Why choose a super-telephoto prime instead of a super-telephoto zoom?
Asked 5/7/2016
78 views
2 answers
0
I understand why people buy normal primes like 35mm or 50mm: they can be sharper, simpler, and you can often reframe by moving. But with long lenses like 300mm and above, it seems harder to compose without zooming. Aren’t you stuck with whatever distance the subject happens to be, so that heavy cropping is often needed afterward? What are the practical advantages of super-telephoto primes compared with super-telephoto zooms?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
10y ago
2 Answers
52
Who in the world buys large primes?
Wildlife and sports photographers, mostly.
I'm struggling to see how one would find use in a long focal length prime, 300mm and above for example: without zoom, isn't your shot composition always at the mercy of how close or far away your subject is, meaning heavy cropping is almost always necessary in post?
It's the difference between cropping and heavy cropping. Would you prefer ending up with a 6MP image? Or a 12-15MP image?
When shooting distant subjects, where you can't get closer, either from issues of personal safety, regulations, or stressing a bird to the point of abandoning a nest of young, if you had a zoom, you'd be zoomed in all the time, anyway.
I own the Canon 400mm f/5.6L USM prime lens. It's lighter than the 100-400L, about half the price (or less) is sharper than the 100-400L Mk I, just as sharp as the Mk II, and autofocuses more quickly. It's also a bit better at taking a teleconverter. And delivers images to me that I simply couldn't get with a 70-300mm zoom lens--especially with cropping. For a birder, feather detail is something you really really like. For a bird-in-flight or sports shooter, responsiveness is huge.
And if you have the big bucks, Canon also makes a 400/2.8L. They don't make 400mm zooms that fast.
Originally by user27440. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user27440
10y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Super-telephoto primes are mainly used by wildlife and sports photographers. In those situations, you often can’t simply move closer because of distance, safety, rules, or the need not to disturb the subject. If you had a zoom, you’d often be at the longest end anyway.
The main reason to choose a prime is trade-offs: giving up zoom lets lens designers deliver better combinations of image quality, lower weight, smaller size, wider maximum aperture, and sometimes lower cost than an equivalent long zoom. Fast long zooms become very large and heavy, and at some point may not be practical.
A wider aperture is also important for action and low light. Many zooms get slower at the long end, while a prime can stay relatively fast.
Composition is less flexible with a prime, but the alternative is often more cropping, not less. If a prime gives you more reach or better image quality, you may end up with a much higher-resolution final image than you would from heavily cropping a shorter or slower zoom shot.
So these lenses are specialized tools: less flexible in framing, but often better when you need maximum reach, speed, image quality, or manageable weight.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI10y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Are telephoto primes usually sharper than telephoto zooms for wildlife photography?
Are modern telephoto zooms close to primes for sports on a Nikon DSLR?
Why are there so few Canon EF-S prime and telephoto lens options?
Can one lens switch between two prime focal lengths, like 35mm and 50mm?
Is digiscoping a practical alternative to a super-telephoto lens for bird photography?