Beginner Are prime lenses all they're cracked up to be?

snerkler said:
On a few occasions I think it could be, but in reality it's preference and the right tool for the job. I prefer the bokeh from primes, but rarely use them as for the shooting I do zooms are far more convenient. I need several different focal lengths and don't have the time (or inclination) to keep swapping lenses ;)
Click to expand...

Yes snekler, primes do have their place, however the more I think about it, the more I feel its the 'butch' side of some togs coming out . . . 'I have a shop full of prime lenses in my bag, I can get the sharpest picture' . . .
. . . hohum, I simply want to take a few pictures whilst out, 'a moment in time', not quite snapshots but few will ever see them, it is my pleasure. Times I need a prime is in the garden macro hunting, and a pancake lens on my 4/3 camera when out with my Hazel, she is wheelchair bound, so compact and light are the watch words? Even then my 12-35 f2.8, will be an option and the compact 40-150 zoom will probably be at hand? Leg zoom, not for me theses days, the same as 'I drive an automatic car, its easier'.
CJS
 
CJS said:
Yes snekler, primes do have their place, however the more I think about it, the more I feel its the 'butch' side of some togs coming out . . . 'I have a shop full of prime lenses in my bag, I can get the sharpest picture' . . .
. . . hohum, I simply want to take a few pictures whilst out, 'a moment in time', not quite snapshots but few will ever see them, it is my pleasure. Times I need a prime is in the garden macro hunting, and a pancake lens on my 4/3 camera when out with my Hazel, she is wheelchair bound, so compact and light are the watch words? Even then my 12-35 f2.8, will be an option and the compact 40-150 zoom will probably be at hand? Leg zoom, not for me theses days, the same as 'I drive an automatic car, its easier'.
CJS
Click to expand...
That's the thing good zooms still provide stunning image quality, and the 12-35mm f2.8 you have is more than capable of great images and IQ. I still don't think there's much in the way of hierarchy tbh, just preference. A lot of it is also banter imo.
 
Last edited:
Hi Paul, nothing further to add to the plenty of good advice that's been given. However, I've recently been in a similar position to you and added a 50mm 1.8 (on D7200), I like using it a lot, great for OOF backgrounds and makes you think about composition a bit more. Also gives you more idea of what the camera is actually capable of, as they are quite a bit sharper than the kit lens. Mainly though, I'd say try one as they're a lot of fun to use and probably the cheapest lens you'll ever buy!
 
CJS said:
Yes snekler, primes do have their place, however the more I think about it, the more I feel its the 'butch' side of some togs coming out . . . 'I have a shop full of prime lenses in my bag, I can get the sharpest picture' . . .
. . . hohum, I simply want to take a few pictures whilst out, 'a moment in time', not quite snapshots but few will ever see them, it is my pleasure. Times I need a prime is in the garden macro hunting, and a pancake lens on my 4/3 camera when out with my Hazel, she is wheelchair bound, so compact and light are the watch words? Even then my 12-35 f2.8, will be an option and the compact 40-150 zoom will probably be at hand? Leg zoom, not for me theses days, the same as 'I drive an automatic car, its easier'.
CJS
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
 
CJS said:
Yes snekler, primes do have their place, however the more I think about it, the more I feel its the 'butch' side of some togs coming out . . . 'I have a shop full of prime lenses in my bag, I can get the sharpest picture' . . .
. ...
Click to expand...
Inverted snobbery at its finest. (n)

I've got a bag full of fine lenses, both prime and zoom, some relatively inexpensive, but they all do 'something' to earn their place otherwise they have to go.

My 2 most used lenses are the Sigma 35mm Art and the Canon 85mm 1.8, I've got f2.8 zooms that cover both those focal lengths, which weigh plenty, so I'd be an idiot to be carrying those extra lenses just for 'bragging rights'. They give me images that are simply different to the images I get from the zooms, and they're different enough to not just earn their place, but to make them the first choice.

However, for the OP. All that is irrelevant, because they're happy with what they have and that's all they need to be concerned with.
 
val d5000 said:
That's a nice photo can you tell me what camera and lens that was Val
Click to expand...
Try not to get too fixated on the equipment, you don't need the best equipment in the world to get great shots. For portraits it does help to have a fast (wide aperture) lens though to get the background blur.
 
