Are prime lens worth the money these days?

swanseamale47

swanseamale47

Messages
9,777
Name
wayne clarke
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, I'm not trying to start WW3, it's a serious question.

With the exception of really fast primes 1.2 or 1.4 are they worth the money?.
What got me thinking was I was playing with a 35mm 2.0 and I had the 16-35 2.8 on the other camera and I realised the zoom isn't worse quality wise like they used to be back in the day, to be honest I couldnt tell the difference, and the zooms got more options, yes it's a stop slower but I can go up a stop iso and theres no real difference these days.
The only advantage of primes really is less weight and maybe a slightly better bokeh. Am I missing something??
 
swanseamale47 said:
Am I missing something??
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that.

Sometimes, though, I find myself seeing opportunities I wouldn't see with a zoom, when I have a prime lens on the camera. I don't know that it makes better pictures but I think they may be different. That's why I sometimes leave the zooms at home...

Canon Eos 5D with lenses G2 1020761.jpg
 
Hi Wayne
I suppose it all depends on what standard/quality you want the photo to be as well. A pixel peeper would be examining the minutes flaw in a photo to spot any difference between prime and telephoto lens both set on the same mm . I don't think the average man in the street would be able to tell if both picture versions were shown to him. As for worth the money it depends on how much one wants to spend
 
Last edited:
That 16-35 is a lot more expensive than the prime.

Indeed the 50mm 1.8 is dirt cheap compared to the 24-70, the 85mm 1.8 (or new RF f2) and the 135 F2 are pennies compared to a 70-200 2.8
 
I still cling to the belief that prime lenses are sharper. Sort of like throwing a pinch of salt over your shoulder. They are probably not so much these days. But I will only use primes on a film camera. Whereas I'll happily shoot a mid range zoom on digital.
 
Today the best lenses of all types are better than they have ever been .
Even some zooms are better than most primes from pre digital days.
Are they worth the money? In real terms that are rarely more expensive than even the 1930's\
You have always needed to be wealthy or a fanatic, to buy the best.
 
After moving from the Sony GM 24-70 and 70-200 Mark I to Mark II, I feel less like I'm missing out on prime quality - and the desire to work primes into every job has reduced significantly.

Although my favourite lenses are still primes..
 
I am predominantly a fast prime user. For me, it suits how I like to shoot and what I like to shoot - a zoom lens just wouldn't do the job for me & I wouldn't be happy with it.

If you are comparing a f/2 or 2.8 prime to a 'fast' zoom then IQ wise I don't think there would be much noticeable difference. Size, weight & price on the other hand...... ;)
 
I use primes because of the look they give a photo that goes beyond sharpness, though that doesn't do any harm. For me, zooms are for 'snaps' or record shots where I need to photograph a scene flexibly, often in a hurry, but not to create an image. I tend to use a 50 f1.4 nearly al the time now.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Ok, I'm not trying to start WW3, it's a serious question.

With the exception of really fast primes 1.2 or 1.4 are they worth the money?.
What got me thinking was I was playing with a 35mm 2.0 and I had the 16-35 2.8 on the other camera and I realised the zoom isn't worse quality wise like they used to be back in the day, to be honest I couldnt tell the difference, and the zooms got more options, yes it's a stop slower but I can go up a stop iso and theres no real difference these days.
The only advantage of primes really is less weight and maybe a slightly better bokeh. Am I missing something??
Click to expand...
Define worth the money?

If you’re selling images lenses pay for themselves quiet quickly (except very long teles)

For images needing the wide apertures not available with zooms you have no choice.

For images with apertures covered by zooms, the current zooms I have, canon EF L, I don’t think anyone would see a difference.
 
swanseamale47 said:
The only advantage of primes really is less weight and maybe a slightly better bokeh. Am I missing something??
Click to expand...
Price. Not everyone can afford a zoom as well as a prime. And some can't afford the [wide aperture] zoom, so a prime is a good alternative - esp for low light.
Size. Not just weight. Street photography with a 2.8 24-70 is a lot different to using a 35.
Vision. When you use a prime for a long period, you tend to know exactly what your frame will look like before you put the camera to your eye. A zoom is more "raise the camera, find the image", whereas a prime is "find the image, raise the camera".

The latter is probably the reason I use 28/35/50/85 for the majority of my photography. I've also noticed faster AF on my primes oddly.

I guess it depends on your type of photography. Shooting wildlife/sports with a 500mm f/4 would be vastly different to doing it with a 100-600. The latter would suit me better as I'd want the flexibility (as a rank amateur at that sort of thing) but a dedicated nature shooter would probably want the former for speed, knowing exactly how the frame would be filled at any given distance. Similarly for street photography, a 28/35 zone focused to f/11 at 3m with auto ISO is a very fast setup once you know what the 28/35 scene looks like without the camera in your face. A zoom needs a few more seconds to set up. For landscape, having a zoom would be great because of the flexibility for any given scene.
 
