Using a prime

B

billybob99

Messages
1,908
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all
I like a lot of others new to dslr photography have got used to using a zoom lens whether it be the kit lens it came with or as is quite possibly common a 70-200/300 upgrade, I then bought a 50mm prime and this caused me quite a lot of problems to start with, as before with the zooms if I wasn't stood in the correct place I could just zoom in or out, since using the prime I tend to put a lot more thought into where to stand for each shot and think generally it has improved my photography no end.
Any thoughts?
 
To be honest, I forget to use my prime quite a lot, but when I do use it I'm baffled why I kept in in my sac for so long.
 
PerfectSpeed said:
To be honest, I forget to use my prime quite a lot, but when I do use it I'm baffled why I kept in in my sac for so long.
Click to expand...
Same here, i just keep the 18-200 on the camera most of the time, and then think after I have taken some shots that the 50mm would probably have given better results.
 
I disagree. I think that primes are actually a bad thing when it comes to learning framing, perspective and composition. The only thing primes tend to be good at, that no other lens/camera combination can give you, is shallow depth of field thanks to their usually low f/numbers. If it's shallow DoF you want, then primes are the way to go, but otherwise, not.

To frame a photo properly, you need to first find the best angle to shoot from, then move in (or out) to get the best perspective, and then finally zoom the lens for the right framing. Foot-zoom is not the same thing, as it changes perspective which is a key aspect of composition.

If primes somehow add a useful extra discipline to working, and I can see why that might be the case even if I don't accept it, then just tape up your zoom ring.
 
I rarely use my 50 1.4 as well but when I do, a bigger percentage of them are keepers compared to my zoom.
 
HoppyUK said:
To frame a photo properly, you need to first find the best angle to shoot from, then move in (or out) to get the best perspective, and then finally zoom the lens for the right framing. Foot-zoom is not the same thing, as it changes perspective which is a key aspect of composition.
Click to expand...

Well I'll disagree because the simple truth is zooms make people lazy and foot zoom means, for example, avoiding extreme distortion of standing where you are and zooming out to 17mm to fit everyone in.

Horses for courses but zooms will lead to bad habits without good discipline.

Your "perfect" example of how to compose a shot is great for a text book but doesn't work so well in the field :nono:
 
pxl8 said:
Well I'll disagree because the simple truth is zooms make people lazy and foot zoom means, for example, avoiding extreme distortion of standing where you are and zooming out to 17mm to fit everyone in.

Horses for courses but zooms will lead to bad habits without good discipline.

Your "perfect" example of how to compose a shot is great for a text book but doesn't work so well in the field :nono:
Click to expand...

this is what i was/am doing when using a "zoom" rather than get that bit closer/further away i tend to think this'll do here i can zoom in/out but then sometimes end up trying to hand hold at 300mm which as well as being harder my lens tends to be soft wheras if id got that bit closer i could shoot at maybe 200mm and image quality is better
 
I disagree too Hoppy :)

I do occasionally stick a prime on one for a week and just go hunting. I find that it sharpens my awareness of framing, perspective and use of depth of field.

I can also get very good subject separation with a long zoom on f2.8 after all. :)

Taping up the zoom ring is certainly not an answer because by definition it eliminates the use of those shallow depth of field shots that you mentioned.
 
My telephoto zoom broke recently and i have been using my 100mm macro lens instead, i have shot birds, squirrels and insects aswell as portraits in the last few days with this lens
and my photos were of a much higher quality than if i had used my zoom.
I prefer to shoot with primes, they are faster, much sharper and make you think alot more about composition. But i find changing lenses quite annoying and this is where zooms can come in handy and of course if you need to change focal length quickly or risk losing a shot.

Zooms do have their place but given the choice its primes every time.
 
I rarely use zoom lenses, only really when convenience is required (read, can't be bothered :p). :)
 
I don't like having to consider zoom on top of composition, framing, and everything else that I think about when taking a photo.

With primes I can look at a scene and know how it'll appear in camera without looking through the viewfinder. I tend to frame the photo in my head and lift the camera to my eye after. With zooms I spend too much time zooming in and out trying to get it to look right, and it often never does to me.

I also have a tendency to only use zooms at both extremes of their range, possibly because I can't be bothered getting the zoom right.
 
AliB said:
I disagree too Hoppy :)

I do occasionally stick a prime on one for a week and just go hunting. I find that it sharpens my awareness of framing, perspective and use of depth of field.

I can also get very good subject separation with a long zoom on f2.8 after all. :)

Taping up the zoom ring is certainly not an answer because by definition it eliminates the use of those shallow depth of field shots that you mentioned.
Click to expand...

I was hoping somebody would ;)

But if you're after the 'best' image, then optimum perspective is pretty vital I would have thought. Unless you have a bag full of about twenty primes, foot zoom is a very hit and miss affair.

Yes, zooms can be abused, but that is just laziness, or misunderstanding of the importance of perspective in composition. And taking the oposite view of that, if you only have a couple of primes to play with, then by definition perspective will sometimes be compromised at the expense framing. Why would you want to buy another lens in order to stop you having more options?

If you want shallow depth of field then I concede - primes have got that pretty much to themselves with f/2 and f/1.4 at their disposal. But I usually want more DoF rather than less, and I sold a couple of primes recently because I just never used them at low f/numbers. That's just me though, I spose.
 
Ok, let me put it another way. What am I supposed to do if I am shooting using my MF gear. They are all primes! :)

Both my MF setups have primes at 45mm 80mm and 120mm for the Mamiya and 80mm on the Hasselblad. (Mainly because wide angles for the blad cost kidneys!)

I think it's a useful exercise in brainpower to stick one prime on and go and play.

