Are long primes awkward to use?

68lbs

68lbs

Messages
5,450
Name
April 2008
Edit My Images
No
As per the title, are long primes awkward to use? With something like a 50mm, you can move to recompose quite easily. But at 300mm plus, this distance you would have to move is far greater. Who are long primes aimed at? Who uses em, and for what?
 
They are not awkward to use as such. Though I do prefer my Sigma zoom over the 600 F4 that I had,I find it far more flexible.Wether the images are sharper with a prime? I think they are slightly so,yes,but the zooms are catching up.

If you are in a fixed place and know what is coming along then the primes are ideal. If you wander about and photograph what comes along,then I think the zooms edge that one.

either way,there are pros and cons for both.
 
I have never found long lenses (300 mm and above) easy to hold. I always seek a support of some sort. Even better if I can lean on something or sit down.
 
Agree with Fracster as my feet ache badly by the end of the day walking with the 600 however it's relatively manageable.
A lot of people are surprised though when i tell them that even with such a huge lens you still have to be fairly close for bird photography, For passerines they are as much use as a chocolate fireguard at distance. :)
 
I had the sigma 120-300 for a long time and always thought the versatality of the zoom was better than anything a prime could offer... Circumstances meant I had to use a prime one football match and I ahve never looked back.. I only have one zoom lens and three main primes now... Turning a 300 into portrait mode gives you less reach for close subjects in sport and once you find a good position theres no need to move about.


So in answer to your question a long prime is no harder to use than a long zoom.. just a different approach thats all.
 
I find big primes very hard to use, no doubt about it. Anyone who says they are not, must be very experienced and used to balancing all that weight, and have their technique finely honed to get the best from them. It's a real skill and I bet it wasn't like that from day one! That's why gimbal tripod heads were invented.

But it's worth it. The rewards are great. Using a big prime, and getting it right, is wonderfully rewarding with breathtaking images (sometimes ;) ) you just can't get any other way.

A zoom would be nice, but it would make them impossibly bigger in every dimension, including cost. Zooms like the Nikon 200-400 4 and Sigma 120-300 2.8 testify.

Edit: Damn those passerines.
 
hoppy my prime 300 wieghs less than the sigma 120-300 zoom... at least it seems to..
 
i had a go on a 300mm prime once at football and personally i found it to be a bit of a pain in the butt, but then again saying that i do like to move around when i`m doing football dont like staying in the same spot. i personally prefer a zoom
 
My Sigma 3 to 800 is lighter than my old 600 F4 Hoppy, though I think it is slightly longer. I can hand hold it,albeit not for very long though......:eek:

Hand held at 800,F7.1 at 1/160th.

buzz1-1.jpg


there were a lot of blurred shots, this one compensated for those.....:lol:
 
fracster said:
My Sigma 3 to 800 is lighter than my old 600 F4 Hoppy, though I think it is slightly longer. I can hand hold it,albeit not for very long though......:eek:

Hand held at 800,F7.1 at 1/160th.

there were a lot of blurred shots, this one compensated for those.....:lol:
Click to expand...

I salute you Frac :) Ian C is another who springs to mind as someone who uses a 600 4, with extender, hand held :eek:

I honestly don't know how you guys do it. Anyone who says it's easy isn't giving themselves credit.

I don't want to put people off. You guys prove that hand holding is possible once you've got the knack. And the muscles. The results speak for themselves. And I think that for many of the situations where you use these gorgeous beasts, a gimbal or at least a monopod is no great hardship and makes things infinitely more manageable.

That's my plan for next year anyway, and those damn passerines had better watch out ;)
 
Technique matters a lot on big lenses I find. I sold a Siggy 300/2.8 recently. I couldn't get on with it and found it awkward to handhold as all the weight was at the front. The guy I sold it too was an ex-goalkeeper. His hands weren't much bigger than mine but were a lot stronger. He was taking handheld shots at 1/30th that were pin-sharp.
 
