Primes versus Zoom

[Mark B.]

Primes have better picture quality, usually better apertures, but you've got to change the lenses frequently and that means a higher probability of dust getting on the sensor. Zooms have the benefit of needing fewer changes and being more portable while still covering a range of focal lengths.

Personally, I'm thinking that less dust is better than a slight improvement in image quality so I'll probably use zoom lenses (except perhaps for Macro work).

What are you going to give preference to?

[Evin Grant]

I don't think it's that easy, just like shooting film there are certain situations where either or both are necesary. For instance, if you're shooting indoors, in a studio or location and have a reasonable amount of time in your schedule then shooting primes is not much of an issue. You just need a Sensor scope to "Check the gate" when switching lenses and a sensor brush to remove dust if there is any. The very nature of optics tells us that in lower light situation where we're likely to use open apertures dust will rarely be visable. This is because it requires a relatively small aperture, 5.6 and beyond to resolve dust through the OLPF. So you are more likely to see dust when shooting out doors and using small apertures, which luckily is exactly when Zooms come in handy the most. Thier flexability gives lets you change lenses less often and the the slower apertures are less of an issue becasue you often have plenty of light outdoors.
So I don't think it should be framed as such a "Vs." debate as much as a "When to use" kind of conversation.

[chuck colburn]

Exactaly right. And if the shot will allow a smaller stop (up to a point) it helps correct for some optical defects found in all lenses but sometimes more so in zooms. Such as chromatic abberations, curveture of field and the dreaded "S" curve focus shift inherent in all zooming optics.

[David Mullen ASC]

You may be in a situation with very hot background or bright light or window where a prime will handle the flare better than some zooms.

Also, remember that a lot of 35mm cine zooms are quite physically large, which is another factor when picking the lens.

[Mark B.]

I don't think it's that easy, just like shooting film there are certain situations where either or both are necesary. For instance, if you're shooting indoors, in a studio or location and have a reasonable amount of time in your schedule then shooting primes is not much of an issue. You just need a Sensor scope to "Check the gate" when switching lenses and a sensor brush to remove dust if there is any. The very nature of optics tells us that in lower light situation where we're likely to use open apertures dust will rarely be visable. This is because it requires a relatively small aperture, 5.6 and beyond to resolve dust through the OLPF. So you are more likely to see dust when shooting out doors and using small apertures, which luckily is exactly when Zooms come in handy the most. Thier flexability gives lets you change lenses less often and the the slower apertures are less of an issue becasue you often have plenty of light outdoors.
So I don't think it should be framed as such a "Vs." debate as much as a "When to use" kind of conversation.

Dust is everywhere indoors, which is where most low-light situations take place. On a sensor, a spec of dust will show up regardless of the aperture of the lens or overall room lighting, it'll just hover right on top of the CMOS sensor and show up as a sharp black spec or a big feathery smudge of darkness. I've had all sorts of dust problems on my still camera's sensor, no matter what the lighting.

Cleaning a sensor with a blower has always been a pain for me. Sometimes it works, sometimes it stirs up more dust, and almost always it doesn't do a thing to get rid of sticky particles. So I sometimes use a methanol solvent to do a proper job of it, but I always worry about the sensor cover getting scratched when an item of friction makes contact with it. The fewer times I open the body to the elements, the happier I am.

I prefer zooms indoors because I usually don't have room to move around, so to frame a shot I have to change focal length rather than knocking holes in the walls. Outdoors I can usually move wherever I need to be to fit the focal length I want, unless I'm on a boat or in a car, on a bridge, etc.

My thoughts on the "versus" concept is in regard to a limitation of money. Imagine if you only had enough to buy two zooms or a set of still-lenses. Which would you spend your money on?

[chuck colburn]

Or a set of all three Arri Vari-Primes...yum

http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20GB/ARRIVP.HTM

[David Mullen ASC]

My thoughts on the "versus" concept is in regard to a limitation of money. Imagine if you only had enough to buy two zooms or a set of still-lenses. Which would you spend your money on?

Depends a lot on the size, speed, sharpness, and distortions of the particular zoom. If I had a lot of night exterior work to do, I'd rather have a set of T/1.4 or T/2.0 primes than a T/3.5 zoom, let's say. If I have a lot of handheld work in tiny spaces like a car, I wouldn't want a typical Cooke 20-100mm zoom. If I were doing wide landscape shots where I wanted maximum sharpness, I would prefer using primes.

If you are particularly asking about the two RED zooms versus the RED primes, it just depends on how good those zooms are.

[Evin Grant]

Dust is everywhere indoors, On a sensor, a spec of dust will show up regardless of the aperture of the lens or overall room lighting, it'll just hover right on top of the CMOS sensor and show up as a sharp black spec or a big feathery smudge of darkness. I've had all sorts of dust problems on my still camera's sensor, no matter what the lighting.

Cleaning a sensor with a blower has always been a pain for me. Sometimes it works, sometimes it stirs up more dust, and almost always it doesn't do a thing to get rid of sticky particles. So I sometimes use a methanol solvent to do a proper job of it, but I always worry about the sensor cover getting scratched when an item of friction makes contact with it. The fewer times I open the body to the elements, the happier I am.


