All the best togs shoots primes
- Thread starter Raymond Lin
- Start date
What were the weights of the two kits?
Also it might be revealing to compare the images at 50mm...
- Messages
- 19,708
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
After? As in larger or smaller? I rarely see much of an effect using the DOF button on any of my cameras but the images certainly have the reduced DOF.
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Obviously the difference in the lenses is pretty extreme (both bodies are the same weight) but not sure of the relevance there.
This test was just to compare viewfinder brightness but the Bigma was at 50mm. Comparing images taken at 50mm with these two lenses is a no-brainer TBH, much better IQ from the prime.
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
sorry - larger apertures. Really - I notice a marked decrease in viewfinder brightness - I tend to use it now for spotting areas that may over expose
Back to the OP. Might this be the difference between what people think they need and what 'the best photographers' carry? If I had to lug about a huge bag full of large zooms I might end up being a great deal less productive than if I had a few light primes.
Another reason 'the best photographers' might be seen to be using primes - they get 'better' images from them?
trencheel303
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
I am not sure on the accuracy of this but apparently digital viewfinders are optimized for slow kit zooms so that the VF when using them isn't too dark. Maybe this is why the brightness doesn't noticeably depreciate until beyond f/5.6?
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the point some people are making though is that you don't need to lug a huge back of large zooms about as most would get by with just maybe a 24-70 + 70-200, at least one of which would be on the camera being used.
Probably not a fair comparison in my case as I was comparing a large superzoom with a 50mm f1.4. If I use my 105mm prime and my 70-200 f2.8 (at 105mm), there isn't any difference in IQ.
OP
- Messages
- 10,503
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
If people are saying the IQ are the same, then why would people like Jeff ascough & Jessica Claire shoot primarily primes for their work? Why not use a zoom and cover more bases? Like a lot of you are saying, a 24-70 and 70-200 covers pretty much everything.
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
lots of reasons why not - I don't use the 70-200 very much cause its heavy and it disconects me from the subject (but I wouldn't use a 200 mm prime either)
TheTimeChamber
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,447
- Name
- Nick / Sectionate
- Edit My Images
- No
I love the little prime I have, it makes me feel (all warm and fuzzy, errr) that I have more control over what I am taking and forces me to think more about composition. But, I did read an Andy Rouse article say that while he loves his primes, there is very much a place for a zoom as it can cope with more scenarios...
- Messages
- 19,708
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you are controlling the situation to the nth degree then you know what exact size of prime you need so you can select it. A prime weights less and is usually faster with better DOF.
In my studio I shoot with the 24-70 because the studio is small. In Garry Edwards studio I shoot with an 80-200 because it is huge! If I had a whole selection of primes I might shoot with a prime.
Whilst typing this I am doing some macro photography with my D700 on a tripod and a 105 prime macro taking some jewellery pics. They are tools for a job and you select the best one at the time and sometimes flexibility is a requirement.
Is there a way of searching EXIF data and seeing what focal length people use for a bulk collection of pictures?
I read somewhere that generally people tend to use either end of their zoom ranges far more than anything in the middle. I'd love to see if that is broadly correct.
I read somewhere that generally people tend to use either end of their zoom ranges far more than anything in the middle. I'd love to see if that is broadly correct.
- Messages
- 19,708
- Name
- Darren
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Is there a way of searching EXIF data and seeing what focal length people use for a bulk collection of pictures?
I read somewhere that generally people tend to use either end of their zoom ranges far more than anything in the middle. I'd love to see if that is broadly correct.
Any EXIF reader will help you with that or my script writer can do a bulk load at once.
Thanks but I don't use a digital camera (or a zoom lens!) - I was wondering more broadly if there was a tool people could use to scan their data to pull out lens + focal length information for their shots and see if that statement was correct.
When I had a (film) SLR and zooms I suspect it was broadly right. I think I used either end of the zoom far more than the middle range.
- Messages
- 10,606
- Name
- Lynton (yes really!)