The reason for my ponderings was that I lack length (200 full frame being my longest), and had always thought I'd get a 100-400 at some point. However, there's been a couple of 300 primes on here in recent days/weeks and it's got me thinking whether they'd be worth a punt with the option to use a TC. Tobe honest, I probably wouldn't use it much... a few airshows, messing about with, and then some events where as a member of the public you can never get as close as an official tog.
 
68lbs said:
The reason for my ponderings was that I lack length (200 full frame being my longest), and had always thought I'd get a 100-400 at some point. However, there's been a couple of 300 primes on here in recent days/weeks and it's got me thinking whether they'd be worth a punt with the option to use a TC. Tobe honest, I probably wouldn't use it much... a few airshows, messing about with, and then some events where as a member of the public you can never get as close as an official tog.
Click to expand...

I sold my 100-400 in favour of a Sigma 300 and don't miss the zoom too much. Got a 1.4 and a 2x converter, too, but don't find myself using them too much. Use it for zoo visits and shot a couple of rugby matches.
 
I used to use the Canon 100 - 400. i moved on to the canon 300mm f2.8.

I have never looked back. Superb lens. Do I miss the zoom? Not really I just have to do a bit more forward planning for the shots.
 
If you are considering the 300/4 then weight and handling aren't much of an issue. It is a relatively light lens with decent balance. The IS helps a lot and it is very sharp even with a 1.4x t/c attached. Worth trying second-hand as you can probably move it on without much of a loss.
 
fracster said:
My Sigma 3 to 800 is lighter than my old 600 F4 Hoppy, though I think it is slightly longer. I can hand hold it,albeit not for very long though......:eek:

Hand held at 800,F7.1 at 1/160th.

.....

there were a lot of blurred shots, this one compensated for those.....:lol:
Click to expand...


How on God's Earth do you pull something like that :shrug: ... I am still trying to get something that sharp with a tripod and cable release! Obviously, am not good at all with such long lenses ... but I'm not giving up learning, but I think I am reaching the physical limits of what my body can do :'(


HoppyUK said:
I salute you Frac :) Ian C is another who springs to mind as someone who uses a 600 4, with extender, hand held :eek:

I honestly don't know how you guys do it. Anyone who says it's easy isn't giving themselves credit.

I don't want to put people off. You guys prove that hand holding is possible once you've got the knack. And the muscles. The results speak for themselves. And I think that for many of the situations where you use these gorgeous beasts, a gimbal or at least a monopod is no great hardship and makes things infinitely more manageable.

That's my plan for next year anyway, and those damn passerines had better watch out ;)
Click to expand...

:plusone: .. but I want to add, I think there is a lot of dedication in wanting to get the shots with such long lens :shrug:.

I use a good sturdy tripod & head along with my 200-400VR but am still get blurry shots. I'me now using a prime 300 f/4 & 1.4 TC (should be much lighter and easier to manage) but still couldn't get a sharp shot until I used a cable release with the tripod.

Hand-held :lol:; that's impossible for me to ever contemplate. A humans' body reaches its' limitations when you least expect it, that and old age are a couple of stumbling blocks that I am trying to overcome.


ianmarsh said:
If you are considering the 300/4 then weight and handling aren't much of an issue. It is a relatively light lens with decent balance. The IS helps a lot and it is very sharp even with a 1.4x t/c attached. Worth trying second-hand as you can probably move it on without much of a loss.
Click to expand...

Oh, I beg to differ .. 300 may not be as much an issue as with 400mm+, but it's still hard to get something good and sharp without serious concentration; with a 1.4 TC and it gets very tough .. for me at least. Sadly, Nikon have yet to introduce a VR version of their 300 f/4
 
I am not at the same lengths as some people on here but I do find my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 spends almost all of its time at 200mm. I would love to replace it with a Nikkor 200mm f2 prime if I could afford it.
 
:love::love: 200mm f/2 VR :love::love:

But don't get me started on that one being hand-held! It's over 3kg in weight ... impossible!
 