I'm not sold on prime's. Seem's they are all something like 50mm or 86mm. I suppose for portrate's they are fine but a decent 18-140 would get in the same place and you wouldn't have to move the camera to do it. And what advantage something like a 1.2 lens might give you is lost on me. Seem's if you need light, get light! I had a 50mm for my old Nikon FG but seldom ever used it, my 18-105 first that especially my 18-140 got the bulkof use. Then again I don't do many portraits of wedding's either! Have done two weddings both with the 18-140 and no complaaints from the newly weds! Then again he was my son! :)
 
I guess if you only shoot with one lens in my case it's the 24 - 70 2.8 you may not know what you are missing ( if anything ) by not having dedicated prime.

I like the variety I get with the zoom as it suits my style of photography, with landscape portraiture and abandoned property.

No one less has approached me to say ahh you shot that image with a 24 - 70 zoom it would have been much better with a prime lens.
 
I think sales blurb and real world performance arnt the same things and I think people like myself wouldn't see a difference, I would be happy with the results from either. I think with anything these days, the more you spend the better the thing is, however when the difference between two price points becomes so small its negligible then for me its more waiting for the tech to get better, In this case, a prime and zoom for every day use, I use my zoom over my prime, I find the prime useful for staged shots (50mm) such as portraits so for specific shots whereas the zoom I use for pretty much everything else.
Im no expert by any means and my knowledge is pretty limited , so this is merely the opinion of a hobby photographer still at the early learning stages.
 
swanseamale47 said:
The only advantage of primes really is less weight and maybe a slightly better bokeh. Am I missing something??
Click to expand...


The lighter weight and "better" bokeh could both be justifications for the prime over a zoom, especially cheaper 50/1.8 s. Personally, I'm now a zoom convert for the convenience and flexibility - I can accept the (all but undetectable IRL!) drop in ultimate quality.
 
I've found with 35mm format with zooms vs primes, that the primes into the corners, stopped down, win over the zooms. The difference between a Sigma ART 50mm, Sigma ART 40mm and 28mm vs a 24-70 F2.8 at these focal lengths, at any F stop is really telling, especially beyond the middle of the frame.

Unless you pixel peep, or stick your face in a large print though, will you really see it. But I do these things so it matters to me.
 
Horses for courses. As has been mentioned above, for some genres a zoom is most convenient, whereas for others a prime is king of the hill. Quality of output is not really an issue if you are using the best primes or zooms.
 
I wasnt knocking primes, Thats what I used for years with film photography, and I still have from 24 to 105mm primes now, it's just I dont see the advantage of buying say a 24mm F2.8 when a 24-70mm is as good and way more versatile. Yes they cost more and weigh more, but does the range advantage out weigh that. Say a 24-70 replaces a 24, a 35 and a 50mm then the added cost isnt that massive a difference over buying three lens.
Yes the fast primes are great, I love the 50 1.4 and theres no matching that with a zoom.... Yet ;)

​

 
depends how fussy you are being, if you look at dxomark test results the primes are mostly at the top of the performance charts with wins in every category.

the best zooms also tend to be big heavy expensive lenses.
 
swanseamale47 said:
...when a 24-70mm is as good and way more versatile.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

and a 28~300mm even more so. Lens prices are so much less in real terms that it's entirely practical to have one or two primes and a zoom, for use as desired. Something like Tamron's 28~300mm is small, light, and good enough for my needs...

Camera Nikon D600 Tamron 28-300mm A65 DSC00155.JPG
 
Last edited:
Don Fischer said:
I'm not sold on prime's. Seem's they are all something like 50mm or 86mm. I suppose for portrate's they are fine but a decent 18-140 would get in the same place and you wouldn't have to move the camera to do it. And what advantage something like a 1.2 lens might give you is lost on me. Seem's if you need light, get light! I had a 50mm for my old Nikon FG but seldom ever used it, my 18-105 first that especially my 18-140 got the bulkof use. Then again I don't do many portraits of wedding's either! Have done two weddings both with the 18-140 and no complaaints from the newly weds! Then again he was my son! :)
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't tried shooting night skies or the Milky Way landscapes at f/5.6 then? :)

Not really something you can add light to ;)
 
LeeRatters said:
You obviously haven't tried shooting night skies or the Milky Way landscapes at f/5.6 then? :)

Not really something you can add light to ;)
Click to expand...
Not to mention ‘adding light’ is a phrase commonly associated with bad flash use.

I.e. if you view the use of additional lighting as a crutch to help with an exposure value rather than a creative decision, you’re likely not going to be creating an interesting image.
 
I have a few moderate aperture modern primes. I have two 50mm f2's, a 28mm f2 and a 24mm f2.8. Other than that I have a number of film era f2.8's. Looking at the modern f2 and f2.8 lenses which have apertures that some zoom lenses can match they still have two massive advantages for me as they're smaller and lighter than the zooms. This matters a lot to me.