- Edit My Images
- No
My opinion and that's all it is, is that a modern day zoom, such as a 70-200 f 2.8 will be just as good as a 105mm prime at 105mm, etc etc..........
We'll see soon, as I about to order the former!!!!
We'll see soon, as I about to order the former!!!!
RobDickinson
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn10/artonas_photobucket/lyme regis 2010/D2X_6444a.jpg
Staff Edit : Image(s) removed. (Link(s) left in place). Pictures must not exceed current forum limits as per the rules. Please feel free to replace this with a fresh/resized image and remove this text
try taking this on auto focus
stew
Sorry, 1st post on here and here I go...
If you think that couldnt be taken with autofocus time to step out of the past and give it a try...
As for primes they do have a quality (dof/microcontrast/flare/sharpness etc) that most zooms dont have.
Otherwise why would you ever use/buy one...
goldenlight
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 984
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't. 
goldenlight
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 984
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Blue Eagle
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 825
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I found the main draw back of my 50mm is the time taken to "zoom" with my feet. If i want to move from head and shoulders portrait to full length, then the time taken to walk back 6ft or more often means you simply miss an opportunity.
With a zoom it takes seconds so using a 70-110mm range would be much faster. (although i never do, due to the lack of light in the UK with my slower lens)
With a zoom it takes seconds so using a 70-110mm range would be much faster. (although i never do, due to the lack of light in the UK with my slower lens)
Naboo32
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,278
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If I had complete control over the position of my subjects and had the ability to fly/hover in mid-air, I'd shoot primes all of the time - the image quality of the best ones surpasses all zoom lenses that I've tried :|.
The fact is though, I doubt that I'll ever be in the position to orchestrate the scenes I want to shoot (as I am just an amateur togger and don't use models) and I know I'll never fly
. So, zooms are just a 'necessary evil' as far as I'm concerned.
Every time that I've gone out armed only with a 50mm f/1.4 (often) or a 300mm f/4 (less often), I come home knowing that I've missed the best possible shots of the day because my focal length was completely unsuitable for the scene
. The old "compose with your feet" mantra is all well and good if you're able to move (and quickly enough to catch the shot), but in 'real life' I find that I just can't get far enough back/forward due to physical restrictions (walls, water, traffic etc.) :shrug:.
Bottom line; I'd rather catch the shots that I want, framed as optimally as possible and not have to crop them (or delete them because there are huge chunks missing from the sides
) and then tidy them up as best I can in PP, rather than just getting 1 in 10 of those shots, but with better sharpness and micro-contrast. I guess that makes me something of a Luddite :shrug:!?
The fact is though, I doubt that I'll ever be in the position to orchestrate the scenes I want to shoot (as I am just an amateur togger and don't use models) and I know I'll never fly
. So, zooms are just a 'necessary evil' as far as I'm concerned.Every time that I've gone out armed only with a 50mm f/1.4 (often) or a 300mm f/4 (less often), I come home knowing that I've missed the best possible shots of the day because my focal length was completely unsuitable for the scene
. The old "compose with your feet" mantra is all well and good if you're able to move (and quickly enough to catch the shot), but in 'real life' I find that I just can't get far enough back/forward due to physical restrictions (walls, water, traffic etc.) :shrug:.Bottom line; I'd rather catch the shots that I want, framed as optimally as possible and not have to crop them (or delete them because there are huge chunks missing from the sides
) and then tidy them up as best I can in PP, rather than just getting 1 in 10 of those shots, but with better sharpness and micro-contrast. I guess that makes me something of a Luddite :shrug:!?
Woz!
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 102
- Name
- Woz
- Edit My Images
- No
Is there a way of searching EXIF data and seeing what focal length people use for a bulk collection of pictures?
I read somewhere that generally people tend to use either end of their zoom ranges far more than anything in the middle. I'd love to see if that is broadly correct.
I think Exposureplot would do this for you.
http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html
It's quite revealing to run it - you might find that your favorite lens actually isn't!