Are prime lens worth the money these days?

SFTPhotography said:
They look all metal as well. Is the 17mm any good. Wide lenses for Nikon F can be a bit of a miss.
Click to expand...
It works for me but, of course, your mileage may vary.

All the Tamron AD2 - SP lenses were highly regarded when they were released and most still stack up well against later primes, for general use. Plus, with the right AD2 mount, they'll provide full automation with almost any focal plane SLR from the 1960s onwards. (I think the exception are the Zeiss bayonet mounts for the Contarex and Icarex ranges.)

The 17mm handles backlight reasonably as well...

High contrast tree 17mm 5D IMG_0063.JPG
 
Usernameuser said:
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.
Click to expand...
Waiting for tech to get better? I am wondering how much better can tech actually get?
 
Don Fischer said:
Waiting for tech to get better? I am wondering how much better can tech actually get?
Click to expand...
There’s a longer gap between the ancient Egyptians and Cleopatra, than there is between Cleopatra and the iPhone.

See also the Wright brothers first flight to a Spitfire took longer than the gap between the Spitfire and F15
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
There’s a longer gap between the ancient Egyptians and Cleopatra, than there is between Cleopatra and the iPhone.

See also the Wright brothers first flight to a Spitfire took last Niger than the gap between the Spitfire and F15
Click to expand...
And they been making 747s for nearly 50 years....and its been 20 years if not more since passengers could fly supersonic.

But your phone can now take passible pictures now.
 
Phil V said:
There’s a longer gap between the ancient Egyptians and Cleopatra, than there is between Cleopatra and the iPhone.

See also the Wright brothers first flight to a Spitfire took longer than the gap between the Spitfire and F15
Click to expand...
OK. So tell me, at what point do we consider prefection has been reached? I just got a Panosonic DNZ ZS100 camera and the user manual is mind boggling for me. But the camera appears to be built to last a long time, something I haven't found in P&S camera's. I bought this used condition 9+ from B&H and paid $434 for it. I'm just gonna try to figure out how to simply take photo's with it and the rest is simply garbage to me. I'd have paid the cost of it without all this extra stuff, ust lookingfor a decent camera that will hopefully last. If I had not found this used one, I could not have afforded a new one! I'd have a hard time spending the cost of a new one for a camera that a large percentage of I'll never figure out. All this extra stuff is for tinkering buff's and I'm really just a picture taker!
 
Don Fischer said:
OK. So tell me, at what point do we consider prefection has been reached? I just got a Panosonic DNZ ZS100 camera and the user manual is mind boggling for me. But the camera appears to be built to last a long time, something I haven't found in P&S camera's. I bought this used condition 9+ from B&H and paid $434 for it. I'm just gonna try to figure out how to simply take photo's with it and the rest is simply garbage to me. I'd have paid the cost of it without all this extra stuff, ust lookingfor a decent camera that will hopefully last. If I had not found this used one, I could not have afforded a new one! I'd have a hard time spending the cost of a new one for a camera that a large percentage of I'll never figure out. All this extra stuff is for tinkering buff's and I'm really just a picture taker!
Click to expand...

One issue with lenses is that as digital sensors have got better they allow us to pixel peep more and there are many who still expect to see perfection when doing so, so lenses have to improve also.

Another issue with lenses could be bokeh. People once struggled to get depth in a picture but now there are those who strive for ever less depth and not only does the camera and lens have to give ever less depth, the bokeh also has to be beautifully smooth and the specular highlights have to be round.

Rising pixel counts and the need for lenses to be sharp across the frame and for the bokeh to be perfect IMO are all reasons why the latest and best lenses we see are big, heavy and expensive.

Have a look at this thread I started about cheap Chinese lenses and see how fast it goes from "Nice picture WW" to "unnatural" and "something about the bokeh" and this is when looking at a picture 1k pixels on the longest side so just imagine how much critisism some lenses will get when people get their hands on a 60mp file.

