Are Prime Lenses Better Than Zooms?

I shoot primarily with prime lenses for my professional photography jobs as well as for my own personal projects. I find prime lenses offer some important advantages that help me achieve better results in my shots. I discuss why I prefer prime lenses over zooms in this video.
PayPal www.paypal.me/...
Buy Me Coffee www.buymeacoff...
Amazon www.amazon.com...
B&H www.bhphotovide...
Adorama adorama.rfvk.n...
My Photo & Video Gear kit.co/robinwong
Timestamp
0:00 Intro
0:24 So Much Rain
0:55 Disclaimers
1:36 Shooting An Event
2:11 Images Reel 1
2:41 Smaller Size
4:51 Better Low Light Shooting
6:32 Images Reel 2
7:01 Shallow Depth of Field
8:53 Better Low Light AF
10:53 Images Reel 3
11:22 Beautiful Rendering
12:41 Conclusion/END
Follow me on:
Instagram: / shutter.therapy
Facebook Page: / shuttertherapy
Blog: robinwong.blog...
My Photo & Video Gear kit.co/robinwong
Music in video:
Music | "We Got Something" by LiQWYD
Watch: • LiQWYD - We Got Someth...
License: www.liqwydmusi...
Download/Stream: hypeddit.com/l...

[@robinwong]

If you are a Malaysian, do check out our amazing Singer-Songwriter @BIhzhu and follow her on her social media! Instagram: instagram.com/bihzhu/?hl=en Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/7jWrldG5cwvykOJWaZogZY

[@FrancisBrooks-ob2ny]

I love your enthusiastic no nonsense delivery. You’re a great ambassador for micro four thirds. Cheers!

[@amermeleitor]

I mostly agree with you, but in the long telephoto the zoom is just more practical. Trying to compose a image of a tiger, or a shy bird, or a bear, with a 800mm prime is a problem if you need to walk back to fit more in the image. A zoom is a bless with long telephoto.

[@devroombagchus7460]

Undoubtedly, you are right. But in my circles, no-one goes after bears, tigers or shy birds.

[@stuarthirsch]

I had a 70-300 mm OLY zoom. Sold it because it was too slow in focusing and rather large. I got a Nikon 200-500 mm zoom. Sold that and I never used it because it was way too big and heavy.

[@davebellamy4867]

Especially if there are steep cliffs nearby!

[@mugilandag]

Watching this right after shooting a wedding engagement event with EM5III and 25mm f1.4 I stick with M43 system for their prime lens choices 😃

[@robinwong]

Eh dude! Jom photowalk one of these days haha. Hit me up!

[@themostar7426]

I have used a 25mm 1.8 for many years. Just upgraded to the 12-40 mm 2.8 zoom and could immediately feel a difference and joy in the versatility. As such, I've put the 25mm on sale and will start saving for the 40-150mm 2.8.

[@TimK-1971]

Reason #5 was what did it for me, once I realized the difference. I have only 2 zoom lenses now, but I usually prefer using any of the 7 primes I carry - ranging from a fisheye to a 500mm Tamron mirror lens. I've found that the greater depth of field in micro 4/3's is a huge advantage. My entire subject is in perfect focus. With my full frame, I have to stop down the lenses 1 to 2 stops to gain the same depth of field - losing the background bokeh, and sacrificing a lower iso setting. It's a lose-lose situation. Doesn't matter if I have 36 amazing megapixels, when it's not as good as my perfectly stabilized Olympus 16 mp.

[@gerhardsteinhofer]

I fully agree. I love my 17mm f1.8, 25mm f1.8 and 45mm f1.8 trilogy on my OM-D E-M10ii. Very small and lightweight combination. A few weeks ago bought the same body again (used). So I have not to change lenses. My favorite combi with two bodies is 17mm and 45mm. With only one body, I prefer the 25mm most. I also have zoom lenses, but I really rarely use them. Only outside under good lighting conditions.

[@robinwong]

Thanks Gerhard for sharing your experience using the prime lenses. and yes, I love the prime lenses too!

[@JohnAudioTech]

As a budget MFT user who likes compactness, I primarily use the 12-32 collapsible compact zoom. I also have the Oly 45/1.8 prime for when I need a mild telephoto and some background separation. No matter what you shoot, one has to admit that MFT has a nice collection of tiny budget primes.

[@robinwong]

The 12-32mm is a great lens, but not something I'd use for a professional shooting environment. And yes, we are not lacking choices for primes.