Phil V said:
Inverted snobbery at its finest. (n)
.
Click to expand...

To be fair with some people (not you) hes got a point

" I only use primes" can be another variant of " I only use M mode" , " real photographers use leica" and other such hipster b******t - theres nothing wrong with using primes, or M mode or buying leica kit, but it is distinctly true that some people are doing it for reasons of pretension rather than photographic quality.

and this is relevant to the OP - some people get great results with primes and swear by them , others get great results with zooms and swear by them , and the argument that primes are sharper than zooms while still theoretically true is much less relevant than it used to be with the increases in zoom quality in recent years.

By all means buy a prime or two if you want to try them out or if you need them for a certain circumstance, but don't feel you have to just because someone tells you 'real photographers use primes'

(Btw my kit bag includes both 50 and 85 f1.8s and a 90mm f2.8 macro , but i probably do 75% of my shooting with the 17-50 f2.8 , 70-200 f2.8 and 150-500 f5.6-6.3 zooms )
 
the thing i like about a prime is the light weight and compactness - not particularly bothered about having a "fast" prime as they are often heavier and bigger than many zooms so f/2.8 is fine for me
 
boliston said:
the thing i like about a prime is the light weight and compactness - not particularly bothered about having a "fast" prime as they are often heavier and bigger than many zooms so f/2.8 is fine for me
Click to expand...

Certainly not the case for the 1.8Gs from Nikon but once you head into 1.4 the they do weigh a fair bit. Apart from the 58 which is surprisingly light.
 
Unlike some others above ("why don't you get one just like mine") I have no brief to promote a specific lens, but a zoom by default will likely have more distortions and more flare when used contre-jour. It might matter, it might not.
 
As most have said "horses for courses." When we went on safari my wife used xooms and I did most of my shooting with a 300mm prime. She got more shots and mine were sharper. Between us we got some great and not so great shots. Only a few were down to the lens though. I recently sold the 300 and bought a 70-300 and had a lot of spare cash to boot. The zoom better fits my current needs.

My view is buy 2nd hand and then you can always sell it on if it doesn't work for you.

A
 
Last edited:
I'd i find myself needing a specific lens on 2 occasions I will just go out and buy it

Prime lenses are niche but when you're doing regular photography you begin to understand what tools you need to make your job easier/possible
 
Indoor and evening a fast prime is essential for me. You also get the added bonus of a lighter and smaller lens most of the time...
 
I personally stick to a prime. I've tried zooms several times in the past and I just never seem to gel with them. A 50mm or 85mm lens (35mm and 50mm respectively on a crop sensor) covers most of what I shoot. I also like that a prime is more compact, often faster so good for indoor and low light, plus less bulk.
I have a couple of wides in the bag for when I look to work more with the landscape.
That's just me however and it depends on what you shoot and what you feel comfortable with. I wouldn't want to sway or push any bias to one or the other.

You sound like you are pretty happy with the zoom you've got, so for the time being I would stick with it and get to learn and work with the camera.
 
I'm a complete hobbyist, all my pictures or for my own and families benefit only, I use zooms for everything pretty much. Tried a 50mm prime and a 35mm on my APS-C camera and didn't get on with them, so stick with the 24-104 or 18-35. BUT I hit a brick wall when I found that what I loved most was photographing insects, in the wild. So I bought a 100mm macro prime and its just sublime

I'm just reiterating most of what's been said, tool for the job, I love the flexibility of a zoom in most environments as its just damn convenient, I'm slightly lazy and not a pixel peeper and/or charging anyone for my time/results. But for macro, it I couldn't get what I wanted so I went prime
 
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that prime's put fairly hard limits on the perspective/composition of an image... the idea that you can "zoom with your feet" is complete nonsense.

The other side of that is zooms can tend to cause laziness and a lack of consideration regarding perspective/composition...

In reality there is only *one* ideal FL, aperture, distance (and SS) for an image... if you have a specific image/result/goal in mind.
(Sometimes you can "fudge" the FL by shooting looser and cropping in post)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top