What is so special about a "Prime Lens"

DayDreamer

DayDreamer

Messages
3,739
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I have read the term prime lens a number of times since joining this forum and am confused. I understand a prime lens is one that is fixed unlike the kit lens you get when buying a DSLR. But why not use the zoom lens set to the focal length you want without having to put on a prime lens.

Oh it is all so confusing :cool:
 
The simplicity of the design means the image quality is better than a zoom. There will be folks tell you otherwise, but they are wrong or don't care so much. This is fine too.

Also prime lenses are generally faster (wider max aperture) so great for low light and creative photography.
 
for me its speed

if they did a decent zoom lenze that could step down to f/1.4 .... and only cost £300 then I would snap it up

well ...... at that price the quality would be arse

but speed and Price for me !
 
My 50mm rocks. Now I've had a baby it's my most used lens :-D
 
A prime is a tool for a job, end of.

In many cases primeds do offer more bang for your buck but tbh, zoom technology has moved on so much that they can compete in terms of iq in many circumstances. Obviously, you can get wider maximum apertures on many prime lenses, which is a big draw for people, and there are other benefits (smaller, lighter etc) but these have to be weighed up against the versatility of a zoom.
 
The only thing that primes can do that no zoom can match, is low f/numbers. Very low, like f/1.4. That's four times more light than the best zooms at f/2.8.

But perhaps the most popular application of low f/numbers is very shallow depth of field for creative purposes.
 
Prime for me is an outstanding lens to have. The nifty fifty is built like a unsteady pack of cards but the IQ is awesome.

My friends nifty fifty 'fell apart' this week, literally!! They managed to put it back together but the Auto focus is kaput now! Still hasn't stopped them from getting another one.
 
The23rdman said:
The simplicity of the design means the image quality is better than a zoom. There will be folks tell you otherwise, but they are wrong or don't care so much. This is fine too.

Also prime lenses are generally faster (wider max aperture) so great for low light and creative photography.
Click to expand...

a little bit sweeping there, but it is opinion ;)


As already said, wider apertures, simpler construction, lovely image quality. downsides include lack of flexibility, especially if moving in closer/out further away is not easy for you as a person. ;) Moder zooms, as also already stated, in particular the upper end of the market, are of extremely high quality and a good enough match for a prime in many circumstances, losing out in those speed stakes only imo.
 
I do prefer a prime to a zoom. Nice to zoom in with your feet where possible of course. Love the low light ability of a prime and the DOF.
 
DayDreamer said:
I have read the term prime lens a number of times since joining this forum and am confused. I understand a prime lens is one that is fixed unlike the kit lens you get when buying a DSLR. But why not use the zoom lens set to the focal length you want without having to put on a prime lens.

Oh it is all so confusing :cool:
Click to expand...

As I said in the other thread, sometimes I like to travel light. I also like wide apertures and, as well as being much wider than zooms (Max Aperture f2.8 I think), primes are much lighter. I can be very comfortable with a standard focal lenght prime whereas an f2.8 zoom is a fair bit of weight to lug around.

Yes there is the fact that you have to zoom with your feet which is not always possible or practical but that's the compromise.
 
Yv said:
a little bit sweeping there, but it is opinion ;)


As already said, wider apertures, simpler construction, lovely image quality. downsides include lack of flexibility, especially if moving in closer/out further away is not easy for you as a person. ;) Moder zooms, as also already stated, in particular the upper end of the market, are of extremely high quality and a good enough match for a prime in many circumstances, losing out in those speed stakes only imo.
Click to expand...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ x 25

The new Canon 70-200/2.8 II is an absolutely stellar lens, but as Yv points out it's limited to f/2.8 as opposed to, say, the 135mm at f/2 or the 85mm of various F stops.
 
Yes indeed more to it than I first thought!!!!!

The more I read the more there is to read :LOL:

Seriously thank you all so much for your replies and advice (y)
 
The Canon "Nifty Fifty" f1.8 50mm lens costs about £75.00 from Kerso, I believe, is extremely sharp from f2.2 onwards and also makes a great macro lens when connected to extension tubes.

It's a lens I definitely wouldn't want to be without.

.
 
GR3Z said:
If you don't mind me asking who's Kerso I keep seeing this pop name pop up and I'm curious as to what other kit they may have for sale?
Click to expand...

Kerso is a member on here who also sells equipment. Pop your name and email in his thread HERE and he'll send you a list of what he can offer.
 
Besides all the other point well made, I like primes for their elementary use and it is fun to compose a shot and zoom with you feet to get everything just right in the frame.
 