[@c.augustin]

I think this "organic" look is actually due to less perfect correction (or having the "right" errors corrected or left). This is what gives (older) Leica lenses their "Leica look" - not perfection, but the "right" imperfections to make them look good (or unique). "Perfect" lenses can be really boring … 😁

[@robinwong]

Less correction is the key, you are right, Christian but I'd argue further that it is not the same as having imperfections. Prime lenses, since they have singular focal length, are easier to design without having to correct too much technical issues. They have less imperfections to begin with. It is the over-correction that produces flatter looking images.

[@stephenbrasure4331]

I'm just starting to use the prime lenses I own more often but I've always been amazed at the images captured by the Olympus 45 mm 1.8 lens! And many of the Olympus prime lenses can be quite inexpensive if you purchase them used which makes them great options for photographers on a tight budget.

[@robinwong]

Oh yes Stephen I am still loving my 45mm F1.8 too

[@JeevesTCW]

Agree Robin. I've come full circle on this issue recently having tried zooms but as of last week my entire kit is primes now. Panasonic G9 with 4 Pana Leica primes : 12mm f1.4, 15mm f1.7, 25mm f1.4 & 42.5mm f1.2. I also feel I want to slow down a little in my pic taking and learn to "see" the scene through these 4 classic focal lengths as well as enjoying all the advantages you outlined.

[@robinwong]

Thanks Richard for sharing your thoughts, and yes, those are wonderful lenses you have.

[@gerlosv]

Reason number 6: Consistency of perspective! Shooting an event with 2 or 3 prime lenses gives you a set of photos with a coherent and cohesive look. Since they are all taken from the same 2 or 3 perspectives, due to the fixed focal lengths of your lenses, they will "work great together". Even bokeh can be similar from one shot to the other. Let's say you're taking shots of people at an event (like you did with the members of that band). Using prime lenses you get a set of shots that works nicely together, for example, if you put them on the same page. ;-) Moreover, there's one problem shooting live events with full frame. You need to stop down your lens (e.g. f/4) to get enough depth of field to have your subject fully in focus. This means you're forced to work with higher ISO (more noise) or slower shutter speed (more motion blur). With micro 4/3 cameras instead, you can shoot wide open at f/1.8 and still have enough depth of field to keep using a low ISO, or a fast shutter.

[@mallem1755]

👍

[@tausflorianmarcprksen1530]

The argument about better and more natural 3 - dimentional rendering convinced me ❤

[@robinwong]

Yeah, can't achieve the same effect with zooms!

[@fetzinger10]

As I´ve always stated: MFT cameras are "best served" with small, light and sharp primes! To me, that´s the best way to get out the maximum experience of this system!

[@robinwong]

Oh yes, small lenses for the win

[@kenblair2538]

Great conversion, Robin. Totally agree. KB

[@robinwong]

Thanks Ken.

[@mikejankowski6321]

Great explanation. As to background blur, all you have to say is that your event photographs, like environmental portraits, need some representation of the background to give context. So an ultra-blurry image like FF at 1.4 would not suit your purpose, but the M43 lenses at 1.8 do just the right job. And it shows in what you presented! Of course, I shoot with both types and just enjoy it all. Finally, I need to comment on your black wall (and such complimentary lighting)...love it, happy to see it again. And your red shirt really goes well with it. Minimalist but eye-catching and engaging.

[@kaminobatto]

I use prime lenses for everything you mentioned here. I used to prefer zooms for convenience and I still do when I am on travel or don't want to spend more time shooting than enjoying my surroundings. For everything else, prime is the way to go for me. I also never appreciated the advantage of having smaller lenses before I started shooting MFT and Fuji APS-C bodies.

[@robinwong]

Of course, zooms are definitely more versatile and can be quicker for action shots.

[@repmidwest]

I'm definitely on team PRIME LENS. They force you to move and explore the space/angles. They are great for low light. Great bokuh. And you can throw on a telephoto adapter for a 2X extra reach and only lose a single stop of aperture rather than multiple stops with a zoom lens.

[@paulknight7789]

I couldn't agree with you more Robin. I too believe that prime lenses give better autofocus results in low light and not many people mention this point. As an example, in low light with a zoom my G9 will produce a large box for the autofocus area, but I get all 225 individual focus points when using a prime lens. I also find that when I go out with a zoom, I end up using similar focal lengths that a couple of prime lenses would cover. I would say that when it comes to longer focal lengths, I think zooms have their place and that is why I normally take a couple of prime lenses from wide to short telephoto together with a small compact telephoto zoom. Great video Robin and thank you so much for sharing your views.

[@yourvitamin9474]

I got some knowledge thank Robin you are the reason why I love Olympus 🎉

[@robinwong]

Thanks, glad I can share

[@alfredmartinezifernandez9644]

If you are an urban fotographer it will be better prime lenses, but if you like hikking through the mountains, as me, I think it's better zoom lenses. In the mountain you could make great photos with bad weather and this conditions is not a good idea change lenses.

