and please use their services
Are prime lens worth the money these days?
- Thread starter swanseamale47
- Start date
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,685
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I have an odd story about Woodstock.
When Woodstock was happening, I was freelancing, at the same time as working for a local newspaper. An older photographer asked what I was doing on Friday (15th August 1969). He said he had been offered a job at Milton Keynes, photographing a music festival. He really didn't want to do it so if I went instead, he'd split the fee with me and he'd get my expenses paid as well. My share would be £25, which was £5 more than my week's wages, so naturally, I said "yes".
For years afterwards, when the subject of Woodstock came up, I would casually mention that I was photographing a musical festival that day ... and leave the listeners to form their own conclusions.
Can you post any pictures from that day?
- Messages
- 9,248
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry. The films went, undeveloped, to my friend and all I got were a couple of tearsheets from the magazine, which have long since disappeared.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,685
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry. The films went, undeveloped, to my friend and all I got were a couple of tearsheets from the magazine, which have long since disappeared.
Oh well. Would have been interesting to see. But you have the memories
- Messages
- 2,679
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
I use a mixture of Zooms and primes on my Pentax - since I have film and digital. Zooms don't focus on the Z-1p unfortunately. So that encourages me to take a prime lens or 3 out with me if I shoot film... I have 24/2, 31/1.8, 35/2, 43/1.9, 50/1.7, 50/1.4, 77/1.8, 85/1.4 and 135/2.8. I get a lot of joy using these primes.
Nikon mostly zooms, but I have 50G1.4 and 85D/1.8, plus the 105 Macro. The primes get used less than 1% of the time, 99.5/0.5 in favour of the macro. The zooms do the job perfectly for me if I am not doing macro..
Both systems I had a 300/4, one went to fund an eventual 150-450DFA purchase than the other was rendered redundant by the Nikkor 200-500. currently happy to stay with the 200mm ceiling on the Pentax. I will get a 400/2,8 or 500/4 Nikkor, just procrastinating on length and GvsE. That might see my 200-500 making way.
If shooting low light I get more joy on the K-1 plus one of the primes, and apart from the FA*85 all the Pentax primes are quite compact, unlike the modern equivalents.
Nikon mostly zooms, but I have 50G1.4 and 85D/1.8, plus the 105 Macro. The primes get used less than 1% of the time, 99.5/0.5 in favour of the macro. The zooms do the job perfectly for me if I am not doing macro..
Both systems I had a 300/4, one went to fund an eventual 150-450DFA purchase than the other was rendered redundant by the Nikkor 200-500. currently happy to stay with the 200mm ceiling on the Pentax. I will get a 400/2,8 or 500/4 Nikkor, just procrastinating on length and GvsE. That might see my 200-500 making way.
If shooting low light I get more joy on the K-1 plus one of the primes, and apart from the FA*85 all the Pentax primes are quite compact, unlike the modern equivalents.
I don’t own a single zoom Lens anymore as I prefer the larger apertures and more interesting rendering capabilities it brings.
The only potential use case I have for a zoom is if i want to take wildlife photos when I go abroad as I don’t really want to risk my Sony 600mm f4 GM Lens having to be checked in…
The only potential use case I have for a zoom is if i want to take wildlife photos when I go abroad as I don’t really want to risk my Sony 600mm f4 GM Lens having to be checked in…
- Messages
- 490
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Would be very interesting to have a very good photographer Take a very good photo with a prime and then the same shot with a zoom and see if another very good photographer coi;ld tell whoch one is which!
- Messages
- 9,183
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes agree I would never put a lens in hold luggage
Will your 600 lens fit in a hand luggage bag?
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
That’s a mile away from why most photographers choose prime lenses (if you’d read the thread).
Most photographers (even not very good ones) could tell that the vast majority of my shots from the 135 f2 were not shot with an f4 zoom or even a 2.8 zoom at 135mm, the DoF and beautiful rendering of OoF areas are not possible with a zoom.
Likewise, you’ll not find a wide zoom that looks anything like my 35mm 1.4 prime.
It’s not snobbery, it’s physics. And it’s the reason we choose what we choose.
Of course it’d take forensic examination of a file to spot the difference between a 50mm prime shot at f8 and the same shot from a 24-70 2.8 zoom. But slightly less skill to tell the difference between those and a cheap 1980’s std zoom.
- Messages
- 2,854
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Price wise I have a hankering to buy a (full frame) 35mm prime as a walk around lens for the larger aperture capabilities and bin the kit zoom that came with the body. The 50 is a little too large most of the time and the 24-70 pro too difficult for me to justify at the moment.
Does anyone here have the Sigma 35mm C lens? Would be interested in your thoughts.
Does anyone here have the Sigma 35mm C lens? Would be interested in your thoughts.
Last edited:
Some bags yes but a few airlines now check weight too and a 3kg lens isn’t the lightest, even though it’s the lightest 600 prime. Collapsible hoods don’t even help here vs carbon fibre reversible anyway.
Do you mean the sigma 35mm art? Awesome lens! Owned the Nikon one for many years and loved it. The 85 is a superb Lens as well
- Messages
- 5,284
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't miss anything from my pre-2014/5 Canon shooting days...... Except the 135L
That was/is just something else!!
- Messages
- 2,854
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the 35mm Art is 1.4 - I'd like that but costs 1/3 more than the f2 C variant. The 35 f2 seems well regarded. I have a 50 and 85mm but both are longer than I typically use. I think the 85 has been on the body once.
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
In the dim and distant when I used to shoot weddings, my go-to pairing was the 35 and 135.I don't miss anything from my pre-2014/5 Canon shooting days...... Except the 135L
If I go back to my Canon film days (just pre digital) my favourite lens was a 135SF. On Canon crop it was the 85 1.8 (pretty close to 135)
And back in my K mount days (1980’s) my favourite lens was a crappy Soligor (I think) 135.
I might have a thing about 135’s, but the current one is my favourite, and would only be replaced by an RF 135 (if I could justify the cost).
- Messages
- 1,615
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Before the 1970's or so fixed lens would have been sharper. The multiple elements required for Zoom lens made the lens design calculations very complex. In fact 15 element zoom lenses were probably not feasible until greater computer power enabled the calculations. At around the same time more precision was introduced to the manufacture of these lenses. Thus certainly by the 90's there was no reason not to use Zoom lenses.
Dave
Dave
Apologies, I didn’t even realise they did a C version! To be fair though, if it’s sigma in the last 10 years it’s bound to be a good bit of kit