>> |
Anonymous
>>113933 No, I don't, but I don't see (other than the aperture thing) why a prime would, at least theoretically, be an advantage for either.
First of all, it'll likely be on a tripod. Good luck getting a creative composition going, and with sports, the players are moving around like crazy. With a prime, you have pretty much exactly one moment to get a particular framing (head and shoulders shot, full body shot, waist-up shot, etc.) and then they're after the ball. A zoom again gives some compositional flexibility.
If someone doesn't need the aperture but needs the reach, then a zoom is better for long focal lengths. Quality-wise, I'm a big lens quality freak, but I'll gladly trade off some quality for compositional flexibility. A great photograph is a great photograph; a good lens just makes it better. But do you know what makes great photographs? Composition. That can easily be controlled with a short prime, but not with a long one, and all the chief reasons to shoot primes (particular perspective, the stimulating advantage of foot zooming, and small size) vanish with the long focal length primes.
Wow, I never thought I'd have to argue for zooms in this day and age. (This is all coming from someone who thinks a normal prime ought to come as the kit lens like it used to.)
|