[@robinwong]

A Robin has wings and he can fly!

[@AguilaDeOnix85]

I used the 45 1.8 a couple times for snake photography in the woods and definitely saw the pop you're referring to once I did post processing. And I know the 60 2.8 macro is a little different, but I really like the look there, too. I use zoom and prime equally.

[@davebellamy4867]

I just starting the 60mm macro and it seems as sharp at f/2.8 as practically any other aperture. It gets soft at f/16 or f/22 presumably due to diffraction. f/2.8 gives excellent images.

[@robinwong]

Oh yes there is just something magical about the 45mm F1.8 lens!

[@devroombagchus7460]

I agree with you. BUT! I am just an amateur and as I get older, less becomes more important. Nowadays, my 12-45 pro is the standard lens. Weather sealed and covering a lot that I need. It is a compromise, but one that I am happy with.

[@ronalderb9692]

I'm an amateur too. I prefer to use a zoom lens. It's better than carrying around 4 or 5 extra lenses.

[@thomasstirr3018]

Hi Robin, Over the years I've used 4 different camera formats and I've used both prime and zoom lenses. In the past my prime lens use was almost exclusively for client video projects. To me, these primes were a 'necessary evil' for my business. Moving over the Olympus/OMDS made my project work far more time efficient. I now shoot all of my video work with the three M.Zuiko PRO f/2.8 zoom lenses. They are fast enough for my video needs and the flexibility of using zoom lenses really helps save onsite time for client work. As a result I only own two prime lenses now... the M.Zuiko 60 mm f/2.8 macro and the PRO 45 mm f/1.2. I view these as specialty lenses that I need for specific situations. I really can't see myself ever buying another prime lens. The vast majority of my still photography (other than macro) is done with zoom lenses. I bought my first interchangeable lens camera back in 1974 and have always disliked using prime lenses. As noted in your video, it really depends on the type of photography/video that someone does and their personal preference on camera gear. Tom

[@robinwong]

If it does not work for you, then it is ok. A lot of my friends prefer to use zoom lenses too, and they get great results. But I am not doing video work, so I can't speak for video world. I have shot a lot with zooms too and I just don't quite like the results I get, until I use more prime lenses. It was almost like an Ah-Ha moment, hence I shoot mostly with prime lenses now.

[@thomasstirr3018]

@@robinwong Hi Robin, It really comes down to a matter of personal choice. I don't think prime lenses are "better" than zoom lenses or that the corollary is true. If a photographer understands composition and how aperture, lens focal length, distance to subject, and distance of subject to background impact depth-of-field, they can create the image they have in their mind. When used with understanding a lens like the M.Zuiko PRO 7-14 mm f/2.8 can be shot wide open and achieve deep depth-of-field... and a lens like the M.Zuiko PRO 40-150 mm f/2.8 can be used to achieve very shallow depth-of-field. The key is for folks to learn to use what they have. Tom

[@ceaabe]

I also love my prime lenses. Pro: Faster, better low light capabilities. Con: Often change lenses.

[@stuarthirsch]

Other prime lens cons, more lenses to carry, get damaged, lost or stolen. You also need more filters. Other pros to prime, always, if you have only 1 prime lens most photography can be done with just a 25mm f1.8 4/3 prime lens. All the advantages of a prime lens at and most of a zooms versatility.

[@robinwong]

Yeah, the ability to shoot better in low light compensates for the smaller sensor size for Micro Four Thirds

[@tablameister]

Thanks for the video. I think each lens, prime or zoom, has its own "character" and sometimes how much I use a lens depends more on the character and less on whether it is a prime or a zoom. I got the Olympus 75mm f1.8 shortly after it came out and I loved that lens so much that I almost never took it off the OM EM5. I later got the Olympus 45mm f1.8 when it came out, but the pictures it took just never did anything for me. A few years ago I bought a Panasonic G9 and shortly after that, got the Panasonic Leica 50-200mm f2.8-4 zoom. Wow! I love that combination to the point where the 50-200mm rarely is taken off the camera. I tend to do a lot of concert photography and landscapes. For the concert photography, I find the 50-200 to be great because I don't have to risk missing a good shot while changing lenses and the quality of the photos is excellent. For landscapes, I will often exchanges lenses and take shots of the same scene with multiple lenses.

[@photosvein]

:D So glad you said depth of field and not calling it bokeh! So many does not know the difference :( Also many claims 35mm (I dont support the "full frame" naming) has better dof because bigger sensor, but sensor size is not a part of more or less dof. Its also kinda a moot point because MF would run over 35mm when it comes to dof so different tools for different jobs.