Wail said:
I use a good sturdy tripod & head along with my 200-400VR but am still get blurry shots. I'me now using a prime 300 f/4 & 1.4 TC (should be much lighter and easier to manage) but still couldn't get a sharp shot until I used a cable release with the tripod.

Oh, I beg to differ .. 300 may not be as much an issue as with 400mm+, but it's still hard to get something good and sharp without serious concentration; with a 1.4 TC and it gets very tough .. for me at least. Sadly, Nikon have yet to introduce a VR version of their 300 f/4
Click to expand...

The 300mm f4 a great compromise, weight wise its very light, easily hand holdable, and when the conditions dictate work well with the 1.4x TC, there is also the 400mm f5.6 to consider as well, unfortunately today only for canon unless you look way back into nikon's past, both these lenses combined are less ££'s than the 300mm f2.8 and are very good lenses. Nikon's 300mm f4 is also a very good lens. Must admit, recently bought the 300mm f2.8 2nd hand, and the difference is noticeable, fantastic lens and at 2.5kg manageable, but the 300mm f4 still have a place in my camera bag, especially with weight restrictions on aircraft.
 
HoppyUK said:
I salute you Frac :) Ian C is another who springs to mind as someone who uses a 600 4, with extender, hand held :eek:

I honestly don't know how you guys do it. Anyone who says it's easy isn't giving themselves credit.

I don't want to put people off. You guys prove that hand holding is possible once you've got the knack. And the muscles. The results speak for themselves. And I think that for many of the situations where you use these gorgeous beasts, a gimbal or at least a monopod is no great hardship and makes things infinitely more manageable.

That's my plan for next year anyway, and those damn passerines had better watch out ;)
Click to expand...

How do I do it? Through years of having silly jobs in silly countries,using silly muscles that are still with me,albeit sagging a bit.......:bang:

Plus,more importantly, I earn next door to nothing from my wildlife photography on its own,it is my hobby and I love it dearly,but the circles I operate in,openings arise and one has to make the most of those openings.
 
I often miss the versatility of a zoom lens when shooting sport with a 300 2.8 (sometimes with a 1.4x extender). However, there's a reason most sports photographers use them (and you dont see many Sigma's pitchside) which is the quality of the images they produce. Generally exceptional clarity, excellent colour and contrast, and beautiful sharpness. The downside is weight and bulk. A 300 2.8 is a fairly heavy piece of kit, and a 400 2.8 is even more of a beast.

As Kipax says, you can swivel 90 degrees into portrait orientation if the subject is coming closer in. If it's closer still, you swap to a second body with a 70-200 on it. Generally I will have it on a monopod to keep things stable, and be shooting with a shutter speed over 1/500th.

Of course, I'd love a Canon 100-400 with a constant 2.8 but I think it might be a long wait!
 
Tobers said:
However, there's a reason most sports photographers use them (and you dont see many Sigma's pitchside) which is the quality of the images they produce. Generally exceptional clarity, excellent colour and contrast
Click to expand...

I could take sports pics with the siggy 120-300 and I see many and know many who use them and take great pics.. Apart from Tobers list theres one very good reason why my prime is better than the siggy zoom.. I can crop in more.. the quality of picture? on L means cropping in is better and more of it than a siggy..
 
I love my Canon 600mm f4 i.s no way would i get rid of it it's at least 1 stop quicker than a zoom of that focal length its sharp wide open and when you get use to it there is no better lens it's all about technique if you get a good gimbal head like a kirk and a decent tripod and it gets easier the more you use it . The 2 shots i have posted there was no way i could get any closer to the subjects





I still use the Canon 100-400 and a 70-200 also the 300mm f4 i normally have them mounted on a second body slung over my shoulder but its horses for courses and i have never regreted buying the 600mm
Regards
Lost
 
Crikey - a 600 F4 is £7050 according to camerapricebuster.co.uk. Lovely pics though!
 
I use the 500mm at sports which is easy to use. My 70-200 is made redundant as it gets very minimum use only in grounds where the hoardings are close to the pitch. Saying that it takes a bit of practice to know your limits and the minimum range of the prime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top