I think it kind of forces me to think more creatively if that makes sense. Working with what you have got rather than what you can make it with a zoom is somehow actually rather good fun!

And I love playing about with shallow DOF, shows less muck on my sensor for a start but there is a certain satisfaction in nailing a shot of a fast moving kid at f2! lol

And that is where peoples style of photography comes into it. I think I've only shot a handful of pics this year at anything over f8! So I find primes really rewarding.
 
HoppyUK said:
But if you're after the 'best' image, then optimum perspective is pretty vital I would have thought. Unless you have a bag full of about twenty primes, foot zoom is a very hit and miss affair.
Click to expand...

Just because it doesn't suit you or your style of shooting doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't stop and plan a shot based on perspective, angle, zoom, etc. I "feel" it based on what I see, simple as that. My eyes don't zoom so working with a prime feels more natural for a lot of the work I do.

The same "rules" you might apply for composition I'll happily throw out of the window closely followed by the ones that say I shouldn't blow the highlights ;)
 
I see no 'virtue' in using a fixed focal length lens over a variable one.

There are some who mourn the loss of film. I don't see why photography has to be difficult to have any virtue.

Are you judged on what equipment took the shot or the results?

Graham

nb I have one zoom and one prime, so have no axe to grind.
 
I love my 50mm it is always on a body, and will pick it up first if I have the time, I just love the quality over the zooms.
 
blue max said:
I see no 'virtue' in using a fixed focal length lens over a variable one.

There are some who mourn the loss of film. I don't see why photography has to be difficult to have any virtue.

Are you judged on what equipment took the shot or the results?

Graham

nb I have one zoom and one prime, so have no axe to grind.
Click to expand...

For virtue read fun. It can be very rewarding and sometimes it's actually the experience that is as much valued as the end result.

Film is still doing very nicely thank you and again, it's fun!

Why do you say that it has to be difficult to have any virtue? Fun is very virtuous. And so is learning and if you learn one thing from the experience then surely you are richer for it?
 
AliB said:
For virtue read fun. It can be very rewarding and sometimes it's actually the experience that is as much valued as the end result.

Film is still doing very nicely thank you and again, it's fun!

Why do you say that it has to be difficult to have any virtue? Fun is very virtuous. And so is learning and if you learn one thing from the experience then surely you are richer for it?
Click to expand...

You mentioned 'improved my photography' by using primes and now you switch your argument to having fun.

It's all fun or we wouldn't do it I guess. Use whatever lens gets the results you seek, but you can be a poor photographer just as easily with primes too.

Graham
 
blue max said:
You mentioned 'improved my photography' by using primes and now you switch your argument to having fun.
Click to expand...

I ADDED having fun. It is possible to do both, sometimes even simultaneously :)
 
AliB said:
I ADDED having fun. It is possible to do both, sometimes even simultaneously :)
Click to expand...

I responded to the original post. If you want to broaden the issue to is photography fun, I'm afraid you are probably preaching to the converted on this forum.

Graham
 
I'd hope to not be preaching at all Graham, just having some fun. :)
 
Your discussion seems to be focused on the use of the short primes... so remember at the other end of the scale you only get the focus speed and clarity from the long primes. The really long zooms are pants by comparison.

These long primes are the stock tools for sports and wildlife togs.
 
I think the "photo making process" of using zooms or primes is very much a personal thing...I find that using a zoom gives me a much better chance of achieving exactly the composition I want, due to the flexibility it provides it also make me think more about the scene I'm shooting, which is a good thing for me

Having said this I've just bought 2 A series primes, the main reason being that they have less distortion than zooms - I'll be trying out a few panos (never really tried many before) and the prime lenses should be ideal for this

Simon
 
i have no primes (financial reasons) but i will get a 50mm, i am always looking at constant apertures becasue its more flexible especially in fast action shots when you dont have to sacrfice zoom range for speed. i think that the zoom is a good way to get a shot especially if your out and about although if its constant apertures you want then i hear fixed focals are the way to go because they are designed for it.

this is just my 2p's worth.
 
It really is a case of shallower DoF for primes, and possibly because there's less weight...image quality tends to equalise once at F8 or so.

Prime lens fixed at F8 over a zoom fixed at F8...? I think not...
 
i often have this discussion with my sister (who also togs) were the oposite in this respect, shel go out with just a zoom lens (24-70 or so) and will never understand why i go out with 3-4 primes instead...
... i guess my reasoning is, yes its more hassle, and i do often miss shots because i dont have the right lens attached... but for the few that i do make, I know that there the best quality i could get
 
The simple answer is it all depends on the conditions, what you are shooting etc. The best thing would be to have a big bag with a mix of both.

There are times when a prime works brilliantly, other times when you need to use a zoom either for convenience or when it's just impossible to foot zoom i.e. I shot some friends fishing the other day. No way to get the shot I wanted with a prime unless I got very wet feet :D
 
zooms don't make you lazy, they allow you to takea range of photographs using one lens.

primes are good for being sharper and they are generally faster than f2.8.



pxl8 said:
Well I'll disagree because the simple truth is zooms make people lazy and foot zoom means, for example, avoiding extreme distortion of standing where you are and zooming out to 17mm to fit everyone in.

Horses for courses but zooms will lead to bad habits without good discipline.

Your "perfect" example of how to compose a shot is great for a text book but doesn't work so well in the field :nono:
Click to expand...
 
Ok, we'll split some hairs - zooms allow people to be lazy but I thought that was obvious :shrug:
 
Hmm... how do you "uncrop" a shot taken with a prime? Huh? :LOL:
 
if a nifty fifity was cheap enough i would love to try one and other primes, but my tamron 28-75 f2.8 isn't too bad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top