prime lenses...

Messages
1,391
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
I find as I shoot more and more, and grow in experience and direction, I find myself wanting prime lenses. I only have the 50 f1.8 so far, but its quite honestly my most used lens, and the photos it gives I prefer to both my L zoom lenses (70-200f4) (100-400) there's something just so wonderful about the shots I get from the prime.

Is it purely because of how fast it is? Or is it primes in general?
 
I'm in a similar boat to you myself. I love the idea of primes as they make me think about my photography more and my composition.

The quality from these lenses is just unbelievable. Ive been looking recently at the following lenses;
- Sigma 50mm F1.4
- Canon 85mm F1.8

Still undecided though :s
 
I shoot purely primes currently, 99% of what I do is portraiture so don't need the flexibility.

Weddings....different matter entirely.
 
I'm in a similar boat to you myself. I love the idea of primes as they make me think about my photography more and my composition.

The quality from these lenses is just unbelievable. Ive been looking recently at the following lenses;
- Sigma 50mm F1.4
- Canon 85mm F1.8

Still undecided though :s

yes but The depth of field at f1.4 is so shallow that even minor movements will throw off focus. If your camera isn't properly aligned in the field of focus, then it will appear that the focus of the lens is 'off'. this applies to any 1.4 and worse on the 1.2, that's why peeps get so miffed with so called soft wide apertures.

Merc
 
Last edited:
I shoot purely primes currently, 99% of what I do is portraiture so don't need the flexibility.

Weddings....different matter entirely.


I shoot sports and all my lens are prime. 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, 300mm, 400mm
 
after getting a minolta 50mm f1.7 i've been debating whether to get a sony 35mm f1.8 or the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 i was originally planning to buy.
i think it's because the optics in a prime are optimised for that particular focal length, whereas in a zoom it's always a compromise to get acceptable image quality across the range of focal lengths it offers
 
I've only ever used primes apart from kit zoom which came bundled with my original D70s back in 2006 (sold the zoom fairly soon). The prime means there is less to consider when I take a shot as I only have to think aperture/shutter rather than aperture/shutter/focal_length. I also like to be able to go down to f/1.4 rather than being restricted to f/2.8.
 
mercmanuk said:
yes but The depth of field at f1.4 is so shallow that even minor movements will throw off focus. If your camera isn't properly aligned in the field of focus, then it will appear that the focus of the lens is 'off'. this applies to any 1.4 and worse on the 1.2, that's why peeps get so miffed with so called soft wide apertures.

Merc

I understand that but just because the lens is a f1.4 doesnt mean you have to use it at f1.4, just stop it down a but if needed.
 
I shoot purely primes currently, 99% of what I do is portraiture so don't need the flexibility.

Weddings....different matter entirely.

over the last year or so I've found myself shooting almost entirely primes - including at weddings (with the exception of my 70-200 when I'm stuck away from the action at the back of the church)
 
You guys really aren't helping me not sell off my L zooms and investing in nothing but primes!

It's just something about the photographs they produce, I cant quite put my finger on it, its just wonderous.
 
For me it's all about simplicity, the simple focal length of a prime (in my case a 50mm) just feels better to work with and you don't get bogged down in zooming and choosing a focal length, you get what you're given and you stick to it. I love my lens and is the only one I use :D
 
over the last year or so I've found myself shooting almost entirely primes - including at weddings (with the exception of my 70-200 when I'm stuck away from the action at the back of the church)

I'm really pleased to hear that as I'm hoping to start getting some wedding experience in 2011 and would love to continue with primes. I'll have to accumulate some more though I think so I've got it covered. What primes have you found yourself using at Weddings?

Regards

Danny
 
Agreed. I never use my L zoom either, preferring primes every time. My decision is now whether to switch to the dark side as well as what primes to buy.
 
I understand that but just because the lens is a f1.4 doesnt mean you have to use it at f1.4, just stop it down a but if needed.

yes i use mine at 1.6 and above most of the time, and it's sharp, we did a macro night at our club i just took siggy 1.4 and my AF extension tubes all the others where using flash in lite light boxes:shrug: i just used the light box and F/2.8 or lower, but at 1.4 your talking 1/2 cm in focus the rest Pure Bokeh:)


Merc
 
I'm really pleased to hear that as I'm hoping to start getting some wedding experience in 2011 and would love to continue with primes. I'll have to accumulate some more though I think so I've got it covered. What primes have you found yourself using at Weddings?

