Why does everyone keep turning to the "holy trinity"?

I guess my real question is why do most photographers stick to zoomlenses. The holy trinity is Nikon's pro zoom lineup : the 14-24mm f2.8, the
24-70mm f2.8 and of course the 70-200 f2.8 VRII. These lenses are incredible
instruments capable of delivering top quality, but why have people stopped
using primes?
You still can'tbeat the quality of a fixed focal length lens, no matter how close a zoom gets
Does a zoom require less effort and movement/ Yes, definitely. But is that
really what it has come to?
I really don't meanto offend anyone. I have a 70-200 f2.8 VR II and I love it. But I feel like
there isn't enough love for primes these days.

Sergiu wrote: You still can'tbeat the quality of a fixed focal length lens, no matter how close a zoom gets.

I think it turns out that you're incorrect. The 70-200 VRII is arguably every bit as good as the primes they sell in that range, as I understand it.

I could be misinformed.

Speaking for myself, I rented a 50mm f/1.4G to do some stage shots. The CA that I experienced pretty much ruined every shot, and the images were nowhere close to sharp.  I hate that lens and will never give it another try. My cheap Tamron 28-75 does a much better job for my work, thankyouverymuch.

At least a zoom gives you choices when you are constrained. A prime limits your choices.

Zoom with your feet. "Prime" this, "prime" that. Blah, blah, blah. Whatever. They have their place, but it's not clear why they must be preferred.

In the interest of full disclosure: I own a 105mm Micro, and at some point intend to own (at least) an 85mm f/1.8 for portrait work. But that will be after I acquire a 70-200 f/2.8 VRII because I think that, creatively, it will allow more choice for me. And not require me to run back and forth like a madman.

Okay, rant over.  Let's see what some other members of our listening audience have to say.

Yeah, I have a 24-70 and its simply stellar, as good as any primes I have in that range, the only drawback is it weight. I love primes, (and Gary you might have had a bad copy of that 50 1.4, mine is pretty good), but my zooms are convenient, especially when you need to carry your kit for a while. I opted for the 16-35 f/4 instead of the 14-24 f/2.8, (price, weight and filter possibilities)and I'm pleased as can be. Instead of the 70-200 I carry a 70-300, the VR version, possibly Nikon's best bang for the buck. As good as the 70-200? Not hardly, but pretty good on my full frames cameras especially considering almost eighteen hundred bucks difference. So seeing I don't turn to the Trinity, "everyone" is not a correct term.....

Gary, I don't normally put much stock in DxOmark lens ratings as I prefer real world testing but the zoom lenses don't even begin to show up in the ratings until like the 4th page with the 70-200 being on the 6th page. Note that the 70-200 is "Best" at 135mm & F2.8, meaning that's where it has the best resolution. Other focal lengths & apertures won't match the IQ at those set aperture & focal length settings. Not to say it won't give you results that you want though & the fact that it is a zoom makes for a convenience feature...All zooms have compromises and while they have become a lot better than they used to be, they still lag primes.... Here is a link to DxoMark's ratings pages...
www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings

garyrhook wrote:

Sergiu wrote: You still can'tbeat the quality of a fixed focal length lens, no matter how close a zoom gets.

I think it turns out that you're incorrect. The 70-200 VRII is arguably every bit as good as the primes they sell in that range, as I understand it.

I could be misinformed.

Speaking for myself, I rented a 50mm f/1.4G to do some stage shots. The CA that I experienced pretty much ruined every shot, and the images were nowhere close to sharp.  I hate that lens and will never give it another try. My cheap Tamron 28-75 does a much better job for my work, thankyouverymuch.

At least a zoom gives you choices when you are constrained. A prime limits your choices.

Zoom with your feet. "Prime" this, "prime" that. Blah, blah, blah. Whatever. They have their place, but it's not clear why they must be preferred.

In the interest of full disclosure: I own a 105mm Micro, and at some point intend to own (at least) an 85mm f/1.8 for portrait work. But that will be after I acquire a 70-200 f/2.8 VRII because I think that, creatively, it will allow more choice for me. And not require me to run back and forth like a madman.

Okay, rant over.  Let's see what some other members of our listening audience have to say.

On my small camera I only use primes.

Better speed is why. OH and the compactness/weight of them.  Bit of both really.  

On the big cameras I use a combo, depends what I'm shooting and how much control of dof I want.

effron wrote: (and Gary you might have had a bad copy of that 50 1.4, mine is pretty good)

Well, it was a rental, so perhaps I should have taken more care to vet it first.  My bad, but I learned something.

Screamin Scott wrote: Gary, I don't normally put much stock in DxOmark lens ratings as I prefer real world testing but the zoom lenses don't even begin to show up in the ratings until like the 4th page with the 70-200 being on the 6th page. Note that the 70-200 is "Best" at 135mm & F2.8, meaning that's where it has the best resolution. Other focal lengths & apertures won't match the IQ at those set aperture & focal length settings. Not to say it won't give you results that you want though & the fact that it is a zoom makes for a convenience feature...All zooms have compromises and while they have become a lot better than they used to be, they still lag primes....

Okay, now that's helpful, as well.

I looked at the DxoMark values on a D800E. That 50 f/1.8G scores no better than the 105 f/2.8, so I'm going with "it's not my imagination."

What I find very interesting is that the scores quickly drop to the mid-30 range, and many, many of the lenses fall into that area. I don't consider a 31 vs 36 score to be that statistically significant for the subject. My take-away is that, aside from the cream of the crop like the 85mm primes, there are a lot of relatively competent lenses out there without the kind of difference between them that prime bigots seem to claim.