[@robinwong]

To me, it all comes down to sufficiency. Is the tool I have enough to get the job done? Does it provide enough subject isolation (shallow DOF)? In all my shoots, what I have is more than enough! I never wished to have more.

[@davebellamy4867]

When it's raining can be a good time to take a PRO zoom that's weather sealed so you don't have to change lenses.

[@Mithadon]

Hi Robin. Thanks for your insight. I'm a beginner and have never used a prime lens. But the 45mm 1.8 is in the mail!! I'm very excited to see and try it. Something that might help me a lot is seeing your system for changing lenses. How do you organize your gear on your person? How quickly can you swap prime lenses? Charles

[@gregm6894]

The place where prime lens use tends to fall on its nose is when shooting corporate events where the client wants on-site, daily uploads. Things are happening way too fast very often, and you simply don't have time to change lenses, or crop images before uploading. Clients don't care about bokeh and DOF -- they want good expression and good framing. Too many times I have been getting some 'artsy' shot with a prime fisheye, or some other wide angle prime, only to have someone say, "Here, quick, get a shot of this Board member and his wife!" To me, good quality zooms were essential to most of my corporate work. My Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 was my 'bread and butter' lens for a lot of my corporate work, and I still think it is one of the finest portrait lenses I've ever owned. Now that I am retired, I use primes a little more often, but I still personally prefer zooms.

[@matthiashuber2725]

Thank you for this great video. You just get to the point very well. I look forward to another post from you.

[@robinwong]

Thanks Matthias, more videos coming soon for sure.

[@systemanaturae105]

Nice video clip Robin. Agree with all you say. Except with wildlife. I often only have a slit second to zoom in or out to get a shot ha ha!! Having said that I have some great wildlife photos using my 300mm f4 pro prime lens. The biggest problem is what to take when going out on a wildlife trek when I have no idea on what will occur. In this situation my 150-400mm pro lens will win every time 😊😊. Only slight issue is long distance shots and heavy post production cropping. In this case the only camera worth considering is the Sony a1. For street and portrait I tend to use my Pana G9 with 42.5mm or 15mm prime lenses or for zoom my 8-18mm and 12-35mm lenses. Currently waiting for Jimmy Cheng’s evening London photo walk?? Regards Brian 👌✌️😏

[@robinwong]

Yeah, for something so long, I understand that zoom makes more sense, or else you are permanently stuck at tight framing. Send my regards to Jimmy.

[@mattisulanto]

Thanks for sharing bro. All valid reasons also for me.

[@robinwong]

Glad I can share!

[@tizio54]

Good points! In full agreement. However, when shooting fast action, do you have the time to change lenses? Sometimes a spontaneous 'moment' gets lost while fiddling with lenses. And then there's the chance of dust getting into the camera while changing lenses many times. But as you often emphasize: choose the right tool for the job. For serious assignments, I always carry two camera bodies with different lenses, then I can quickly switch (prime) lenses, and also have a backup camera in case of a technical failure or empty battery.

[@DVargas0711]

Hi Robin, I hope you started the year 2023 amazingly well! I loved your point of view in favor of the prime lenses. Can I kindly ask you for a video on how to efficiently switch lenses? Thanks!

[@dougcooper4917]

Great Video and Great Information. Thank You Robin.

[@robinwong]

Thanks Doug, glad I can share

[@rogermuggleton8127]

The main advantage of a prime lens is the wider aperture. If, like in Robin's pictures, you take shots of people's faces, then you can isolate the face from the surroundings. This is usually a good thing. You can shoot at f/1.4 or f/1.2 or even wider and almost lose the background, although you may find that your camera has focussed on eyelashes, and the eyes are slightly out of focus. The subject of your picture won't notice this, but you will when you blow it up to 100% on your 30 inch screen. I don't take photos of people. I live a village surrounded by fields. Street photography is out because the streets are quiet and you'll wait for ever to get an interesting shot. So my photos are mostly of the rural landscape, and the plant and insect life that lives there. I do use primes, but swapping lenses in a field, quarry or among sand dunes in the wind and rain is not to be taken lightly. A decent zoom removes the need. Swapping lenses is a pain anyway, you really need a couple of extra hands to avoid juggling your primes.

[@robinwong]

I personally think shallow depth of field is "an advantage", not the main one. As mentioned in video, I treasure the smaller size, and ability to use lower ISO numbers in low light, which will affect the outcome of my photographs significantly. If you are shooting wide open at F1.2 or F1.4 close up, then the problem you have described would have been an issue. I was standing quite far away, as shown in the images, I can get the face and body perfectly in focus, within the depth of field. So the "just eyelashes in focus" is not a valid issue here. Unless, you are shooting with full frame, that is a different can of worm which I shall not open in this thread.