Regards

Danny

most of the time a 50 and 85 1.4.
 
biggest mistake I did when receiving the tamron 2.8 non VC was comparing it to the 50 at 2.8 :bonk: man I thought I got me a duffer hehe

But while I do find primes as increadibly clear and love using them I do find em a bit restrictive and the need for a 2nd body is imperative.

for the OP, you got the 100-400 assuming right it would be used for wildlife. Swap that with a fixed 400 and think you get an animal that passes real close to your 400 and you cant move back (hide is a good example). Just my thought, granted id buy the 400 anyday as animals sem to shy away from me thus no need for the bulk :shrug:
 
I use primes but to be honest unless you're using the wider aperture for creative DoF, nice out of focus rendering, low light use, macro or another real reason you might as well use a quality zoom for the additional flexibility of use.

The best primes may well give better image quality than the best zooms but any difference is so small in real world use that IMVHO you'd struggle to see it in a whole image, even in a large whole image.

Of course zooms may lack the snob factor that primes have :)
 
For me there is often a slightly misguided view that primes will help you create better images; a bit of extra bokeh doesn't make a crap shot any better, neither does additional sharpness.

I honestly believe that with the high ISOs that modern cameras can reach and the fact there are now zooms that can match primes for overall IQ, their actual relevance to many shooters isn't as important these days. The major plus points of primes - size/weight and the ability to provide shallower DoF - dont offer the argument they may have once done. Cost might be a factor in some cases - it's hard to ignore a 50mm that can cost ad little as £100 new though.

I love my 85mm because of those points above, especially when compared against my bigger, slower, heavier 80-200, and my 14mm f/2.8 is a godsend in low light compared to my f/4 12-24.

Zooms will still play a massive part for me because they offer so much more bang for their buck.....
 
I use primes but to be honest unless you're using the wider aperture for creative DoF, nice out of focus rendering, low light use, macro or another real reason you might as well use a quality zoom for the additional flexibility of use.
For me there is often a slightly misguided view that primes will help you create better images; a bit of extra bokeh doesn't make a crap shot any better, neither does additional sharpness.
For me, the crazy-wide apertures and impressive bokeh are among the reasons I've got primes (apart from a recently aquired 17-40mm!), but the most important reason is a bit more difficult to explain. I dislike the cumbersome and heavy dead-weight that I'm forced to carry when I take out my 24-70mm. I feel uninspired to take photographs with a 'one size fits all' lens, I feel sometimes limited in low light when I'm pushing ISO 3200/6400 indoors without flash I just can't get the shot. I like how primes make me see the photograph better, rather than just standing there whilst zooming to frame. I'm not a photojournalist or working in a fast paced environment so don't need a zoom.

For those reasons (all I can think of right now anyway!) it does help me take better photos.

Having a razor sharp 50mm f1.4 lens in your kitbag is like having one of those Ariel Atom cars.. Compact, fast, good fun, plus it encourages you to actually go out and play with it more.
 
@Digital_Clarity - A good point about the massive weight of a zoom! I use a 50/1.4 and it is small & light (280g). The 24-70/2.8 is a massive 900g and I'd much rather zoom with my feet and keep fit than just be lazy and twiddle a zoom ring.
 
Not to mention the fear-factor for your subject when you point that kilgram monster at them (who may be less accustomed to big lenses than others... Poor nanny).
 
I use primes but to be honest unless you're using the wider aperture for creative DoF, nice out of focus rendering, low light use, macro or another real reason you might as well use a quality zoom for the additional flexibility of use.

Or you may just use a prime for the extra niceness of the images a zoom doesn't have.

The best primes may well give better image quality than the best zooms but any difference is so small in real world use that IMVHO you'd struggle to see it in a whole image, even in a large whole image.

Of course zooms may lack the snob factor that primes have :)

yep -snob factor - thats me :thinking:
 
Primes mainly come in for IQ/price as well as DoF portraiture. Of course the best zooms are just as sharp; but the best zooms are slower, heavier, and often 5-10x as expensive.

