Primes primes and more primes

S

stupar

Guest
Evening folks

I've been doing a lot of research and reading regarding the use of primes for everyday photography and the benefits they can reap.
Currently I shoot with a 5D mk2 and a 24-105 lens. Now as general walkabout lens it is good but I find it lacks in portrait environments which is a direction I would like to venture into.
I still like to do landscape when the opportunity arises.
I am wondering if I should sell my zoom lens and switch it for some primes.
The way I am thinking is -

28mm for landscape
50mm and 85mm for portraits

Does this sound sound like a reasonable setup?
Obviously the budget from the zoom won't get all three at once but it would certainly fund the 28 and 50mm for the time being.

What are others thoughts on this and has anyone else been in a similar situation?
 
You could start with the 50mm 1.8 which is under £100 to see how you get on with primes, it's a great lens for the money. Both 50mm and 85mm are perfect for portraits.

Primes are best for portraits, but it does also depend on what type you are shooting as sometimes multi-purpose zoom lenses do come in really handy for things like group shoots, and weddings etc.
 
I had the 50mm f1.8 a while ago and got on well with it. Only thing that stopped me using it was it broke and I never replaced it.

So far as portraits are concerned it would may be kids and adult in a non wedding environment.

I just need to know whether the 28mm is decent enough for landscape. Bearing in mind that I pretty much shoot landscapes at present at 24mm
 
stupar said:
I just need to know whether the 28mm is decent enough for landscape. Bearing in mind that I pretty much shoot landscapes at present at 24mm
Click to expand...

You've answered your won question. I've never found 28mm much use for landscapes, I no longer own one. 24mm all the way.
 
I love my primes!

my film SLR has either a 28mm 2.8 or 50mm 1.8 constantly attatched, that's pretty much all I personally need! and then DSLR i pretty much only use the sigma 30mm.

I've bought the odd zoom here and there for 'versatility' but i've soon found that I'll end up putting a prime back on.

If you're selling the 24 - 105. you should be able to fund at least a 50 and a 24 / 28 from that.

If you're planning on shooting landscapes with the wider angle, then I'd suggest the 28mm 2.8, simply for the fact it's much cheaper than the 1.8 and you'll be shooting at f8 / f11 most of the time, where it is on par with the 1.8. Although, I'm guessing you'll want something a little wider than 28 for landscape.
 
Last edited:
I mostly use primes and I like them but I have to be honest and say that I don't really see the point of them for most if not all portrait and landscape shooting...

When shooting a portrait I rarely shoot at less that f2.8 unless the light is really low and most of my landscape shots are at smaller apertures than f2.8 too. I do like the shallow DoF look I get with my 5D and 50 or 85mm f1.4 lenses but that look isn't for everyone all of the time and when shooting a portrait or landscape at f2.8 or less (the apertures that primes offer over and above what zooms offer) I need to be sure that the look that I'll get is the look that I really really want. If selecting f2.8 or smaller apertures I wonder how many people could really tell I'd used a prime rather than a zoom?

So, really... what advantage would you expect to see if you switch to primes for portrait and landscape? Once you stop lenses down a little aren't they pretty much all good enough and near impossible to tell apart? What does your current lens "lack"?

Of course logic goes out of the window if what you really want is to shoot with primes.
 
The main advantage of primes is they run to low f/numbers. If that's what you want then fine, but you've not put forward a very convincing case, and certainly don't sell your 24-105.

Easy way to see how you get on with primes is to simply tape up the zoom ring. Try that for a few weeks ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
The main advantage of primes is they run to low f/numbers. If that's what you want then fine, but you've not put forward a very convincing case, and certainly don't sell your 24-105.

Easy way to see how you get on with primes is to simply tape up the zoom ring. Try that for a few weeks ;)
Click to expand...

I'd say the main benefits of a 24/28mm prime over the 24-105mm for landscape would be MUCH less distortion and loads lighter to carry to location.

Personally I've always found 28mm wide enough but it's down to personal preference.
 
I don't do landscapes but I would imagine by the time you have loaded up a tripod, camera and all the other gubbins the few hundred grams saving on the lens weight is negligable?
Can't comment on the "MUCH less distortion"

The reason to change lens (or add to it) for landscapes would be to go smaller than 24 wouldn't it?
 
The reason for my thinking is having done a few portraits now with the 24-105 it doesn't have the agressive DOF drop off that primes have and the bokeh isn't as nice.
I admit as a general walkabout lens it is good but it doesn't inspire me portrait wise.
 
ernesto said:
I don't do landscapes but I would imagine by the time you have loaded up a tripod, camera and all the other gubbins the few hundred grams saving on the lens weight is negligable?
Can't comment on the "MUCH less distortion"

The reason to change lens (or add to it) for landscapes would be to go smaller than 24 wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Thats the thing though, Landscape photography doesn't always mean going out loaded with gear or to use less than 24mm for that matter.