[@MrBuion]

I also mainly shoot with my zuiko 45mm f1.8, sometimes with the Lumix 20mm and only during trips with zoom lenses. But the new zoom lenses from Panasonic with f1.7 are amazing and habe wide open aperture. If I could afford them I would get both 10-25 and 25-50.

[@robinwong]

Price aside, those zoom F1.7 lenses are probably too huge to be practical. My number 1 reason to use prime lens is the compact size. I need to be able to move freely and quickly, and handling is very important for me.

[@MrBuion]

@@robinwong Definitely the big zooms don't fit in a jacket pocket on a EPL5 ;-)

[@wtfkurtis]

back in film camera days, achieving bokeh is like not as easy as it was. with full frame sensor, shallow depth of field is a flaw.

[@funkmon]

I just did a post on dpreview. I shot a couple portraits with the old four thirds 50-200 2.8-3.5 lens from back in the day. I found it to be easily as sharp as any prime I have, maybe sharper, even at wide open. That was always one of the things people said, primes are sharper. They don't seem to be as long as you get a high quality zoom. However, all of your reasons are my reasons for also shooting prime lenses. In basically the exact same order. I have zooms for telephoto, but other than shooting that, I always shoot prime. I have the 20mm 1.7 as my main lens for size, and I also have the 17mm 1.8 and the 25mm 1.8, but I am thinking of getting rid of the 25mm 1.8; not small enough for me to use over the 25mm 1.4, which I use and like. When size doesn't matter, I shoot the 17mm 1.2 and 25mm 1.2, and I keep the 12-40 in the bag just in case. I've shot maybe 200 photos with it. It's massively underutilized. I sold my 45 1.8. I just never got a good use out of it. For portraits now, which I do rarely, I shoot the old 50mm four thirds 1:2 macro and the 50-200 zoom. I also occasionally whip out one of the manual focus 17mm .95 for the very occasional but quite hip wide angle portrait or extreme low light, where even the 17 1.2 won't autofocus so I might as well just do it myself from the getgo.

[@robinwong]

I never claimed prime lens to be sharper than zoom lens. To be able to go brighter at F1.8, there is some compromise in the optics. But for what they are, all Olympus F1.8 prime lenses (or the F1.2 larger brothers) are already so sharp wide open I don't need them to be any sharper for what I do. Comparatively, the PRO zoom lenses especially the 12-40mm and 40-150mm PRO can be sharper than the prime lenses wide open, or at F2.8 compared side by side. And yes, I love that the prime lenses are smaller, can render shallower DOF and better in low light. Too bad about the 45mm F1.8, it is my favourite lens!

[@longkedah]

Good info .thanks u sir

[@leckywoznicki5393]

Thank you & you could go outside & show everyone how good the weather sealing is :)

[@robinwong]

Of course, I shoot in the rain all the time.

[@glennobrien5039]

In general I agree with you Robin. I particularly go for prime lenses with my em5ii cameras as the results are outstanding. However, when I do my event photography it is usually with my em1ii and 12-100 Pro lens, as this gives me the greatest flexibility. As my event work mainly goes onto a web site the quality from this camera/lens combo works well. I was commissioned to produce a series of B/W stills to show off sites in Blackpool, England, to be hung on the wall. For this I chose my em5i with my 17mm 1.8. and the quality blew my clients mind. He had difficulty choosing from the good results I offered him. So, I guess it's horses for courses as we say in England. As for depth of field, I tend to use long zooms focused as close as they will co. Anything is possible if you know how.

[@jeffslade1892]

The stills and movie of bands on stage, usually horrible coloured stage lighting and the house lights off. I have long used the Lumix G X 12-35 f/2.8 and the 35-100 f/2.8. An advantage here is that they are Power-OIS, and will go lens+body on an Olympus back (when not used on a Panasonic), and that can aid the AF. One of the issues focusing in low light is jiggling the camera about, because focusing will take longer they have to be held still. Why the zoom - I cannot always get to where I want to be with a prime. Primes - the Ollie 75mm is so tack sharp, the 45mm is a must-have. The Lumix 20mm is another must-have although challenged with continuous focus. I do need to get another Leica 25mm.

[@robinwong]

Jeff, the lens IS does not work with body IS on Olympus. The camera will default to body IS and turn off the lens IS when in use with any Olympus body. Nothing to worry about, the body 5-Axis IS in E-M1 series cameras is far superior than Panasonic's lens IS. I have no issue getting where I want with primes. Usually I am familiar enough with the framing I move myself even before I compose. Also, as an official photographer, I have more freedom to move about. I also acknowledge in some rare instances where I cannot move much, so I did have my zoom lens in the bag, just in case.