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Modern or New Manual Lenses.

Hi all. I thought I'd start a thread for users of modern/new manual lenses to share thought and pictures. Years ago I started buying film era lenses and using them on my digital cameras and I've enjoyed using them via dumb adapters but of course there are new manual lenses too. In these...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Don Fischer said:
I'd have a hard time spending the cost of a new one for a camera that a large percentage of I'll never figure out. All this extra stuff is for tinkering buff's and I'm really just a picture taker!
Click to expand...
That's an almost inevitable result of microelectronics. It works like this...
  • Making one microelectronic device is extremely expensive because the tooling is the biggest part of making microelectronics devices but making a million copies of that device reduces the unit price to very little.
  • Once the manufacturer starts the process of designing the device, it is sensible for them to build in as many facilities as they can, because that increases the market sectors they can sell into and increases the possible return on that very expensive tooling.
  • If they want to sell into all those potential markets, at the best possible price, they need to emphasise the usefulness of all those extra facilities, to attract more customers, so they want them all on display in menus and on buttons.
The problem for some people is that they haven't yet caught on to the golden rule with microelectronics: learn how to make the device do just what you want and ignore everything else.

When it comes to price: just remind yourself that you are spending less on the camera because of all those features you don't want and can ignore
 
Don Fischer said:
OK. So tell me, at what point do we consider prefection has been reached? I just got a Panosonic DNZ ZS100 camera and the user manual is mind boggling for me. But the camera appears to be built to last a long time, something I haven't found in P&S camera's. I bought this used condition 9+ from B&H and paid $434 for it. I'm just gonna try to figure out how to simply take photo's with it and the rest is simply garbage to me. I'd have paid the cost of it without all this extra stuff, ust lookingfor a decent camera that will hopefully last. If I had not found this used one, I could not have afforded a new one! I'd have a hard time spending the cost of a new one for a camera that a large percentage of I'll never figure out. All this extra stuff is for tinkering buff's and I'm really just a picture taker!
Click to expand...
The Bronica ETRS I had in the late 80’s did ‘everything I needed’*.

I had no idea then, what technology could deliver for me 35 years later, and I’d be a small minded fool to assume the zenith had been reached.

And I don’t expect to know now what technology my kids and grandkids will take for granted in 35 years time (I’m not expecting to still be around).

* btw at that point AF was a toy on some 35mm cameras, but my ‘superior’ camera didn’t need bad AF when perfectly good MF worked a treat. Autoexposure worked well and was common, but I managed without.
 
Worth making plain - it's not about perfection, but about improving usefully on what already exists. If the updates don't provide a demonstrably useful upgrade on the existing product it will eb difficult to recoup the development cost.

Like Phil above, I used a Bronica ETR in the late 80s because pictures from 35mm gear were good enough *for me* at the time, and the ETR was a compromise I could afford. I DID have an AF camera (minolta 7000 - the first camera released with AF that actually worked) too, but that was for family snaps, sports photography etc.

Why use a zoom? Why use a prime? Technical reasons aside, like low light, we take pictures of all sorts of things and for lots of different reasons. I know that @AndrewFlannigan takes pictures because of the subject, whereas I take pictures because I want images that look a particular way. Neither are wrong, but our choices of lenses and cameras reflect our needs and intentions - we both use Sony kit, but quite differently. When I'm on holiday there's a zoom glued to the front of my camera (mostly) because creating a record of where I've been is more important than creating images that fit my taste. After someone has developed as a photographer (unintentional pun!) they will come to recognise their inclination towards making certain kinds of images and if they're sensible, will direct their gear purchases to enable them to do that better.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I've got a load of those addaptal? lens knocking about somewhere, haven't used them since film.
Click to expand...
The SP 17mm is very effective on a full frame digital camera, in my opinion.