I suppose one good and almost do it all two lens set up could be a 24-70mm f2.8 and a wide aperture prime for low light use or for when you want thin DoF. Something like a 35 or 50mm f1.8 rather than f1.4 to keep the bulk and weight down and the cost too.
 
I have 2 primes, Canon EF 100L f2.8 macro IS USM and Sony E 50mm f1.8

I use the canon 100 macro alot on my canons cameras and adapt to Sony A6600 body.
The Sony e 50mm f1.8 I rarely use use as I have a sigma e 18-50 f2.8 ( sony e mount only ), which is a much better all round lens.

If I am doing a dedicated portrait shoot the the e 50mm f1.8 comes out. However that is once in a blue moon.

So really comes down to do you have a dedicated need for a prime, if so there are some great ones out there now from all the top manufacturers.
 
Don Fischer said:
I'm not sold on prime's. Seem's they are all something like 50mm or 86mm. I suppose for portrate's they are fine but a decent 18-140 would get in the same place and you wouldn't have to move the camera to do it. And what advantage something like a 1.2 lens might give you is lost on me. Seem's if you need light, get light! I had a 50mm for my old Nikon FG but seldom ever used it, my 18-105 first that especially my 18-140 got the bulkof use. Then again I don't do many portraits of wedding's either! Have done two weddings both with the 18-140 and no complaaints from the newly weds! Then again he was my son! :)
Click to expand...

Primes can be just about any focal length.

I've had 17, 19, 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 55, 85, 135 and 150mm primes and they don't stop at either 17 or 150mm.

Wide apertures give two advantages, they allow you to use either a faster shutter speed or a lower ISO or a combination of both in low light and they allow you to get thinner depth of field to isolate your subject from its surroundings or maybe just for artistic reasons and the look. There are negatives to using wide apertures too so you need to know both the positives and the negatives and make an informed decision.
 
Last edited:
I never owned a zoom prior to digital.
I now hardly ever use a prime.

I only own a Fisheye ( for 360x180 pans)
And a 50mm Macro.

The major problem these days, with frequently changing lenses, is the issue of dust on the sensor.
The use of zooms massively cuts down on this.
 
I started with primes back in the 70s and 80s and coveted zooms - then went full circle by the late 2000s and was using zooms but coveting (good) primes.

These days I generally use primes up to 135mm - and zooms for telephoto. But for most shots/use it's really a sort of lifestyle choice. I just enjoy using them more. The reality is that in many situations I could carry a 18-55 F2.8 zoom and get results that looked not so different from carrying a 16, 35, and 56.

But when out and about to deliberately spend time using my cameras I'm usually just happier carrying two bodies with two primes mounted and another spare prime (or maybe a 55-200 ) in the bag.

I think primes have become too expensive. As an example - Fuji have just released a 8mm F3.5 - which is selling at £800 in the UK. I'm torn because when I first saw details of it I really thought I'd get one - but I just feel that it's too expensive. I can understand why a 50mm F1.0 or 56mm F1.2 APD are specialist lenses are sold at a premium. But I feel the 8mm F3.5 should IMO be under £500.
 
Dryce said:
I think primes have become too expensive. As an example - Fuji have just released a 8mm F3.5 - which is selling at £800 in the UK. I'm torn because when I first saw details of it I really thought I'd get one - but I just feel that it's too expensive. I can understand why a 50mm F1.0 or 56mm F1.2 APD are specialist lenses are sold at a premium. But I feel the 8mm F3.5 should IMO be under £500.
Click to expand...

One thing I've longed for since almost the first days of digital is compact and light prime lenses which are merely good enough. I think one of the reasons why lenses have become so expensive and bigger and heavier is because of a drive to be better. Modern lenses are IMO just so much better than what came before that their additional bulk and weight and price can to a degree be at least understood. But also if we look at the price of lenses years ago and adjust for inflation some lenses don't look quite so cheap any more.

Several Chinese companies are now making lenses which more or less fulfil my wishes as some are small, cheap and "good enough" for a lot of my uses. I recently bought a 50mm f2 for £79 although it is available for £56 elsewhere and a 35mm f1.4 for £119. I also bought a 50mm f1.1 for about £150.
 
I use the following primes

300 and 400 f2..8 as I need the 2.8 then there isn't a zoom to replace them

135 f2 there isnt a zoom to replace this.. HOWEVER I was using it for short range sports in the day and night but the canon 70-200 f2.8 mk 2 seems as sharp to me so I mostly use that over the prime... another HOWEVER is that in extreme (bad) lighting conditions I have to use the 135 f2 and again no zoom to match it

So PRIME have a BIG place in my photography because there simply isn't a zoom to take there place

next! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top