Beginner Are prime lenses all they're cracked up to be?

coddy72

coddy72

Suspended / Banned
Messages
108
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, quite new to photography and have just purchased my first dslr, a nikon D5300.
It came with a 18-140 kit lens, which i think is great and does a good job as far as i can tell !

But, i've heard a lot of taik about how good prime lenses are and am now thinking of getting one to have in my kitbag.

I'm just after a few of your thoughts and experiences with them.

I generally shoot most subjects and don't really tend to specifically shoot any particular subject, well, at least for now :)

Thanx.
 
coddy72 said:
It came with a 18-140 kit lens, which i think is great and does a good job as far as i can tell !
Click to expand...

Answered your own question there I think.

Specific lenses address specific needs. If you don't have a need at the moment, don't throw your money away because some stranger said they use another bit of kit for something you're not doing.
 
If you find your photos aren't working out so well in poor lighting conditions (banding, muddy colours, blurry pictures from slow shutter speeds) then a faster aperture (lower f stop number) Prime lens may help a bit with that as it will let more light into the photo allowing faster shutter speeds and lower ISO settings, otherwise it sounds like your sorted at the moment! Prime lenses can also assist with a few other bits, dependent on how keen you wish to pursue the hobby!
 
Last edited:
yes, but they're not for everyone.

try a 50mm f/1.8. Cheap. If you don't like it, sell it - but I suspect you'll notice the difference, especially when you play at wider apertures or in lower light levels.
 
A prime lens will normally be sharper than a zoom, that may or may not be important to you. The key thing really is as mentioned above is that a prime will let more light on when stopped down to say F1.8 and also allow you to throw backgrounds out of focus better than the lens you have.
However you will have to get used to zooming in and out with your feet, which isn't always practical!
Normally in threads like this someone recommends buying a 50mm lens as they are relatively cheap and a good introduction to primes, however that focal length can be a bit limiting on a D5300, depending on what you're shooting.
Personally, I use prime lenses probably 90% of the time, but they're not for everyone!
 
The 35 F/1.8 DX is also a good shout for a D5300! My dad loves his on his D5100, If you choose to purchase a prime lens, that is.
 
•
In all the lens I have, my zooms cover 14mm to 400mm not stop in 4 zooms.
They are the backbone of my location photography.
 
The simple answer is no,their are good lens in each group,pick the lens that most suit your type of photography :)
 
As you think your current lens is great there's probably no need to look any further at the moment.

As you become familiar with your camera and lens and more skilled/creative in their use, you will reach a point where you find them limiting for one reason or another*. I would suggest that this is the time to look at additional lenses which are more specific to your newly defined needs.

*Examples could be better low light capabilities as mentioned above, sharper images, maybe a longer range zoom if you want to shoot aircraft/wildlife/sport, or then again maybe a macro if you want to get right in close to hairy spider legs!
 
In answer to the title, yes and no. There are stunning prime lenses and some not so stunning ones, just like there are some stunning zooms and bad ones.

People often use primes to shoot wide open (large aperture) to achieve subject isolation/background blur in which case you will notice a big difference vs a slow (small aperture) zoom lens. Fast primes also make it easier/better to shoot in low light as they let more light in, meaning less noisy/less blurry images.

Primes are less versatile than zooms obviously.
 
I use Canon not Nikon but do know that the 50mm f1.8 Canon lens is a superb lens and incredibly sharp from f 2.2 onwards and imagine that the Nikon version would be just as good.

Back in the days of 35mm film cameras the 50 mm lens fitted to most was THE standard lens because it was able to cover the 28x36mm frame virtually perfectly AND was also extremely simple to make, both features which have carried over to the digital era.
 
Yes, especially given the focal range even a small zoom covers.

I don't speak Nikon but as a comparison the Canon 100-400L is mostly sharp but softens up the big end compared to the 400L even though at 400mm they are both wide open at f5.6

Consider one as trying to do a lot more well versus t'other just doing one thing exceptionally. Optimum lens groupings for 200mm may not be ideal for 400mm for example but are workable.

However, as has been mentioned primes aren't for everyone and they are used in a very different way.
 
