astrophotography wide angle-which is why I thought about buying the 16mm Viltrox f1.8. It's also very good value. Looks like I've just answered my own question lol.
You have to compare reviews and tests for specific lenses really, in general primes are better yes but there are good and bad for both.
I would imagine that prime should be a fair bit better image quality overall than that Tamron zoom at its widest focal length.
I would imagine that prime should be a fair bit better image quality overall than that Tamron zoom at its widest focal length.
Last edited:
I personally ditched zooms over a decade ago. I find the constraint that primes introduce makes me think more about the image. (the weight saving and image quality are nice bonuses!) Probably the only time I would miss a zoom thesedays is taking images of the kids sports activities.
Soldato
I often answer my own questions when I do my favourite thing of going around in circles! Definitely looks like a good two lens setup for those focal lengths you will have covered.
In addition went for a Loxia 2.8/21mm which I'm loving at the moment. I even favour this over the Voigt lander 50mm f1.2
To be perfectly honest, these days a decent zoom is just as good as a prime, unless you're being totally anal and zooming in on the corners to find flaws.
I tend to just leave my Tamron 20mm f2.8 on my A7C, for videography and landscapes, don't feel I ever need a zoom.
I tend to just leave my Tamron 20mm f2.8 on my A7C, for videography and landscapes, don't feel I ever need a zoom.
Soldato
Tried out a Loxia 21 about a year or so ago but decided against it at the time. Regretting that now as it was about 150 cheaper than the nearest condition one I can find now!
Associate
Have you considered the 20mm G? Personally I'm a sucker for a prime - the rendering is usually in a different league if you're happy to sacrifice some versatility.
I used to pack zooms, but the bulk and limitations made me miss the image quality of my primes. These days, I pack a decent fixed-lens camera and an interchangeable one. My current combo is the tiny Ricoh GR (28mm FOV, supersharp prime) with a Fuji X-H2 and 50mm f2 (75mm equivalent FOV), which pack into a space that takes up less than a couple of zooms. Plus, I have an ultrawide via my phone.
Associate
I've mostly stuck with primes over the years, mainly because of size/weight but not having to choose the zoom let's you think about more important things.
Soldato
I'm trying to decide how light I can pack for backpacking south east Asia for 6 months. I only have my two Loxia now (35 & 85) and trying to decide whether I can get away with just 35. I guess I'll know what space I have when I get less important stuff like clothes packed into the bags.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 991
24-70 or something like is what you need. Good quality one.
Not if your priority is to pack light.
I'd go with a 35 or 50 prime if you want to keep it light.
Although I do use a 28-60 FE sometimes for travel (that's what was on my A7C when I was mountaineering in Morocco recently), it's a decent lens, not going to stop you taking good pictures, although obviously limited in low light.
Soldato
Had one! I didn't particularly care for the pictures it took and the faster ones are rather large in comparison to primes (unless it's the kit lens Sony 28-60, which I've also had).
Going through what I generally take the 35mm covers over 90%. Think it's just the phobia incase I want it for those other 10% of photos..
Last edited:
primes still have something special about them even though zooms have caught up loads.
i shoot events so zooms are a must but i do like to use a prime when i can
for landscapes though, would you notice much difference, what aperture do you usually shoot at?
i shoot events so zooms are a must but i do like to use a prime when i can
for landscapes though, would you notice much difference, what aperture do you usually shoot at?
Soldato
For me at 35mm, my shots seem to be pretty evenly split between wide open, f5.6 and f9 for the wide open landscapes. And even the wide open stuff can often be 2-8 photos that have been stitched together to form a panoramic.
I prefer 28mm, and in a fixed body, but the only options (image quality-wise) are the Ricoh GR or Leica Q, so I opted for the Ricoh. I'd be all over a Fuji X100 variant with 28mm. 35mm never gelled with me, but I appreciate it is a versatile FOV.