[@johnmartin1954]

I have the 45mm Olympus prime 1.8 it’s a great lens I picked up a mint like new on eBay with a metal and a plastic hood for $190.00 great lens .

[@robinwong]

The 45mm is my favourite too

[@stuarthirsch]

It depends. I shoot prime lenses with the OLY OMD. I have a 17mm, 45 mm, 25mm (Panasonic), and a 60 mm macro. This camera with prime lenses is a great all round and travel camera On my old OLY PEN E-P1 I use a 14-42 mm pancake zoom. I use that as a everyday carry around street camera. My zoom camera is a Nikon D7000 teamed with a Tamron 18-250mm zoom. Heavy lens, heavy camera, great for tripod photography for studio, wildlife, and landscape photography. I also have several P&S cameras, GOPros and a good Panasonic video camera.

[@robinwong]

Preference is one thing, and I respect we can all choose to use what works best. For me, nothing beats the advantage of gathering more light with brighter aperture, and the super tiny sizes of 17mm and 45mm lenses!

[@ddsdss256]

Thanks for sharing and I appreciate your views, but let's first acknowledge that lens tech has improved to the point where there's no significant difference in IQ between primes or zooms (at least with good lenses--obviously a Leica prime beats a kit zoom!). For the types of photography I do (anything and everything in the field--primes are fine in a controlled environment such as a studio), zooms are essential, as the right FL for a shot often doesn't coincide with my ability to get to the ideal position for a given FL (cropping is no substitute for the right "native" FoV and DoF for the shot). Size and weight is an issue for me, which is why I shoot MFT and even the fastest or longest lenses are small and light compared to larger formats (except for Oly's massive 150-400 f/4.5, which is still small compared to the closest compromise in "FF" or even APS-C). It obviously depends on the situation--if you're shooting street, then you need to travel light and fast (plus be discrete), so the HCB approach of a rangefinder and 50mm can be a good way to go (and I've done that, but I still prefer the flexibility of a zoom if I'm going with one lens). I usually have 16-800mm EFL in my pack (~5kg), as I never know what I'm going to encounter and don't want to miss a shot because I don't have the lens I need. Imagine how many primes I'd need to cover that FL range with no big gaps. A good "urban" compromise is the Leica 8-18 f/2.8-4 and Lumix G-X 35-100 f/2.8, as 16-36 and 70-200 covers a lot of situations and either lens fits into a jacket pocket. Hey, YMMV. Re low light, DxO DeepPRIME/XD and Topaz DeNoise AI make noise essentially an non-issue. I always prefer to shoot at low ISO (preferably base) but no longer worry about it with my G9 (auto ISO works fine). Achieving shallow DoF is relatively easy via distance to subject and FL (or even faking it in post) in cases where wide open isn't enough, As you rightly say, many people go way too far--quite frankly, super-shallow DoF can look ridiculous and in the vast majority of cases, MFT's greater DoF flexibility is a huge advantage over larger formats. In those rare cases where I actually want razor-thin DoF, I do have a "normal" Mitakon Speedmaster 25mm f/0.95 (the only prime I carry other than my Oly 60mm f/2.8 macro). People rarely make it into my photos, but I've never noticed an obvious difference in "life-like" qualities of primes vs. zooms. I could do a comparison, but it's not an obvious problem.

[@robinwong]

If you have noticed, I never talked about optical quality, or sharpness, or lens tech. I acknowledge that Olympus M.Zuiko zooms are quite impressive when it comes to optical design and their ability to render sharp images. However, it is also non-questionable that prime lenses have several advantages which I have described - bigger opening to gather more light, rendering shallower DOF and they are much, much smaller. Of course, if zoom works better for you, and you don't need the lens to be small, or you are ok with F2.8/F4, then zoom is fine to work with. I'd argue that noise reduction software can help with maybe ISO3200/6400 images where you can still capture plenty of details in the image. When you go ISO12800/25600, the problem isn't noise any more. The problem is loss of meaningul details, even if you get rid of the noise, there is no amount of sharpening that can bring back non-existet pixels/important structure in the image. In a dim light, say F2.8 lens requires you to use ISO25600, I can get away with a prime lens at ISO6400, and that can make a world of difference.