To put things into perspective, when I had crop bodies I mainly used a 17mm lens. I had a sigma 10-20mm but in all honesty it didn't see much use.
Using a 17mm focal length on crop was roughly equivelant to 26mm full frame and I didn't feel like I was missing anything.
I use 24mm at the moment because I can. I guess the question really is, is there much of a difference between 24 and 28mm on full frame?
 
stupar said:
The reason for my thinking is having done a few portraits now with the 24-105 it doesn't have the agressive DOF drop off that primes have and the bokeh isn't as nice.
I admit as a general walkabout lens it is good but it doesn't inspire me portrait wise.
Click to expand...

That makes more sense ;) For solo head shots, 135L f/2 is prolly favourite on full-frame, or 100/2 is quite close and more affordable.

stupar said:
Thats the thing though, Landscape photography doesn't always mean going out loaded with gear or to use less than 24mm for that matter.

To put things into perspective, when I had crop bodies I mainly used a 17mm lens. I had a sigma 10-20mm but in all honesty it didn't see much use.
Using a 17mm focal length on crop was roughly equivelant to 26mm full frame and I didn't feel like I was missing anything.
I use 24mm at the moment because I can. I guess the question really is, is there much of a difference between 24 and 28mm on full frame?
Click to expand...

You've got both on your 24-105, try it and see. BTW, barrel distortion is certainly present on the 24-105 at the short end and though it's very easy to correct, when you've done that you're probably left with a field of view closer to 28mm.
 
HoppyUK said:
That makes more sense ;) For solo head shots, 135L f/2 is prolly favourite on full-frame, or 100/2 is quite close and more affordable.



You've got both on your 24-105, try it and see. BTW, barrel distortion is certainly present on the 24-105 at the short end and though it's very easy to correct, when you've done that you're probably left with a field of view closer to 28mm.
Click to expand...


Will give that a try, never gave it a thought (y)
 
why not change your walk about from 28-105 f4 to a 24-70 f2.8
sorry if I've missed someone else's recommendation
better for portraits maybe?> wider at the bottom end
also friend likes the tokina 17mm prime I think on his FF canon
gets some lovely results.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/17mm.htm
 
Last edited:
DizMatt said:
why not change your walk about from 28-105 f4 to a 24-70 f2.8
sorry if I've missed someone else's recommendation
better for portraits maybe?> wider at the bottom end
also friend likes the tokina 17mm prime I think on his FF canon
gets some lovely results.
Click to expand...

I have the 24-105 so it offers no less than the 24-70 other than a stop of light.
My budget is also the 24-105 itself so a 24-70 is well out of budget.

If money didn't permit it would be a zeiss 21mm but that isn't going to happen any time soon :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I always thick the big advantage of primes is they help a photographer be more consistent, in terms of style and framing. Of course zooms have an awful lot to be said as well. From what you say I'd stick with the zooms
 
stupar said:
I have the 24-105 so it offers no less than the 24-70 other than a stop of light.
My budget is also the 24-105 itself so a 24-70 is well out of budget.

If money didn't permit it would be a zeiss 21mm but that isn't going to happen any time soon :D
Click to expand...

if portraits are your passion, my thought was that I'd rather shoot a portrait with the option to go to f/2.8 than just f/4
it's not about the stop of light directly, but the DoF which would attract me to the lens
 
Im a people shooter and opted for primes based on cost and what i wanted to achive. I kept my 24-105 as my walk about and then got the 34mm and 85mm for my portrait shots.....love them, The flexibility to shoot in low light and great DoF. All depends on budget and if you want to invest. Do happen to know anyone you can borrow the kit from?
 
Last edited:
I don't have anyone close by with the primes so I can try them.
I did however compare 24 to 28mm using my existing lens and to me there isn't a lot of difference.
Further more before I got the 5D 2 I was using the 24-105 on my 50D for landscapes so effectively I was shooting landscapes at 36mm.

Out of interest, what are the 28mm primes like when stopped down to f8/f11? Does anyone have any examples?
 
I'm in a similar position. Using a standard zoom, just got a 90 (ff equivalent) macro. Blown away regarding both macro and portraits. I intend to get a fast 50, plus a proper 24-70. I think anybody in photography should have at least a proper prime.
 
im using a cropped sensor and have the intention of getting a nifty fifty for the same usage as the OP (portraiture and low light events such as parties and wedding) - am i perhaps better going down to a 35mm sort of size as i know that a 50mm on a cropped sensor is more like 80mm? (or so im led to believe correct me if im wrong?)
 