Im not sure if this is a newbie thing but I cant stop using my zoom lens and I have a 50mm prime sat there in the bag !

I cant help it. Im pretty sure its just down to laziness but I love the ease of travelling 30 foot in a second lol. I know I am probably sacrificing quality but when I shoot fashion and portraits I am always back and forth with the zoom and it would wear me out doing that with my little leggies. I need to change this habit but its so hard !
 
I prefer the simplicity of using primes and the fact that they are light and compact. I have a cheap and cheerful 28/2.8 prime (about £220 new) and it's a fraction of the price & weight of an equivalent 2.8 zoom (eg 28-70/2.8). I doubt the lens is much if at all sharper than the zoom, but I'm not buying a prime with sharpness as the main reason.
 
wonderer said:
Im not sure if this is a newbie thing but I cant stop using my zoom lens and I have a 50mm prime sat there in the bag !

I cant help it. Im pretty sure its just down to laziness but I love the ease of travelling 30 foot in a second lol. I know I am probably sacrificing quality but when I shoot fashion and portraits I am always back and forth with the zoom and it would wear me out doing that with my little leggies. I need to change this habit but its so hard !
Click to expand...

There is another disadvantages to what you are doing. Unless you use a lens with constant aperture by using the zoom extensively you'll get to use a a small aperture (large f number) thus you either bump your ISO up and or low the shutter speed. Ultimately either of the two actions to preserve an exposure will affect quality.

Secondly it sound like you need to plan and direct your shoots a bit better. Why not do the portraits shots first and together and once you got the shots you do the fashion a bit further away. To me jojo'ing between comes across to me like you haven't really given it much thought what shots you are after.
 
I have used a fair amount of top end zooms now and know how handy they can be, the very high end (expensive) stuff can get pretty close to the primes in some circumstances but if you want the very best IQ then a prime is the way to go. I do notice quite a difference between an 85mm L and the 70-200 2.8 mkII @ 85mm, same with the 135. The great thing about the 70-200 is convenience. But if you have the time to swap a prime around then why wouldn't you want the very best image your camera is capable of producing rather than a compromise?
 
Having bought my Nikon F Photomic Ftn NEW, then a Nikkormat spare, and gone from there I will never go back to prime lenses, sorry.

I used to carry 28mm, 35mm, 128mm, 200mm, 300mm, 500mm primes, now I carry one.

We are all different, a KK 3 Ford Cortina was less complicated and easier to work on than my Renault Grand Scenic, but I will not go back to that car any more than I will fixed lenses.

AND I can tell you that anyone who says they can honestly tel the difference between 99% of the daily shots taken with a prime and a zoom at A3+ which is what I enlarge all my shots to are kidding you.
 
JSER said:
Having bought my Nikon F Photomic Ftn NEW, then a Nikkormat spare, and gone from there I will never go back to prime lenses, sorry.

I used to carry 28mm, 35mm, 128mm, 200mm, 300mm, 500mm primes, now I carry one......
Click to expand...

Wow that must be quite an impressive zoom :D
 
Indeed a 28-500 f1.4 super zoom. Wow I'll have one too please :)

Seriously what zoom is there that is faster than f2.8 for Nikon?
 
JSER said:
Having bought my Nikon F Photomic Ftn NEW, then a Nikkormat spare, and gone from there I will never go back to prime lenses, sorry.

I used to carry 28mm, 35mm, 128mm, 200mm, 300mm, 500mm primes, now I carry one.

We are all different, a KK 3 Ford Cortina was less complicated and easier to work on than my Renault Grand Scenic, but I will not go back to that car any more than I will fixed lenses.

AND I can tell you that anyone who says they can honestly tel the difference between 99% of the daily shots taken with a prime and a zoom at A3+ which is what I enlarge all my shots to are kidding you.
Click to expand...

Most of my "daily shots" are taken at f1.4 or f2.0 and I promise you 100% I would see a difference in those shots if I used a zoom :)
 
JSER said:
Having bought my Nikon F Photomic Ftn NEW, then a Nikkormat spare, and gone from there I will never go back to prime lenses, sorry.

I used to carry 28mm, 35mm, 128mm, 200mm, 300mm, 500mm primes, now I carry one.

We are all different, a KK 3 Ford Cortina was less complicated and easier to work on than my Renault Grand Scenic, but I will not go back to that car any more than I will fixed lenses.

AND I can tell you that anyone who says they can honestly tel the difference between 99% of the daily shots taken with a prime and a zoom at A3+ which is what I enlarge all my shots to are kidding you.
Click to expand...