Hey, as I said, I want an 85mm lens, too. But I still want the VRII more.

I agree you should buy the 70-200 2.8 VR II first. Excellent lens. You'll love it.

That said, the Nikon 85 1.8 is THE best lens for the money in the world. Very sharp and produces beautiful images. The Sigma 35/50 1.4 ART would be the second best (for the money) I think.

DxOMark's overall lens ratings are a bit subjective. You also need to make sure when comparing lenses that you choose the same camera body for each. If you want to compare absolute sharpness, look at the lens metrics tab. You'll see quite clearly how much the primes outperform the zooms. Zooms are convenient, and you pay a price for good ones. They're expensive and heavy. Primes are faster, lighter, sharper and require more work and thought compositionally. Lots of wedding shooters swear by zooms, but I also know some exceptional wedding photographers who only ever use primes. Horses for courses......

Completely agree with Stealthy on the Nikon 85 1.8. This is the only prime I still have and it is a great portraiture lens.

gfinlayson wrote: DxOMark's overall lens ratings are a bit subjective. You also need to make sure when comparing lenses that you choose the same camera body for each. If you want to compare absolute sharpness, look at the lens metrics tab. You'll see quite clearly how much the primes outperform the zooms. Zooms are convenient, and you pay a price for good ones. They're expensive and heavy. Primes are faster, lighter, sharper and require more work and thought compositionally. Lots of wedding shooters swear by zooms, but I also know some exceptional wedding photographers who only ever use primes. Horses for courses......

I certainly understand that. Ratings are relative.

What I don't have patience for is the arrogance with which some of them proudly claim that they only use primes. It's tiresome in general. Especially when I look at their work and see nothing that points to the lens as relevant.

I will also disagree with the idea that they require more effort for composition. I think they can be very useful to train someone with regards to composition, but I also think that anyone competent will have to move around anyway to get what they want. Having a zoom on a camera simply means that one does not have to change lenses (leaving everything else about IQ aside, and focusing on composition only). I now find myself needing to physically move much more often. Thus I no longer see that as a "using a prime" issue.

It's purely for convenience.  They sell the holy trinity to press photographers and agencies by the ton as they cover the focal range they need without having to constantly to swap lenses and missing a shot.

I have the 24-70mm and it's my main lens for paid work (concerts and events). It covers 90% of what I shoot. It is an absolute stellar lens as far as image quality goes. For wider shots I use the 14-24mm. I have a 70-300mm with me when I need extra reach, but that's not very often.

On a side note, my 50mm f/1.4 is my favourite lens.

garyrhook wrote:

gfinlayson wrote: DxOMark's overall lens ratings are a bit subjective. You also need to make sure when comparing lenses that you choose the same camera body for each. If you want to compare absolute sharpness, look at the lens metrics tab. You'll see quite clearly how much the primes outperform the zooms. Zooms are convenient, and you pay a price for good ones. They're expensive and heavy. Primes are faster, lighter, sharper and require more work and thought compositionally. Lots of wedding shooters swear by zooms, but I also know some exceptional wedding photographers who only ever use primes. Horses for courses......

I certainly understand that. Ratings are relative.

What I don't have patience for is the arrogance with which some of them proudly claim that they only use primes. It's tiresome in general. Especially when I look at their work and see nothing that points to the lens as relevant.

I will also disagree with the idea that they require more effort for composition. I think they can be very useful to train someone with regards to composition, but I also think that anyone competent will have to move around anyway to get what they want. Having a zoom on a camera simply means that one does not have to change lenses (leaving everything else about IQ aside, and focusing on composition only). I now find myself needing to physically move much more often. Thus I no longer see that as a "using a prime" issue.

Depends on what you want. If you're stopping down anyway, then a good zoom is fine.  If you want more control over DOF then a fast prime is the way to go.

BTW with the chromatic aberrations on the 50 1.4:

 

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Depends on what you want. If you're stopping down anyway, then a good zoom is fine.  If you want more control over DOF then a fast prime is the way to go.

I want as wide an aperture as I can get, in a zoom lens, most of the time. That currently comes in an f/2.8 form.

BTW with the chromatic aberrations on the 50 1.4:

What does that even purport to mean? That dialog starts that way for every image, for every lens. At least for the 2 (pro) Nikons and the Tamron I own.

I am suddenly left with the impression that I am leaving everyone with the impression that I'm a freakin' idiot. I wonder where I went wrong?

sigma 35 1.4 is sharper than the 24-70 at the 35mm mark, the 1.8g is sharper at the 50mm mark, and the 58mm as well.


85 1.4 has better bokeh and the 1.8g is sharper than he 70-200 at that FL.

The 200 f/2 absolutely obliterates the 70-200 at 200mm.

I love my holy trinity, but primes have their place too.  It just depends on your budget and what you want accomplish.  

garyrhook wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Depends on what you want. If you're stopping down anyway, then a good zoom is fine.  If you want more control over DOF then a fast prime is the way to go.

I want as wide an aperture as I can get, in a zoom lens, most of the time. That currently comes in an f/2.8 form.

BTW with the chromatic aberrations on the 50 1.4:

What does that even purport to mean? That dialog starts that way for every image, for every lens. At least for the 2 (pro) Nikons and the Tamron I own.

I am suddenly left with the impression that I am leaving everyone with the impression that I'm a freakin' idiot. I wonder where I went wrong?

I'm saying use that part of the settings, not use THOSE settings.