All the best togs shoots primes

Raymond Lin

Raymond Lin

I am Groot
Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,503
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Some statement eh?

Well, the more and more work i admire that i come across, the more and more i notice that all the best images and work i admire are shot on prime lenses.

Reading Jessica Claire's latest blog post and the gear that she shoot with i cant help to think it's true. I also realise that my last 3 lenses i bought, namely the 35/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2.0 (2 out of 3 of the Holy Trinity) I am leaning more away from zooms lately. With the 24-70 died during the start of my last wedding so i end up using my primes a lot lead me to think may be primes are a good thing.

I am not saying i am jessica Claire lol I got a long way to go, but may be people should be less afraid of primes, and embrace them more than relying on the ability of a zoom. If someone can make a prime lens work in a wedding, one would say the most pressured environment, then surely it is what we all should be striding for. Primes are not restrictive as it is perceived. I think it opens up creativity more than zooms, with its wider aperture The quality fromm a prime is also unsurpassed from a zoom.

I know L primes are expensive, but the cheaper alternative area there too, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/1.8. And I think if i were starting out again, and go back and tell myself what i should buy, it would be primes all the way.

Or is this a path people go through? You got to get to a certain point on your journey before being confident with a prime only set up?

Edit - it also begs the question. Does primes make the tog better? Since it does give you that quality that no zooms can get. For example, i have yet seen a zoom that can make a photo pop like the Canon 85/1.2. That bokeh quality isn't down to the skill of the photographer, it is from the quality of the said lens.
 
Last edited:
I have done the whole trip Raymondo. Started life with primes, have gone through the zooms and now I am back to primes, favourite three are 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.4. Also in the bag 10.5 fisheye, 24mm f2.8 will be f1.4 when one comes up, 55mm macro, 135mm and 200mm.

I manually focus them and use manual exposure and last weeks wedding with 600 shots needed just 2 hours post production

Zooms made me a lazy photographer........

stew
 
yeah ! I sort of agree . the best togs shoot primes, well - In my interest zone - fashion. journalists still tend to use 24-70mm most I thinks. every other tog - primes, but then again, it's medium format or large.

it would be funny to see large format zoom ! :D
 
'Best' is obviously a term that can be determined only by the individual if we're talking the photographs these people take, but I get your drift. I suppose it's down to budget; if you're in a position where you're successful and that success brings in a lot of money, then you're obviously going to be a bit more inclined to spend a lot on lenses and buy primes.

Of course, being the best in my field, I look to no-one so I do as I please and use a mixture of primes and zooms ;) :D
 
I use a d2X Pat and I bought all my lenses off ebay at bargain prices, they are all manual focus ai and ais primes. The depth of colour and saturation is what its all about, they are miles better than the highly expensive zooms I used to have.

However they do make you think harder, there is no sitting in one place and zooming about, you have to use your feet to zoom :D:D
 
The best photographers use the best tool for the job they have available to them. A prime wont help you compose, see the light, the shadows, or get the exposure right. A prime wont help you anticipate the moment
 
Well thank you says he sitting here smugly with his 50mm f1.8 and 135mm f2.8,well actually they are M42 lenses that cost me less that £30 the pair however the quality is there because constructing a quality prime is so much easier than a similar zoom.When you say best I think you may mean considered because when out with a prime you do think more about your shot rather than just zooming in and out until you see something you like
 
Richard King said:
The best photographers use the best tool for the job they have available to them. A prime wont help you compose, see the light, the shadows, or get the exposure right. A prime wont help you anticipate the moment
Click to expand...

I know that, and thats not what i meant. This isn't about the age old saying "its the photographer, not the gear". This is about our journey.
 
artona said:
I use a d2X Pat and I bought all my lenses off ebay at bargain prices, they are all manual focus ai and ais primes. The depth of colour and saturation is what its all about, they are miles better than the highly expensive zooms I used to have.

However they do make you think harder, there is no sitting in one place and zooming about, you have to use your feet to zoom :D:D
Click to expand...

Never really considered the MF lenses, simply because although I was brought up on MF 35mm cameras, these days I just couldn't do without AF when shooting the amount of stuff I do day-to-day. However, heard that a lot, that the old MF lenses are superb for colour rendition and sharpness. If they're anything like the old pre-D 85mm f/1.8 AF I have, then I better start looking - that's a corker of a lens and although old, my fave lens at the moment. :)

On the subject of zooms, I'm seriously considering something like the 14mm f/2.8 because I'm rarely using anything but the wide end of my 12-24mm and TBH, i'd happily sacrifice the 2mm difference for a better optic that's a stop faster. That extra stop will come in handy seeing as the D2X hasn't go the massive ISO range of later Nikons....
 