I spent most of today shooting inside with my Canon 35mm f/2, shooting at f/2. And I needed to be at f/2.

Neither of my zooms will go to f/2 (and I don't know any that do) so the difference between prime and zoom was shot or no shot!

The comparison with the car isn't fair either. You're comparing like for like but just a modern version. You should therefore be comparing old prime vs new prime, of which there is little difference IMO.
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
There is another disadvantages to what you are doing. Unless you use a lens with constant aperture by using the zoom extensively you'll get to use a a small aperture (large f number) thus you either bump your ISO up and or low the shutter speed. Ultimately either of the two actions to preserve an exposure will affect quality.
Click to expand...

That's assuming they're shooting wide-open with a variable aperture zoom. If at f/8, for example, then there's no issue....


dejongj said:
.......Seriously what zoom is there that is faster than f2.8 for Nikon?
Click to expand...

Cant think of one (is ther one for any other system?) - probably technology at a specific cost just wouldn't make it a viable option to have something like a 70-200mm f/2....
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
That's assuming they're shooting wide-open with a variable aperture zoom. If at f/8, for example, then there's no issue....
Click to expand...

Perhaps best by some nice cheap f/8 lenses then if you NEVER need to get over that...Yes of course it was an assumption, you never go over f/8?
 
dejongj said:
Perhaps best by some nice cheap f/8 lenses then if you NEVER need to get over that...Yes of course it was an assumption, you never go over f/8?
Click to expand...

I think you've mis-read my post.... :thinking:

You were inferring that by zooming, the f/number would be changing - the only occasion where this would apply would be if you were shooting wide-open on something like an f/3.5-5.6 zoom where there was no room for manouvre if that aperture narrowed, so the ISO or shutter would have to change to compensate....

Yes, I go over f/8 but I ALWAYS make sure that I have room to move the exposure in some sense. I never box myself into a corner.....
 
Last edited:
I've owned or used most of the quality zoom lenses and absolutely maintain that they don't match ask but the poorest primes. The only advantage is convenience.

Every zoom i've owned has a weak spot in the focal range, whereas no prime ever has...unless I fall off a cliff backing away.

For the price of a 24-70 you can buy some amazing glass that's faster and sharper at the equivalent aperture.
 
Last edited:
If you don't own any prime lenses then you can't assume a sanctimonious air as you pontificate on their purity. Then, 5 minutes later, you can pontificate just as sanctimoniously on how gear makes no difference and it's all down to the photographer.
 
The23rdman said:
I've owned or used most of the quality zoom lenses and absolutely maintain that they don't match ask but the poorest primes. The only advantage is convenience.

Every zoom i've owned has a weak spot in the focal range, whereas no prime ever has...
Click to expand...

To some (include me in this) convenience is a massive advantage.... I couldn't dream of shooting a job outdoors when its raining and everything is covered in mud, only to need to change lenses every time I wanted a different shot. Primes may be sharp but zooms are miles more flexible......I don't have the luxury of shooting in a nice dry studio like some people so I have to choose tools that fit the bill...
 
Last edited:
Cheapskate just get multiple bodies :p
 
specialman said:
To some (include me in this) convenience is a massive advantage.... I couldn't dream of shooting a job outdoors when its raining and everything is covered in mud, only to need to change lenses every time I wanted a different shot. Primes may be sharp but zooms are miles more flexible......I don't have the luxury of shooting in a nice dry studio like some people so I have to choose tools that fit the bill...
Click to expand...

Yes, every time I use a prime it annoys me. Gave up on them years ago, but they do do nice low f/numbers :)

You also get better composed pictures with a zoom - find the right angle, move forward back for best perspective, then zoom for final framing. Can't do that with a prime.
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes, every time I use a prime it annoys me. Gave up on them years ago, but they do do nice low f/numbers :)

You also get better composed pictures with a zoom - find the right angle, move forward back for best perspective, then zoom for final framing. Can't do that with a prime.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Any loss of sharpness is so negligible that in print format you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The only time that primes come into the equation seem to be when they offer a better focussing option, namely macro and extremely close focussing (less than 10cm), as is the case with my 14mm f/2.8. If I had to, I'd live with just zooms quite happily....
 
specialman said:
To some (include me in this) convenience is a massive advantage.... I couldn't dream of shooting a job outdoors when its raining and everything is covered in mud, only to need to change lenses every time I wanted a different shot. Primes may be sharp but zooms are miles more flexible......I don't have the luxury of shooting in a nice dry studio like some people so I have to choose tools that fit the bill...
Click to expand...

Oh, I get that, but I'm a big pixel peeper and IQ is king for me. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top