For example, when you look at about £300-£350 for a prime lens you're looking at some of the best lenses on the market (Sigma 50mm 1.4 etc.), whereas a zoom at that price point would still be very much mid-market "general use". While there are better zooms; for the most part people don't want to spend that kind of money on lenses, so for those people the L zoom lenses etc. may as well not exist.
 
Primes mainly come in for IQ/price as well as DoF portraiture. Of course the best zooms are just as sharp; but the best zooms are slower, heavier, and often 5-10x as expensive.
I don't agree that the best zooms are as sharp. I've owned a good copy of a 24-70mm and found it just wasn't quite what I knew I could get from a prime.

For example, when you look at about £300-£350 for a prime lens you're looking at some of the best lenses on the market (Sigma 50mm 1.4 etc.),
Not sure that that price bracket covers the best primes on the market!

The best primes are as expensive if not more expensive than the best zooms. Canon wide angle zoom (17-40mm=£600 OR 14mm=£1900)
Mid range (24-70mm=£900 OR 50mm 1.2=£1200)
 
Last edited:
whats so snoby about having a thini whini 50mm? If its the massive 500 or 600 ok but one can get more massive zooms then primes (apart from the super telefotos) and apart from fellow togs who cares what u have attached to your black box

primes and zooms have their pros and cons and everybody sees them in a different way. I favour what suits me best at the mo. Like recently Im putting aside the 50 1.8 in favour of the maybe less sharp at 2.8 tammy 17-50. But when I do that the 100 2.8 is always the 2nd lens until that gets replaced but the soon to come 70-200 f4 IS :)
 
50mm f1.8 is my next lens. Keep missing them in the sale section though!!!
 
I love primes! I'd shoot with them all the time if I could, I love that i can lift the camera and know instinctively what will be in the frame, when you're indecisive like me a zoom just adds complication :lol: I have recently bought a 24-70 for weddings though, for the flexibility. But for candids and closeups, and when shooting for pleasure, my 135L will still be king :love:
 
From the point of view that a good zoom can match a prime in quality easily enough.
I think one of the subtle attractions of primes is that one gets to know the perspective of an individual lens. So for me that fixes one of the aspects to making compositions work ..I can walk backwards and forwards for my zoom control without changing the angles of my perspectives as would happen using a zoom lens.
 
I love primes! I'd shoot with them all the time if I could, I love that i can lift the camera and know instinctively what will be in the frame, when you're indecisive like me a zoom just adds complication :lol: I have recently bought a 24-70 for weddings though, for the flexibility. But for candids and closeups, and when shooting for pleasure, my 135L will still be king :love:


Exactly! :thumbs:

damn too slow again...
 
I don't agree that the best zooms are as sharp. I've owned a good copy of a 24-70mm and found it just wasn't quite what I knew I could get from a prime.

Not sure that that price bracket covers the best primes on the market!

The best primes are as expensive if not more expensive than the best zooms. Canon wide angle zoom (17-40mm=£600 OR 14mm=£1900)
Mid range (24-70mm=£900 OR 50mm 1.2=£1200)

I'm talking more classic primes i.e. 30-50 (85 at a push)... Of course there's Canon's ridiculous f/1.2 L 50, but for the most part, very good quality starts a lot cheaper with primes, if not absolute best quality.
 
I'm talking more classic primes i.e. 30-50 (85 at a push)... Of course there's Canon's ridiculous f/1.2 L 50, but for the most part, very good quality starts a lot cheaper with primes, if not absolute best quality.
I understand where you're coming from, I seem to get a sharper shot from my Sigma 50 than I ever did from the 24-70 (about £500 difference), but maybe that's some strange psychological/placebo effect of having sexy primes lying around!


Edit: I know, sexy is a weird word for camera lenses. Must take a break from the internet for a few days...
 
Last edited:
Classic primes for 35mm were 35mm, 50mm & 135mm. with an ultra wide being a 24mm and a portrait being an 85mm.

On digital (1.5x & 1.6x crops) the classic primes were more likely to be 24mm, 35mm & 50mm.