I find the manual focus far superior Pat. On the d2x and I am sure the others have it too there is an option called non cpu lens. You set the lens you have and can then use aperture priority if you wish. The green dot works as well to tell you that you are in focus if you need that.
 
It may well have been that way once upon a time, when primes were the only way of getting really good image quality (I've used some older zooms and believe me they were bad - unless you paid a truckload of cash). I think now though it doesn't apply so much, a lot of primes still being sold today are actually of very aged designs from the film era, whereas zooms are being refined all of the time and constantly delivering better quality. A lot of primes that you can buy today don't even have coatings and lens elements optimized for digital.
 
I have a foot in both camps. For the vast majority of my photographic career over the last thirty-odd years, I've shot with primes only. I bought my first zoom lens in late 2004. They both have their place and by choice I wouldn't be without either.

Richard King said:
The best photographers use the best tool for the job they have available to them. A prime wont help you compose, see the light, the shadows, or get the exposure right. A prime wont help you anticipate the moment
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely convinced by all of that. If you use a prime regularly, you get to know its individual focal length well, you learn to anticipate how things will frame up even before you've lifted the camera to your eye, whether a composition is going to work or not. You get to know intimately how it performs at different apertures, how the bokeh and depth of field will behave.

You can learn to think ahead much more easily with a prime than you can with a zoom, which, by contrast has an multiplicity of parameters to learn. At each focal length it behaves slightly differently.

It's not impossible to get to know your lens well with a zoom, but a lot harder and takes longer IMHO.

Raymond Lin said:
The quality fromm a prime is also unsurpassed from a zoom.
Click to expand...

While this has been true historically, there's something to be said that some modern zooms can make it a very tough call on occasion.

The 70-200 f/2.8L MkII is arguably better than the 200mm f/2.8L II wide open

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=245&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=3&API=0

In terms of resolution, I'd say it gives even the 135L and the 85L a run for their money and certainly betters the 85mm f/1.8, even when you're comparing the zoom wide open with the prime two stops down. Even as recently as four or five years ago, you'd often hear it said that you'd be better off with a non-'L' prime over an 'L' zoom. I can't really speak for other manufacturers, but I think with a few of Canon's recent offerings (the 70-200 f/2.8L IS MkII and the f4L IS in particular) suggest that the R&D that they've been putting into them are making that a lot more difficult to sustain.

Of course, individual primes may have other characteristics aside from resolution that make them highly desirable - their bokeh, colour, etc. - the things that contribute to their 'quality' in the broadest sense, but this is true of all lenses, whether they are prime or zoom.
 
Last edited:
When you have to lug a bag of kit about, the number of primes you take to cover from 24mm - 200mm make sit hard work:
24
35 (possibly a 28 in between them)
50
85
90/100/135 something of those
then a 200

All this I can carry with just two lenses. The 24-70 and the 70-200.

I used to shoot all primes, both 35mm and 6x7. Now I just thank the optical engineers that designed and built my zooms - and have a much easier life. The quality is every bit as good - better probably now.

Yes, there are some primes that are really satisfying to use. The 105f2DC for instance. A beautiful lens which renders such unique images. However, zoom lenses make life so much easier. I am all for taking the easy route at times.

I think what you are trying to say is that prime lenses provide more satisfaction to the user - there is a different feel about them and how you use them. So it isn't so much a technical reason (modern Nikon zooms are higher resolving, higher transmittance and less ghosting and flare) it is more an emotional one. When you have time, it is pleasant and rewarding to use primes, I agree.Under pressure of time and with a high workload you simply don't have that luxury.
 
i only have prime lenses in my bag. the reason though, is not because i think i'm a better tog for doing it, but simply for cost.

prime lenses are the most affordable way to get a wide aperture lens - as has been mentioned, whilst in the past they were always sharper than zooms, the new 70-200 f/2.8L MkII is probably sharper than many canon primes... but it's a £2000 lens.

you can get 50 f1.4 85 f1.8, 135 f2 for the same sort of money with most of those being at least a stop faster, but not as versatile by any means.

i'd love a new 70-200 f/2.8L, but i won't be able to afford it for a long time.

but, shooting with a prime does make you think about your shots, make you look at things from interesting angles.

the main problem i have with primes is that when i'm shooting something which moves around erratically such as a child, it is hard to make sure their hands and feet are in the frame - you often don't have enough time to move and reframe.
 
artona said:
I find the manual focus far superior Pat. On the d2x and I am sure the others have it too there is an option called non cpu lens. You set the lens you have and can then use aperture priority if you wish. The green dot works as well to tell you that you are in focus if you need that.
Click to expand...