DTS said:
im using a cropped sensor and have the intention of getting a nifty fifty for the same usage as the OP (portraiture and low light events such as parties and wedding) - am i perhaps better going down to a 35mm sort of size as i know that a 50mm on a cropped sensor is more like 80mm? (or so im led to believe correct me if im wrong?)
Click to expand...

I personally think 50 on a crop is too close for the parties bit.. and maybe weddings if in confined areas.. 35mm bang on for my money.. was using 35mm on 1dmkIV ...the 50 just not wide enough..like i say..in confined areas like parties or receptions..
 
KIPAX said:
I personally think 50 on a crop is too close for the parties bit.. and maybe weddings if in confined areas.. 35mm bang on for my money.. was using 35mm on 1dmkIV ...the 50 just not wide enough..like i say..in confined areas like parties or receptions..
Click to expand...

i thought so - thanks for the advice :)
 
Although I've not updated my thread on TP for a while I use my primes a lot. On my 5dmkII I use the 28mm 1.8, 50 & 85. I love them!

I don't use my 28 as much as I should because every time I use it the quality blows me away. Even for landscapes. I live in an area with hills and if I went to 14 mm (as am example) all I would get would be the foreground grass at the top or bottom of the hill.
 
KIPAX said:
I personally think 50 on a crop is too close for the parties bit.. and maybe weddings if in confined areas.. 35mm bang on for my money.. was using 35mm on 1dmkIV ...the 50 just not wide enough..like i say..in confined areas like parties or receptions..
Click to expand...

Not tried the 35, but do have the 28 & 50 on crop. 28 is fine for my landscape work and would agree 50 is generally too tight for indoors on crop! :) I only have bog standard zooms and haven't used them in months if not 1.5+ years!

:)
 
Using a zoom rather than a prime certainly doesn't mean you'll take worse photographs, infact many of the modern zooms are pretty much equal to the quality of prime lenses. I personally look at it more as a process related thing, primes can make you consider composition more and perhaps do change your thought process slightly...they can save carrying a bit of weight around too.

I have both but still use the zoom more than the prime, both are capable of producing excellent images, it's me that's the main factor when it comes to bad shots !!

Simon
 
simonkit said:
Using a zoom rather than a prime certainly doesn't mean you'll take worse photographs, infact many of the modern zooms are pretty much equal to the quality of prime lenses. I personally look at it more as a process related thing, primes can make you consider composition more and perhaps do change your thought process slightly...they can save carrying a bit of weight around too.

I have both but still use the zoom more than the prime, both are capable of producing excellent images, it's me that's the main factor when it comes to bad shots !!

Simon
Click to expand...

Used properly, a zoom makes you consider composition more, because you can control perspective (distance) as well as framing, then zoom to fit. Unless you've got a sack full of primes of course.
 
50mm is a horrible prime to use for portraits IMO. It's too wide and unflattering. 85 should be your minimum.
 
ryanyboy said:
50mm is a horrible prime to use for portraits IMO. It's too wide and unflattering. 85 should be your minimum.
Click to expand...

A sweeping generalisation if there ever was one.

You can do wonder portraits even a wider lens such as the 35mm too.
 
Ok. Lets get this straight. With regards to the term "portraits" I generally assume the person means a head a shoulders type photo of the subject. Sure full length, environmental portraits work with whatever lens you want. But for traditional head and shoulder portraits 50mm is horrible.
 
Since going FF ive found i love using primes. Ive always bene a zoom guy but there is something about a prime on a Ff that realyl appeals to me.
I already had a hardly ever used 50mm f/1.4 and pancake lens. When i got my 5DMKIII i also got a 24-105 (had two before on crops) but its hardly had much use, even fo rjust walking around.
I had a 85 f/1.8 in the past, sold it last year, nice enough i guess but this time round i got the 100 f/2. Its about the same size but seems nicer made, shaper and a bit fast to focus.
This has become my favourite lens and stays on my 5D most of the time, no matter what im doing.
I find the 24-105 to be a boring lens. Always have. Its a good lens, i cant fault it at all, but ive always found it to be uninspiring compared to my old 17-55 f/2.8.
I plan on selling it as soon as i can get my ass in to gear, and i want to get a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. If nothing else ill get better shutter speeds in low light. A mate has one and it does seem to be a bit sharper than the 24-105 and of course the even more narrow DOF is wonderful if used with care.
I'd love a 35 f/2 IS but feel its a bit over priced at the moment. I will have one at some point though.
 
why not keep the 24-105 and just get a 85 f1.8 for portraits?

24-105 is all purpose lens, it will always go with my camera. perhaps gets pushed aside by my 17-40mm for landscapes and 50/1.8 for street photography, but for everything else, it's always the 24-105. you don't want to regret selling it afterwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top