I find it funny that so many think fast lenses are great for low light... they really aren't.
Why would you use a fast aperture in low light? Because you need SS.
Why do you need SS? Because the subject is moving.
What does a fast aperture give you? Shallow DOF.
That means your moving subject will move outside of the DOF in a hurry. And if the light is that poor the camera will probably struggle w/ AF as well...
 
sk66 said:
I find it funny that so many think fast lenses are great for low light... they really aren't.
Why would you use a fast aperture in low light? Because you need SS.
Why do you need SS? Because the subject is moving.
What does a fast aperture give you? Shallow DOF.
That means your moving subject will move outside of the DOF in a hurry. And if the light is that poor the camera will probably struggle w/ AF as well...
Click to expand...
Then I must assume you never shoot a wedding in some of the churches when 25k iso is not enought and tripod is not an option...
 
sk66 said:
I find it funny that so many think fast lenses are great for low light... they really aren't.
Why would you use a fast aperture in low light? Because you need SS.
Why do you need SS? Because the subject is moving.
What does a fast aperture give you? Shallow DOF.
That means your moving subject will move outside of the DOF in a hurry.
Click to expand...

Shooting people stood around (people still move their heads, hands, eyes, etc when they're standing around) networking in a dimly lit room: 1/160th @ f/1.2 or 1/15 @ f/4. I know which I'd rather have.

sk66 said:
And if the light is that poor the camera will probably struggle w/ AF as well...
Click to expand...

It will struggle less with a faster lens on the front of it.
 
sk66 said:
I find it funny that so many think fast lenses are great for low light... they really aren't.
Why would you use a fast aperture in low light? Because you need SS.
Why do you need SS? Because the subject is moving.
What does a fast aperture give you? Shallow DOF.
That means your moving subject will move outside of the DOF in a hurry. And if the light is that poor the camera will probably struggle w/ AF as well...
Click to expand...

The subject is not always moving, at least in the classical music concerts I shoot.
You want a reasonable shutter speed to prevent unwanted camera movement (although image stabiisation helps a lot).
In very low light levels, yes the autofocus can struggle at times, especially if you turn the focus assist light off (to stop drawing attention to yourself at times and/or annoying the pereformers, howver that is something you have to live with..
In the past, with older DSLRs I did use fast (f2 or faster) primes however nowdays with the improvement in high ISO performance f2.8 are now viable.
Nowdays I shoot with a pair of Olympus E-M5Mark II bodies with Olympus 12-40 f2.8 and Olympus 40-150 f2.8 lenses (the Olympus bodies have a crop factor of 2).
While the Olympus bodies are not perfect they are better for this application than my older DSLRs, mainly becuse they are a lot quieter, image stabilisation is in the body, and a lot more managable.

Example #1
At a rehearsal for a recent concert. Most of the light was provided by battery operated lights attached to the performers music folders.
Was using a fast (f2.8 zoom) at 150mm (300mm equivalent FOV in 35mm terms) at ISO 12,000 @ 1/60 hand held.
During the actual concert the light levels were even lower and I had to shoot at ISO 25,000 a few times.

A soloist by Richard Taylor, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I recall a comment, centuries ago, when 'Super-Zooms' were starting to offer more than 5x zoom range, and people were suggesting that a 35-180 was 'all you'll ever need' on a 35mm film SLR; that 'Zooms' were a one trick dog, and after a bit of start-wars Light-Leap 'racking' with the shutter open, that was it. They became a heavy, cumbersome, compromised and expensive way to aviod swapping between two primes, at either end, which is where you would end up using the zoom in the end anyway... and there's much truth in that.

At the time, my front-line camera kit was Olympus OM, and had sort of settled on a Tameron 28-70 and a Vvitar S1 70-210, and gave away the Zoiko 50 f1.8 that never got used, because I had at that point, started to build up a second kit, based around an M42 Screw-Fit, Sigma (Richoch Copy), that came with a rather nice Ziess 50, so I decided, as much as anything cos M42 'primes' were cheap as chips in the 2nd-hand buckets in the camera shops, to keep it all period and all prime. a 29mm Pentacon seemed to stay on the front most of the time; 50 got used occasionally, but more often a Hanimex 135. I had chanced on a 300mm Pentacon, that was a bit of fun to use as a telescope, BUT largely I covered most of anything I wanted to do, with just three lenses, 29, 50 & 135, and I could have lived without at least one of them, and in fact probably 2! .. Had survived a very long time with just the fixed 35mm on my XA2 compact, as did so many photographers who didn't subscribe to interchangeable lens systems and SLR's!