You could also avoid buying a dog and do the barking yourself. Sorry, mate, but in this day and age with the technology we have at our finger tips, manually focussing is an affectation. :cuckoo:
 
I have read the posts in this thread and can see both sides of the arguement, but for someone like me - I have Lumbar and Cervical Spondylosis - which means by spine is crumbling away at a quicker rate than others, but I have just bought a Nikon D5000 with 2 Nikkor lenses, 18-55mm and a 55-200mm and have just invested in a Sigma 150-500mm.

Now I like wildlife/bird photography mostly and I cant go lugging 300mm, 400mm and 500mm prime lenses around as well as smaller lenses as well, as this would severly disable me as well as skint me, so for me I have got it covered from 18mm to 500mm in three lenses and at the moment these work fine for me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aberal said:
You could also avoid buying a dog and do the barking yourself. Sorry, mate, but in this day and age with the technology we have at our finger tips, manually focussing is an affectation. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

You are wrong Alan. I have 10/10 eyesight and very quick reactions. Having grown up on manual focus lens I have focused almost before I have decided on what I am going to shoot :D:D

Auto focus is fine for some of the time but most of my stuff is portraiture and I do not expect my subjects to sit still, auto focus just does not do the job

stew
 
atleast for weddings, I'm finding this season I'm shooting more with a prime then I do with zooms. I'm not saying I'd want to be without a 24-70 now, but I am finding primes bring a certain something (not very narrow DoF before anyone comments) that zooms don't
 
more than likely Martin, its pretty good any way. A few years ago I invested in laser eye treatment, all in the pursuit of photography you understand:D:D
 
aberal said:
You could also avoid buying a dog and do the barking yourself. Sorry, mate, but in this day and age with the technology we have at our finger tips, manually focussing is an affectation. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Or it could just be that its a pleasure,I mean in this day and age we should all have cars with automatic gear boxes but we dont
 
I agree with a lot of what Trench says and would add that primes give you a wider aperture. I also think that the newer and better primes almost certainly still offer the ultimate optical quality but unless you pixel peep, crop heavily or print really big and look at it through a magnifying glass you probably aint gonna see the difference between a decent zoom and a decent prime.
 
Depends on who you ask and which format.

Could be 24, 50, 85
or 35, 85, 135
 
The other thing about primes, especially fast ones is the brightness of the viewfinder. After using a 50mm f1.2 put on a 3.5 zoom and you are wondering if there is something wrong with the camera or you have left you shades on
 
artona said:
more than likely Martin, its pretty good any way. A few years ago I invested in laser eye treatment, all in the pursuit of photography you understand:D:D
Click to expand...

I take my hat off to you Stewart, that is dedication.
 
artona said:
try taking this on auto focus

stew
Click to expand...

Sorry Stew, we could argue indefinitely about this because I think you could take that with autofocus - in fact it would be easier with autofocus. It would be worth doing a straw poll on this because I reckon 99% of nature/autosport/portrait photographers use autofocus and do so succesfully - but that's only my reckoning. I think you're in a minority of 1% here. :)
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Or it could just be that its a pleasure,I mean in this day and age we should all have cars with automatic gear boxes but we dont
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's a different argument. If he does so for the pleasure, or because he grew up with it, fair enough. But I don't buy into the argument that manually focussing is somehow "better" or more pure, than autofocus. It isn't.
 
guys, guys !!!! whatever makes you tick !! :D


oh ! 666 post !!!
images
 
artona said:
The other thing about primes, especially fast ones is the brightness of the viewfinder. After using a 50mm f1.2 put on a 3.5 zoom and you are wondering if there is something wrong with the camera or you have left you shades on
Click to expand...

It doesn't make that much of a difference actually.
 
I haven't noticed an IQ difference between my 24-70L and my 28/1.8 and I haven't backed the 85 past f2 for so long I can't tell much

I think the 24-70 and 135L would cover most of my life, I can't switch bodies quick enough when working with an 85 and 35 (28 or 1.3 crop)

Do you guys have a technique for keeping 2 bodies permanently ready (I live on manual exposure and with usm/back button af switch to MF where I need to)
 
artona said:
The other thing about primes, especially fast ones is the brightness of the viewfinder. After using a 50mm f1.2 put on a 3.5 zoom and you are wondering if there is something wrong with the camera or you have left you shades on
Click to expand...

Being a bid bored (or sad) I just set up 2 bodies, one with a sigma 50-500 (max aperture f4) and the other with a 50mm f1.4. I did notice a small difference in the brightness of the viewfinder when I looked through one then through the other but I probably wouldn't notice it at all in day to day use.
 
My d700 with a prime on seems to have a maximum brightness through the viewfinder of about f2.2, sadly if you want to try put a prime on, set a range of apertures and then press the DoF button. After 2.2 it doesn't make any difference

Hugh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top