I find the 90mm macro and the incredibly light 500mm mirror lens very usefull on any camera,
 
I have a mirror lens from that era that was kindly given to me. With the advent of AI sharpening software it might become useful now - I have taken pictures with it, but one can get similar levels of detail just cropping from a 200mm lens.
 
I photographed a leavers ball last night, I just used a 28mm f1.7 and the Sony 50mm f1.2 which reminded me of how much better an image can look versus when using the 24-70 GM II 2.8

Low ISO (so better colour/dr/noise etc), melty background with subject isolation

worth it :)

although I have to say my 35mm 1.4 GM and 85mm 1.4 GM are collecting dust and the 135mm 1.8 only comes out on the rare occasions like indoor sport.

I also shot a speech day/prize giving yesterday - and the zooms were a necessity.
 
ancient_mariner said:
With the advent of AI sharpening software it might become useful now
Click to expand...
Here's an image I've shown before, taken through the 500mm Tamron onto an Olympus E-PL5 and presented with no special processing. I find it sharp enough for my needs...

Crow in a tree 500mm E-PL5 P6200014.jpg
 
ancient_mariner said:
I understand that Andrew, but your needs seem at variance with those of many other members of the forum.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, or perhaps not. A fair number of the pictures I show attract a lot of thumbs ups, if that's relevant.
 
I like primes because they make me move about on my feet more and hunt the subject, often resulting in a better composition. With zooms I inadvertently find myself stationary and waiting for the subject to come to me.

I know I could move about with a zoom, but for some reason I often don't. Perhaps the lighter weight of a prime has a contributing factor to this. Of course it isn't always possible to move around, so a zoom is handy.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I have the book Photographing The Dolomites by James Rushforth. He uses zooms a lot because when he's up a mountain stood on a ledge 2 feet deep it's difficult to 'zoom with your feet'. ;)
Click to expand...

Aye, you would certainly have to think outside of the box for that one with a prime..lol
 
gman said:
Aye, you would certainly have to think outside of the box for that one with a prime..lol
Click to expand...
That puts me in mind of some comic book characters that had helicopter packs strapped to their backs.

So zooming without your feet... :naughty:
 
A lot of my pictures are taken with the zoom at on end or the other, the only reason I don't use primes anymore (except my trusty 50mm f1.4) is just to avoid changing lenses too often.
 
ShinySideUp said:
A lot of my pictures are taken with the zoom at on end or the other, the only reason I don't use primes anymore (except my trusty 50mm f1.4) is just to avoid changing lenses too often.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a zoom makes more sense for you. When do you choose to use the 50mm f/1.4?

At the moment I've only got the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 v2 because I've just changed systems and looking back over the limited number of photos I've taken most of them are around 70mm, with just a few at 200mm. I'm debating swapping this lens for the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG HSM Art Lens.

However, one of the reasons for getting the 200mm reach was to create big detailed stiches. The reason I'm looking at this Sigma is from what I've briefly read it is meant to be super sharp and excellent for the larger sensor (I need to do more research on it though), although the 70-200mm has been impressive so far. Also, those extra stops could help me stay at the important base ISO with this camera. I'll need to have a good think about this.
 
gman said:
Sounds like a zoom makes more sense for you. When do you choose to use the 50mm f/1.4?
Click to expand...

When I'm on holiday on the motorbike as it is very small and convenient. I do have a tiny camera too but I prefer the big Nikon D810 (now D850) with the small lens as a compromise.

I just remembered, I do have one other prime lens, it is Nikon 105mm micro, for macro images.
 
ShinySideUp said:
When I'm on holiday on the motorbike as it is very small and convenient. I do have a tiny camera too but I prefer the big Nikon D810 (now D850) with the small lens as a compromise.

I just remembered, I do have one other prime lens, it is Nikon 105mm micro, for macro images.
Click to expand...

There's a good point right there for primes, aren't the best macro lenses usually primes?
 
gman said:
There's a good point right there for primes, aren't the best macro lenses usually primes?
Click to expand...