The image quality from some of the newer zooms such as the Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS MkII can rival even the best primes such as the Canon 135L but these are few and far between and very expensive to boot.

Usually even a cheap prime will out perform a quality zoom lens at a similar aperture with the added benefit that the cheap prime may well also have a faster maximum aperture too.

Whilst the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII is pretty much the equal of the 135L f2.0 wide open, at f2.8 the prime starts to edge ahead, and at f2, well the zoom can never compete at any focal length.
 
I think many of you are missing the point in comparing the price of zooms against prime lenses. You are only quoting the price of one lens....but the 24-70 is 3 if not 4 prime lenses in one.

You don't HAVE to zoom a zoom lens, but people are lazy.

You like the fixed perspective of a single focal length - then set it on your high quality zoom!

The 24-70 can easily be set and left at 24mm, or 35mm, or 50mm or 70mm. Then you are shooting with a "prime" lens, if not in physicality, in practicality.

I do like the odd prime lens, but those that give me something the workhorse doesn't. Looking at like for like, taking one zoom lens, and we might as well stick with the standard length of 24-70, buy the top quality one (Nikkor 24-70f2.8 = £1200?) and you have, the flexibility and quality of the zoom as we know it. Or, you can view that has having invested in three very good fixed lens lengths.

To compare properly, you would need to add up the cost of all the fixed length lenses the zoom covers. Yes, the added punch of a wider aperture for specialised instances is very nice to have, but working fast, one cannot afford th eluxury of lingering over the decision - too late, the moment is gone. I will get the shot with the 24-70 while you are still trying to fit the subject to the lens on the front of your camera,or you will get what you can and either waste a load of image area (too wide too far away) or you won't get it all in (too long and too close).

Given the luxury of setting shots up, then yes, you can go with a handful of primes, but the weight will be about the same as the fixed aperture zooms covering the same focal lengths.
Take the combination of 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. In those two lenses (you can put one on each body and cover the lot!) you have covered the following classical fixed lengths:
24, 35, 50, 85/90, 105, 135, 180 and 200.

The best answer is to have zooms for everyday work, and cherry pick a couple of fixed lengths for specific reasons. Mine are the 35 f1.4 and the 105 f2DC, oh and the 60mm micro, but that doesn't count because it is for copying and close up work, not everyday eventualities, so we'll ignore it.

Trying to work with fixed lengths all day every day, unless studio based, is very limiting. The beauty of the zooms is their speed of use, you can react to given situation so fast - you can shoot with it set at whatever it happens to be set on, then reframe and shoot again in fractions of a second. If you like the fixed length, then just leave the zoom set on it.

I agree about the finished result of certain lenses, but not all of them. The Zeiss lenses, for instance, give a completely different feel to the result than the Japanese ones.
 
I am shooting quite a few back garden birdies at the moment. I am finding that the DOF from the 100-400L at 5.6, is still pretty shallow. How much smaller do you want it?

However, I am also finding that I would love it to be longer. I seem to only use it (at the moment), at 370 (i.e. 400 pulled back a bit), and 200.
Perhaps a nice 300/2.8 L , with a 2x extender would work instead......
Now see what you have started me thinking about!!!! :D
 
Maybe, except you don't have the isolation when you need it, nor the sharpness for the most part, as well as having a very heavy piece of glass on the front of your camera. I don't really mind weight in the bag; but a high quality zoom would upset the balance of my little camera a fair bit :D

I'd rather plan my shots. I don't really shoot action seriously so that's fine by me, though I can understand the advantages of having the focal lengths all covered by one lens.

Also, with a prime you don't need to buy all focal lengths; whereas you can't get a cheap good quality zoom that will cover a smaller focal range e.g. 30-50, so for those that don't have the money for a high quality zoom which won't always match the primes anyway, it's possible to go with one then cycle through them if you find your shooting is changing; without really losing much more money.
 
I am shooting quite a few back garden birdies at the moment. I am finding that the DOF from the 100-400L at 5.6, is still pretty shallow. How much smaller do you want it?

At the longer end of that lens, the aperture isn't so much for DoF shots as it is to be able to keep your shutter speeds up.
 
Back
Top