The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

40-80 LS vs primes

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I've been considering the 40-80 LS vs primes 45D, 55LS 80LS in my kit bag. Any feedback on why this is a better option other than convenience?

FYI: all of my primes are superb already.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Weight? And insane price?

I have had similar thoughts but for my aging back the addition of that lens might be too much.

Edit, I have the 35LS, best wide for MF I have every shot including the 32Rod. It's 3 lbs, and if I add the 40 -80, then I am attempting to carry close to 8 lbs in just two lenses and I still need at times the 75-150 (old Mamiya).


Paul C
 
Last edited:

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
For you specifically I think the biggest reason would be the improvement to your current kit options at the very wide end. The 45D was a perfectly fine lens, maybe even "good" but the 45LS and 40-80LS@40mm are better than "good".
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
I'm sure any dealer worth his salt can give you a number of good reasons.

JeRuFo, do you mean good reasons not to switch your primes to zooms? Because I am struggling to find good reasons to switch. There's no major advantage in terms of size/weight, it can save a little money, but if you already have the primes, that's out the window. It is more a convenience of shooting, not of ergonomics. If you want to zoom in or out on your scene, and you are going to be restricted (meaning your zoom legs won't be able to move you), then the functionality of just leaving the zoom on the camera might have some positive allure for some.

But as good as the zooms are - and they are very good - the prime lenses for the XF system are superior optically. Perhaps just a tiny bit in some cases, but in every instance I've tested and compared them, the prime has always won. They are also faster, which may be helpful, and again, the size of a 35mm/55mm/80mm is not really all that different from a single zoom lens, since the zoom lenses are so large.

I'm a bit biased toward primes personally, but aside from the above, it really is a subjective choice in the hands of the user.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
Graham,

I thought initially this was an old thread because naturally, I thought you already had the Phase SK 40-80LS. :D

I did what you are contemplating. I turned in my 35mm, 55LS, and 80mm and picked up the 40-80. Convenience of having one lens, great performance. Weight and size are the only downsides. But since I don't use the XF for hiking around---this isn't much of an issue for me.

Of course, the best reason for you to make the jump is that the new 40-80LS has this shiny blue band.... :ROTFL:

Ken

p.s. Let me know if you don't make the switch---I'll be handing out blue rubber bands at Pigs/CI in the Southwest 2017 despite the grimace on Dave Gallaher's face...:ROTFL:
 

JeRuFo

Active member
JeRuFo, do you mean good reasons not to switch your primes to zooms? Because I am struggling to find good reasons to switch. There's no major advantage in terms of size/weight, it can save a little money, but if you already have the primes, that's out the window. It is more a convenience of shooting, not of ergonomics. If you want to zoom in or out on your scene, and you are going to be restricted (meaning your zoom legs won't be able to move you), then the functionality of just leaving the zoom on the camera might have some positive allure for some.

But as good as the zooms are - and they are very good - the prime lenses for the XF system are superior optically. Perhaps just a tiny bit in some cases, but in every instance I've tested and compared them, the prime has always won. They are also faster, which may be helpful, and again, the size of a 35mm/55mm/80mm is not really all that different from a single zoom lens, since the zoom lenses are so large.

I'm a bit biased toward primes personally, but aside from the above, it really is a subjective choice in the hands of the user.


Steve Hendrix/CI

Sorry, my comment was not meant serious. It seemed like he needed a little help waking up his GAS.

I'm a prime guy too, but i thrive on having my gear impose limitations on what I can and can't shoot. Still, especially if you like to shoot in bad weather, the fewer lenses the better if you can get away with it.
I especially miss zooms when shooting on a coastline or a cliff where you often have limited space to set up a camera.

Jewan
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Convenience seems to be the only benefit from what I see.

I typically have the 28D, 35LS, 45D (which I mostly don't carry but might be in the Pelican), 55LS, 80LS (again not always with me), 75-150D, 150/2.8D and either 300/4.5 APO or 240LS. Even when I pack the 28/35/55/75-150/300 in a bag with the XF it's hernia inducing.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
I was considering adding the 35LS when I bought my XF, but decided to opt for the 40-80LS instead. I tested it against my 55LS and my 45 (old lens but sharp), they were close. I'm talking a simple brick wall test here. I think the primes have an advantage, but its sort of one of those things are you better off shooting at 35mm and cropping to 42mm, or are you better off capturing at 42mm full frame with a good zoom. I have no answer, ultimately I'm sure the primes win but the difference isn't very significant. In my case, when I want ultimate sharpness I'm going to opt for the tech camera.

I have found I like using the zoom as it suits my style when shooting the XF. I tend to be a "near/far" kind of shooter, so I'm constantly finding a position where the foreground element is sized in a proportion I like vs a background element (I know ... landscape photography 101). What I like is once I get the proportions I like, I can then frame the image with the lens to get the crop I like.

I haven't used a wide angle zoom for a very long time, and I've enjoyed the approach.
 

jotloob

Subscriber Member
Graham , keep in mind , you could always hire a load donkey . Unfortunately not on the XF accessories list .:grin:
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Graham , keep in mind , you could always hire a load donkey . Unfortunately not on the XF accessories list .:grin:
Indeed. Here in the US llamas are popular. I live in a gated community and so I'm certain that my HOA would object to me keeping one in my back yard :ROTFL:
 

JeRuFo

Active member
A Great Dane then? Surely they can't object to you keeping a dog or two? Plus, they are a lot less capricious. Although an extra lens is probably cheaper in the long run.
 

DougDolde

Well-known member
One thing nobody has mentioned, with the zoom there is much less lens changing and less opportunity for dust on the sensor. I'm pretty happy with the 40-80mm but did get a good deal on it.
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
Ok, new IQ3 100MP. Check.

New SmallHD 501 monitor with Sidefinder. Check.

New Phase 40-80LS Blue Ring. Check.

Soooo, when are we going car shopping? You're gonna need that second Range Rover to hold all this new gear! :D
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
So far only one of those four items, and even that is just new to me vs new new. Since it has no moving parts, I'm ok with my ex demo IQ3-100 :thumbup:

I'll take you up on the blue rubber bands though. Other than my 35LS mine are all silver banded so I definitely need that upgrade. Unfortunately the blue marker pen update wore off. :ROTFL:
 

msstudio

Member
Although i can only speak from a Hasselblad perspective, the zoom presents a weight challenge while shooting handheld, very doable, but also mentionable.
On the other hand, it's great not to have to change lenses while outside in blowing anything.

The only drawback is obviously lens/shutter failure and with a set of lenses you can always bring home some frames (or you just get 2 of everything, i've heard the saying "One is None" which i tend to live by). Or just use the zoom to supplement your primes and decide per job what's better.
Quality wise i think zooms mostly closed the gap or better, unless you're really looking for it.
 

rriley

Member
I recently faced the Zoom/Prime decision and these are the factors that I considered.

In Favor of Zooms
Zoom cropping generally produces an image with more pixels.
Less lens changing avoids introducing dust to sensors.
Generally, the fewer lenses the better for carrying and lens changing.
Greater opportunities for composition.

Against Zooms
Zooms are slower.
Zooms are heavier.
Zooms may not be quite as sharp as primes.
Minimizing the number of lenses carried increases the probably of lens/shutter failure causing a missed photo opportunity.

Neutral Considerations.
Zooms cost more than primes but cover more prime focal lengths.
 
Top