Exclusively I would have thought.
 
What I find interesting is as much as cameras have improved , not much around it has. For example print standard is 300 dpi, web is what 70/90 dpi. Photographers are the ones chasing the sharpness, I reckon most clients (if professional) would have no idea if you shot it on a zoom or prime as long as you meet the brief. The people buying your pro prints are not sticking their nose in that close
 
It's a very long time since I used anything but a zoom lens. Almost certainly pre-digital and probably long before that! I did have a 135mm "macro" at one time.... - I think it may have been a Canon FD, so that dates it. If you are looking for technical perfection at all times you *may* find advantages in primes but there's a lot more to photography than that. For me the advantages of zooms far outweigh the disadvantages.
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
What I find interesting is as much as cameras have improved , not much around it has. For example print standard is 300 dpi, web is what 70/90 dpi. Photographers are the ones chasing the sharpness, I reckon most clients (if professional) would have no idea if you shot it on a zoom or prime as long as you meet the brief. The people buying your pro prints are not sticking their nose in that close
Click to expand...

On my Japan trip, nobody has ever commented whether I'd taken a photo on my X100 (mk1) 12mp or my Sony A7R3 42mp. One with the infamous 23mm soft fixed lens, vs a 35GM which cost as much as a new X100F.

People don't know, can't tell or just simply don't matter. Although it must be said that the first question most people, even photographers, will ask "What did you use to take that with?", as if almost like if they had the same gear, they can recreate the same photo.

I shoot 99% with Prime, I find the flexibility of wider aperture more useful than more focal length.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Although it must be said that the first question most people, even photographers, will ask "What did you use to take that with?",
Click to expand...
...or, as Roger Hicks used to quote: "you must have a very good camera"! :naughty:
 
At the leavers ball I mentioned, I photographed a trapeze artist with my 50mm 1.2, the 50MP Sony A1 plus the sharpness of the lens meant that I could make some heavy crops and the photos still look great.
 
I only have primes as zoom options were limited for medium format film cameras.
As such, I generally plan what I am going to shoot in advance and take an appropriate length lens.
That said, I've never really like zooms and always found myself shooting at the long or the short end and almost nothing in between.

Just me I spose!
 
For me personally, the faster aperture is the main reason for using primes. For portraits and video interviews, (my main use cases) there's no zoom that can give you the separation of an ultra fast prime.

You don't have to spend silly money. For seated video interviews, I picked up a mint nikon 105mm f1.8AI-s for £250 it's MF only but works brilliantly on my panasonic S1 with an adapter. I also use Nikon 50mm f1.4D and 85mm f1.4D and 180mm f2.8D
I paid £800 for all 4 lenses and a set of ND filters.
 
Last edited:
My shift lenses are obviously primes lenses, and I enjoy using these these lenses, and I like the output. I also use zoom lenses. My Z24-200 is brilliant for travel .

I like both primes and zooms, depending on what I am doing.
 
paul.w said:
For me personally, the faster aperture is the main reason for using primes. For portraits and video interviews, (my main use cases) there's no zoom that can give you the separation of an ultra fast prime.

You don't have to spend silly money. For seated video interviews, I picked up a mint nikon 105mm f1.8AI-s for £250 it's MF only but works brilliantly on my panasonic S1 with an adapter. I also use Nikon 50mm f1.4D and 85mm f1.4D and 180mm f2.8D
I paid £800 for all 4 lenses and a set of ND filters.
Click to expand...

I have a Nikon 50mm f1.4 too, it's my only prime but for compactness and convenience when bigger things just won't do it's my goto lens.

PS Paul, I like your avatar; kudos on the transition, looking good :D ;)
 
I've been using primes since Woodstock and it's only the last few years that I've found 'zooms' to be either beneficial or good enough.
 
Sky said:
I've been using primes since Woodstock
Click to expand...
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. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top