Well, I agree dust exists everywhere but not nearly as much in indoor situations, unless you're shooting in a lot of horse stables. And which ever DSLR you are using needs a thicker OLPF if you are seeing dust at apertures fater than f4, that's a design flaw. You do not need to rely on a blower, the Visable Dust Arctic Butterfly and some of that companies other products allow for very reliable cleaning of the sensor without the risk of solvents or of blowing more dust into the sensor chamber.



I prefer zooms indoors because I usually don't have room to move around, so to frame a shot I have to change focal length rather than knocking holes in the walls. Outdoors I can usually move wherever I need to be to fit the focal length I want, unless I'm on a boat or in a car, on a bridge, etc.

Please don't take this the wrong way but it sounds like you have mostly shot with built in lens cameras like the DVX/HVX and so imagine that primes will limit you. In actuality you often have more choices with a complete prime set, for instance a prime set like Red's will offer a 15mm lens where the zoom only offers 18mm, you would be "Punhing a hole in the wall" with the zoom in that situation.



My thoughts on the "versus" concept is in regard to a limitation of money. Imagine if you only had enough to buy two zooms or a set of still-lenses. Which would you spend your money on?

If you have the money to purchase a Red, it's most likely not a question of which to buy, but rather which to buy first, or possibly which to rent. Unless this is just a hobby I would assume you plan on making money with your camera. If so it would be wise to take a longer view of your purchase. If it's not possible for you to aquire all the lenses you need now then consider what you can buy with and what you can rent in the mean time. My suggestion, as it has been it previous posters, is to determine your glass budget and buy accoringly. I personally feel that the 17-35mm Nikkor is a very versatile zoom that can work much like a variable prime, couple that with a 50mm f1.4 and an 85mm f2 and you have a pretty capable and affordable three lens kit. There have been some criticisims lately about the 17-35 relating to focus throw lately, you may want to read those first. Finally if you have the money for the Red 18-50, by all means get it. Then consider the prime set once you've made a few dollars with the kit.

[Mark B.]

Well, I agree dust exists everywhere but not nearly as much in indoor situations, unless you're shooting in a lot of horse stables. And which ever DSLR you are using needs a thicker OLPF if you are seeing dust at apertures fater than f4, that's a design flaw. You do not need to rely on a blower, the Visable Dust Arctic Butterfly and some of that companies other products allow for very reliable cleaning of the sensor without the risk of solvents or of blowing more dust into the sensor chamber.



Please don't take this the wrong way but it sounds like you have mostly shot with built in lens cameras like the DVX/HVX and so imagine that primes will limit you. In actuality you often have more choices with a complete prime set, for instance a prime set like Red's will offer a 15mm lens where the zoom only offers 18mm, you would be "Punhing a hole in the wall" with the zoom in that situation.



If you have the money to purchase a Red, it's most likely not a question of which to buy, but rather which to buy first, or possibly which to rent. Unless this is just a hobby I would assume you plan on making money with your camera. If so it would be wise to take a longer view of your purchase. If it's not possible for you to aquire all the lenses you need now then consider what you can buy with and what you can rent in the mean time. My suggestion, as it has been it previous posters, is to determine your glass budget and buy accoringly. I personally feel that the 17-35mm Nikkor is a very versatile zoom that can work much like a variable prime, couple that with a 50mm f1.4 and an 85mm f2 and you have a pretty capable and affordable three lens kit. There have been some criticisims lately about the 17-35 relating to focus throw lately, you may want to read those first. Finally if you have the money for the Red 18-50, by all means get it. Then consider the prime set once you've made a few dollars with the kit.

Maybe it's an environmental difference based on geography, but in Western Washington we have very clean air outside - while indoors dust is a frequent problem. It's especially bad in carpeted houses and houses that are heated using vent blowers. I'll usually take my gear outside to change the lenses just to avoid all the stuff floating around indoors.

I'd like to make money using the Red, but I'll be working an 8-5 job to pay for it, and won't have time to shoot much as a result. Besides, I don't have the experience or extra gear (lights, etc) to rent it out or get hired for DP work. I'll try to capture some stock footage for sale, but I'll be surprised if it generates any significant income. Maybe I could try some weekend wedding videography or something, even though I really detest the stresses of that type of work.

I'm coming from a still photography background, using Canon bodies. Zooms have always worked better for me indoors, stills better for outdoors except when I'm on a boat. I was vacillating over whether to splurge for the Red zoom lenses or the prime lenses, but I think finances are going to force me to go with the SLR lenses instead (which are cheap enough that I don't have to care as much about zoom versus prime).

Now it's just an issue of whether I should put money into new Nikon glass or to buy the Birger EOS mount to use with the Canon/Sigma glass I already have. I have a beautiful Sigma 70-200 F2.8 that I'd love to use on the RedOne, but I'm wondering if the Birger mount is going to be good enough.

[Christoffer Glans]

The canon L serie of zooms handle brightspots very nice.
My only L zoom at the moment is the 17-40 4L and it can make beautiful images. Though I think the Birger EOS mount for RED is sadly more expensive then the Nikon.

But, because I'm buying a mini35 adapter to use with canon lenses and plan to buy a few primes, I might aswell go canon all the way.
And having a red ring on my L lenses gives me the feel of having lenses with a "RED" connection ;)

[jaadgy akanni]

But, because I'm buying a mini35 adapter to use with canon lenses )

Why??????? Why spend so much precious cash on a ridiculously overpriced piece of...