So err.. actually yeah, that one-trick-dog thing about zooms has sort of rung a bit true... and twenty years on, I've dived into digital, and started trying to build up a kit that replicated what I had with the OM's on film.... Lens count is currently at 3.. last year treated myself to the Sigma 4.5 fish, rather than the 8-16 or 10-20 I know would get far more use, but figured if I didn't get the full fish then I never would, and had always wanted the 'real-deal' after finding a Panmar 12 for the Olly way back when and having much fun with it... so, have a 'gap' tchig to be filled, tugging at my wallet..

MEANWHILE, my daughter has just finished her GCSE Photography and is dong her A-Level... after she 'borrowed' my camera for a school assignment, and I caught her pricking balloons full of water within inches of its expensive electronics.. I decided couldn't wait until Christmas to get her her own camera!!!! And since she was starting to run into the buffers of what she could do with the 'kit' 18-55 on my camera, I elected to get her a second hand D3100, cos 'cheap' and good VFM, and the 35mm f.1.8, that on a crop-sensor apes the old 50's on film, and offers more scope for academic exercises, with shallow DoF, the brighter view-finder, and extra stops for low light and ;stuff' Heading into portraiture on her A-Level, I have been pondering a 50 for her for Christmas.....

Of course, impossible to look for lenses for her, without getting 'oy-dee-uz'... and finding more 8-18's and 10-20's I'd like, or spotting 18-140's and wondering.... BUT, it was getting the 35's she already has pop up that put me in a real dilemma...

The 18-55 is the my most used lens, and that one trick dog? Yup, it gets most use jammed against the stops either end. IF I were to get a 35 prime, I'd get a brighter view-finder, more scope for selective focus shallow DoF, an extra three stops for low light, AND better IQ, and, would probably sit on the front most of the time, and I'd not really 'miss' being able to change angle of view at a touch, and would in all probability end up being that bit more disciplined and diligent, and get 'better' photo's as a result, working with the 35 to get the framing I wanted, rather than what the lens offered fro wherever I happened to be stood....

Which was another debate of old, and the 'concept' behind building up that M42 screw prime outfit decades back; 'Slow Photo', shunning the convenience of meter-coupled exposure, and 'one-touch' variable focal lengths; getting 'back to basics' and working that bit harder to get the most out of it, rather than letting 'technology' make me lazy....

And that is where the question gets us to. "Are Primes all they are cracked up to be?" Well, that all depends. They are ONE 'technology', and remembering my early lessons at uni, when we were told Engineering is the application of technology to solve problems, and no such thing as 'bad' technology or 'good' technology, just more or less appropriate technology.. if it solves the problem and makes life easier, its 'good' technology, no matter how unsophisticated it is. If it doesn't solve the problem, or makes more problems along the way, then no matter how sophisticated or evolved it may be, it ent that great!

And that's the nub. The one trick dog comment is a little unfair on the poor zoom; shutter pen racking effects is the only thing they might do that a prime cant...well, 'easily', but they do have a bit more going for them, and convenience of not having to swap lenses to get different focal lengths, can let you work faster, when you don't have time to faff, it can save you having to lug so much kit about, or mean you do have the kit you want when an impromptu opportunity arises....

So, its alternative technologies, and whether either is all its cracked up to be is circumstantial; it depends on what you want to achieve and which solves problems rather than makes them; and in that, primes do have a few qualities over zooms that can make them more useful in some circumstances... less others and neither nor in a lot... its all down to what's most 'appropriate' for the job. whatever the 'job' happens to be.
 
Sounds like you are at the beginning of a potential bout of GAS for no apparent reason (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) - beware, it is fatal on your wallet and doesn't improve your photography one bit.