[@ddsdss256]

@@robinwong Thanks for the detailed reply. I was addressing the long-held but now erroneous perception the primes are noticeably optically superior to zooms. Also, I should've been more clear and not used "YMMV" (Your Mileage May Vary--a US/UK term--I should've just said that it depends on your situation). In my case, zooms are essential and it's rare that I ever go past 3200 or maybe 6400 as you're correct that detail can be lost in extremely low-lux/high ISO situations. However, I've had some success restoring even old, low-res, low-light JPGs using Topaz Photo AI (Gigipixel in particular), but it depends on the image. If it's really dark, I've also got that Speedmaster... I forgot to add that in many cases low-light photographs can actually be more effective when it's grainy, as it replicates the film look and emphasizes the importance of content over technical "excellence"--as Ansel said, “I believe there is nothing more disturbing than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept!” BtW, I love the term "shutter therapy"--it can be almost a form of meditation.

[@tobiasnickel3750]

I have a question: why are there no 0.95 autofocus lenses? because it is to difficult to nail? but I would say that because there is more significant out of focus, it is more easy to find the sharp spot. I would love to hear your thought.

[@bobmorr2892]

Really enjoy your videos. But to me it seems like it's exactly a competition between prime and zoom lenses.

[@ttbirds1082]

No doubt, the better images come from prime lenses for the several reasons given in the video. However in scenarios where convenience and adequate quality are more important than best quality, a decent zoom lens is better. For example, if I am hiking or cycling and switching between vlogging and telephoto shots, I would much rather have a lens like the Oly 12-200mm on my camera instead of switching between my Oly 12mm f2 and a longer telephoto prime. This is even more important in dusty or humid or rainy situations or scenarios where the photographer may be a bit grimy/sweaty.

[@robinwong]

Yeap, I have mentioned that there are times convenience is more important, then zoom lens is more suitable then. For my own professional shoots and personal projects, I find prime lenses working better!

[@xmeda]

To be honest you could take all those pics just using one 16-50/2.8 and some small APS-C body .) I like prime lenses for some work too, but mostly for things where you have plenty of time to change them and move around. Portrait or when I just want to play with things. Sometimes they have special bokeh too. Especially things like M42 Helios 58/2 with very specific background rendering or Pentacon 135/2.8 with 15 aperture blades and dreamy smooth bokeh. But even AF things like Sig35/1.4 are cute. While for shooting dynamic things (wedding, concert, conference etc) I really like zooms like Sig17-50/2.8, Sig18-35/1.8 and 70-200/2.8 all on APS-C. For low light that Sigma 18-35/1.8 is very helpful and can be used wide open without issues. On my Pentax the camera IBIS solves image stabilisation for longer shutter settings with this lens too. And If you are shooting with lets say ISO1600, F1.8 and 1/30s you can capture things in really dark areas with ease. It will be nice if there are some similar lenses like that Sigma18-35/1.8 for M4/3, It will be some 14-25/1.4 or something like that :D It will have a lot of customers I guess.. maybe Sigma will create something like that one day for M4/3. Closest probably is Panasonic 10-20/1.7, but with price on completely different level costing several times more than that 18-35/1.8 and still not reaching such depth of field.

[@robinwong]

If I remember correctly the 18-35mm F1.8 is a huge beast. Not something I would enjoy using. 16-50mm F2.8 may be small, but have you seen Olympus 45mm F1.8, 17mm F1.8 and 12mm F2? Ad F1.8 on Micro Four Thirds still have plenty more advantages over APS-C which isn't that much larger (like 30% or so only). Of course, if you treasure the convenience of zoom, then the zoom lenses work for you. I just find zoom lenses rendering very flat images, any zoom lenses I have seen (yes from Sigma also) they tend to be "overcorrected" and lose the 3D look/organic appeal. "you could take all those pictures with one lens 16-50mm". You do know I used Olympus 45mm ad 75mm for 90% of the shots? That is 90mm and 150mm in equivalent. The 50mm on APS-C is 75mm in equivalent reach. Cropping in even if you have 30+MP would reduce the quality to worse results than what you can get with my setup. Not to mention I can use much lower ISO numbers thanks to F1.8.

[@RMD2U]

Do you ever use flash for event photography?

[@jamescklim]

How do you plan out your position in relation to the subject so that you reduce the hassle of inter switching lenses ? For example, do you go and hang out at a strategic position, armed with a 45 or 75, snap as many as possible then change position or just go wherever, change lens snap, move, change lens, snap and move again?

[@lware1]

How do you like that Olympus camera?

[@numbersix8919]

Thanks Robin! Primes are the best, but I always have my EZ pancake zoom with me too. But what is the all-around best MFT zoom lens for you?

[@robinwong]

For zoom I must pick the 12-40mm PRO

[@numbersix8919]

@@robinwong Right on Robin. I tried one in a store and it was amazing to me.

[@PugetSoundFlyer]

I've recently purchased OM-D EM1 M11 and have been considering prime lenses for my dark forest shooting. I read somewhere that Samyang (sp?) might be a decent option for wide angle/low light. Is there something else I should consider?

