>>4475802not even him but this is such a notphotog gearfag take
>on paper bro, the zoom is...zooms are worse to handle, intimidate clients, and mess with color/contrast rendering in a way that increases editing workload and can even make it difficult to impossible to make the edit look natural because all glass to air surfaces reflect at least some light, usually just a few colors due to the coating ($1500+ pro zooms dont suffer from this as much, but sigma/tamron zooms and the v1 sony GM zooms DO.)
primes also have consistent rendering. every prime of the same grade is going to have similar field curvature and sharpness falloff maintaining a consistent "real camera" look. cropping 70->85 is going to fuck fine consistency by magnifying aliasing and cutting out sharpness falloff.
all of the primes OP is using are relatively light and medium/small sized and all three have a consistent more vintage color reproduction than a modern 24-70, which would be 4x the size and price of the largest prime, have uneven rendering across the focal range, and have flat, neutral modern sony lens color rendering.
notice OPs skin tones are good. they are not green. lens affects color rendition, camera body does not, and many complaints regarding sony colors are due to the coating G and GM series lenses get which produces more scientifically accurate but less pleasing color than older school coatings like zeiss T* and the standard sony/minolta coating of the old primes. every single person involved in cinematography knows this but very few photographers do. it's why we all film on vintage prime sets and not technically ideal nikkor 25-70 f2.8 IIs.
for art, studio, and editorial photography a zoom is something to sit on a shelf. they are ideal for wedding, sports, and wildlife photography where getting the shot matters 10000x more than making the shot.