There will always be plenty of people here and elsewhere telling you how best to spend your money....unfortunately. Save your money for now, resist the temptation and learn about what your camera can do in its present form....you said it...."which i think is great and does a good job as far as i can tell"

Enjoy the camera, lens and having some spare cash in your pocket. You will know when you have reached the boundaries at some stage in the future, but it doesn't sound like you are there with such a need at present.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I find it funny that so many think fast lenses are great for low light... they really aren't.
Click to expand...
Really???
Why would you use a fast aperture in low light? Because you need SS.
Why do you need SS? Because the subject is moving.
Click to expand...
So that's the only reason you need to increase shutter speed? What about preventing blurry images due to camera shake?
What does a fast aperture give you? Shallow DOF.
That means your moving subject will move outside of the DOF in a hurry.
Click to expand...
There are other variables that affect DOF, if you're shooting a wedding scene in a church with a 35mm DOF isn't going to be that shallow. Plus, if you do have shallow DOF and a moving subject you can always track it.
And if the light is that poor the camera will probably struggle w/ AF as well...
Click to expand...
Depends on camera and lens. My D750 can AF down to -3ev, pretty dark that.
 
Thanks for all your comments, enjoyed reading through them all, and all made valid points.

I think possibly the last poster sums it up for me, sticking with what I've got for the time being and finding out what the camera is capable of seems like the way to go, well, at least for the time being !

Thank you all for taking the time to reply, much appreciated, and it's really given me food for thought.
 
coddy72 said:
Thanks for all your comments, enjoyed reading through them all, and all made valid points.

I think possibly the last poster sums it up for me, sticking with what I've got for the time being and finding out what the camera is capable of seems like the way to go, well, at least for the time being !

Thank you all for taking the time to reply, much appreciated, and it's really given me food for thought.
Click to expand...
Yep, you need to decide what you want to shoot first, and how you intend you images to look. I love shallow DOF and subject isolation and so love fast (wide aperture) lenses, but it's not for everyone.
 
If it helps, I bought a 50mm 1.8g Nikon as it was sharp and inexpensive, for my D600, and it got rave reviews.

I like it for throwing the background out of focus when I'm photographing my kids and pets etc but the fact that you have to "zoom with your feet" is very limiting when you're working indoors.

In my case, a zoom works better for me. Which is why I very rarely have the 50mm on my camera.

I'd say try before you buy. A local camera shop won't mind you having a play around first.

Good luck :)
 
^Demon said:
Then I must assume you never shoot a wedding in some of the churches when 25k iso is not enought and tripod is not an option...
Click to expand...
I've never shot anything where ISO 25,000 isn't enough. My D4 doesn't even go that high (unless I use the stupid "Hi" modes). And then what? You're going to crop that high ISO wide shot for composition?
Jayst84 said:
Shooting people stood around (people still move their heads, hands, eyes, etc when they're standing around) networking in a dimly lit room: 1/160th @ f/1.2 or 1/15 @ f/4. I know which I'd rather have.
Click to expand...
What f/1.2 lens do you have? Will it be the right FL for the shot? What will the DOF be at f/1.2? Will it be sharp at f/1.2?
Yes, if you shoot wider/looser then you have more DOF and motion (subject/camera) also matters "less."
Personally, I would add light... and I've never been in any situation *as the photographer* where that was not an option. It might require co-ordination, time/effort, equipment, etc, that could be determined to be "impractical." But that's really my fault. (If just taking pictures *as a guest/visitor,* then yeah...addressing the lighting might not be possible and you're just stuck).

My point is/was that an f/1.x lens is not a "solution/great choice"... it *might* be your only choice, in which case you're already kind of screwed.
Jayst84 said:
It will struggle less with a faster lens on the front of it.
Click to expand...
This is a common misconception, and it's not really true. The *amount* of light the AF sensor receives is not ultimately dependent on the lens aperture. The AF sensor has lenses and openings (masks) with their own apertures, which are ~ f/5.6 equivalent. Wider lens apertures than that cause flare at the AF module which reduces contrast and can inhibit AF performance (that's why the AF masks are needed). Wider lens apertures only determine which portions of the AF module receive light (i.e. an f/2.8 sensor is placed ~ 2x farther off center than an f/5.6 sensor).
But, if your camera has focus points with additional sensing lines for f/2.8 (some high end Canon/Nikon models), AND you are using one of those focus points, then you might see an improvement down to f/2.8 (not f/1.x).
 