[@user-if2mh8en2g]

My favorite lens is 12-40 2.8Pro. It's optimal for tours in different city's, street, landscape etc. When I don't have time to change fix prime lens, it's the only way don't skip something important. But if I have enough time, I prefer fix - 25 1.8 or 45 1.8

[@davebellamy4867]

Same here.

[@robinwong]

I love the 12-40mm PRO and I have it in my bag all the time, just in case. But in some situations, F2.8 is just not enough!

[@user-if2mh8en2g]

@@robinwong yes, 1.8 or 1.2 much more better, but now we have brilliant opportunities make better our pushed by high ISO pictures - special software with AI

[@silviuavramescu4616]

I have 17 mm 1.8 and 45 mm 1.8 ,i want to try some portrets with 17 mm 1.8 😁,with zoom ar good but not for me 😁

[@acornejom.]

At least with Zuiko, Primes are always better than Zooms. They are both excellent lens, but you can't compare them.

[@robinwong]

I am not making a comparison. I am sharing my reasons why I shoot primes more than zooms.

[@jean-pierrek1529]

Leica M lenses are also very small and quite good 😉. Of course, manual and priiiiiiiiiiicey.

[@robinwong]

No AF no go for Robin.

[@jean-pierrek1529]

@@robinwong Totally get that. I wanted a full frame that was smaller than my Nikon D610 system for street photography (my main kind of shooting), but better quality than micro four thirds (tonal gradation, a little low light, and file malleability). I sacrificed AF. But it’s all a compromise. Of course, having been raised photographically way before AF (in the 70s), manual focus is something I am quite used to. Still a sacrifice. Thanks for your wonderful channel. Not a four-thirds shooter anymore (I already have too many systems, with film and 2 full-frame digital), but still enjoy watching your wonderful videos.

[@MyRetroJourney]

My 12-40mm f2.8 PRO has better sharpness than my 17mm f1.8, my 25mm f1.8 and my 45mm f1.8. Not only wide open but in case of the 17mm even when the PRO zoom is wide open and the 17mm is stopped down to f2.8

[@robinwong]

While the 12-40mm is a very sharp lens, it unfortunately also renders very flat looking images. I'd gladly sacrifice sharpness and take images with more depth and natural look. 17mm may not be the best example, that lens is very flawed, but take 12mm F2 and 45mm F1.8, the images look so much more pleasing and beautiful than what the 12-40mm can do.

[@fgrep15]

I think the argument can be made for PRO zooms over the regular primes. Of course if you have PRO primes vs PRO zooms it would be a different result, but you are also paying a lot more money.

[@JuriObeziuk]

I`m shooting on zoooom. Why? With my FF-camera - it`s simple

[@Lauren_C]

I really only have primes because good zooms are damn expensive. Love the versatility of a zoom. The price, not so much.

[@jonastruemper637]

What focal range and how many subdivisions in primes are you comparing to one zoom? Say, you want to cover 12-40, do you consider the wide (12mm) and tele (40mm) end, only? What if you want to also have 17 and and 25mm as primes? Then you're already at 4 primes to cover this range. These 4 together are easily as expensive as the Pro zoom. So, it's not that black&white. I still use primes a lot and I oftentimes prefer them over a zoom. All I am trying to say is that the price comparison much depends on what you want to cover with each type of lens.

[@robinwong]

I agree Christopher, zooms are really expensive, and rightfully so, they needed more optical elements

[@WhoIsSerafin]

If that 75mm was water resistant it would be all primed for me.

[@robinwong]

Who knows, maybe OM will release an updated version. It is about time

[@AoyagiAichou]

Well, I don't want to be the smarta*se here, but the f/1.7 pair of Lumix zooms kind of debunk this! With the exception of size, of course.

[@robinwong]

When the size of a prime lens is bigger than a zoom, it has defeated its purpose of being a prime lens.

[@AoyagiAichou]

@@robinwong well, they fulfil all reasons you use primes besides the size I'd say lol

[@AoyagiAichou]

​@@StephenStrangways Oooh, so the primes that are larger than most zooms, they're not primes then?

[@Retrogamer71]

Primes have got to be faster lens even at kit level.

[@robinwong]

The brighter aperture helps a lot

[@MichaelRusso]

Cameras are so cheap, you can have it all.

[@robinwong]

Good that you can afford and have it all. Here in Malaysia, one camera may be able to feed a family for months.

[@MichaelRusso]

@@robinwong It use to be that way here but then Ebay and the used market changed all that.

[@GeorgeStar]

I've been thinking of getting a quick release head for my ancient Gitzo tripod. Can you do a video on that?

[@robinwong]

I don't use quick release, and I don't have Gitzo. Sorry I can't help much