Last edited:
Great to see we've stayed on topic and not over complicated the thread!
 
sk66 said:
I've never shot anything where ISO 25,000 isn't enough. My D4 doesn't even go that high (unless I use the stupid "Hi" modes). And then what? You're going to crop that high ISO wide shot for composition?

What f/1.2 lens do you have? Will it be the right FL for the shot? What will the DOF be at f/1.2? Will it be sharp at f/1.2?
Yes, if you shoot wider/looser then you have more DOF and motion (subject/camera) also matters "less."
Personally, I would add light... and I've never been in any situation *as the photographer* where that was not an option. It might require co-ordination, time/effort, equipment, etc, that could be determined to be "impractical." But that's really my fault. (If just taking pictures *as a guest/visitor,* then yeah...addressing the lighting might not be possible and you're just stuck).

My point is/was that an f/1.x lens is not a "solution/great choice"... it *might* be your only choice, in which case you're already kind of screwed.

This is a common misconception, and it's not really true. The *amount* of light the AF sensor receives is not ultimately dependent on the lens aperture. The AF sensor has lenses and openings (masks) with their own apertures, which are ~ f/5.6 equivalent. Wider lens apertures than that cause flare at the AF module which reduces contrast and can inhibit AF performance (that's why the AF masks are needed). Wider lens apertures only determine which portions of the AF module receive light (i.e. an f/2.8 sensor is placed ~ 2x farther off center than an f/5.6 sensor).
But, if your camera has focus points with additional sensing lines for f/2.8 (some high end Canon/Nikon models), AND you are using one of those focus points, then you might see an improvement down to f/2.8 (not f/1.x).
Click to expand...

As I said before you havent been in such situation. In most churches over here flash is not allowed so the fast prime can save your day. And be the matter of getting something or nothing.

My comment wasnt intended for OP that he needs to buy a prime it was just to say that they have a use depending on your surcumstances.
 
sk66 said:
Personally, I would add light... and I've never been in any situation *as the photographer* where that was not an option. It might require co-ordination, time/effort, equipment, etc, that could be determined to be "impractical." But that's really my fault. (If just taking pictures *as a guest/visitor,* then yeah...addressing the lighting might not be possible and you're just stuck).
Click to expand...
There are numerous scenarios where flash photography is not permitted, churches, shows, indoor sports events to name a few.

This is a common misconception, and it's not really true. The *amount* of light the AF sensor receives is not ultimately dependent on the lens aperture. The AF sensor has lenses and openings (masks) with their own apertures, which are ~ f/5.6 equivalent. Wider lens apertures than that cause flare at the AF module which reduces contrast and can inhibit AF performance (that's why the AF masks are needed). Wider lens apertures only determine which portions of the AF module receive light (i.e. an f/2.8 sensor is placed ~ 2x farther off center than an f/5.6 sensor).
But, if your camera has focus points with additional sensing lines for f/2.8 (some high end Canon/Nikon models), AND you are using one of those focus points, then you might see an improvement down to f/2.8 (not f/1.x).
Click to expand...
Yep, but the OP's lens is a slow lens and so he will notice better low light performance from a prime (or fast zoom for that matter) if he has such a sensor (y)
 
sk66 said:
What f/1.2 lens do you have? Will it be the right FL for the shot? What will the DOF be at f/1.2? Will it be sharp at f/1.2?
Click to expand...

85 1.2 (and a 35 1.4) get most things done. The depth of field will be fairly thin in most cases of course. That's usually quite useful in the situations where I'd be using it. Will it be sharp? Sharp enough (bloody well should be for the price).

sk66 said:
Personally, I would add light... and I've never been in any situation *as the photographer* where that was not an option.
Click to expand...

Personally, I am very rarely in any situation as the photographer where adding light is an option. As I said in my first reply to Paul, different gear for different jobs.

sk66 said:
My point is/was that an f/1.x lens is not a "solution/great choice"... it *might* be your only choice, in which case you're already kind of screwed.
Click to expand...

Mmm, it is a solution/good choice in a lot of cases though. I get paid because I have the gear and knowledge to deal with those situations, and come out with hopefully half decent looking photos, that aren't just blasted with on-camera flash. :thumbs:
 
A lot of people regularly have gas (gear acquisition syndrome).
If you are happy with the pictures you take then that's all that matters.
If you start finding problems and are getting frustrated that you couldn't get a good shot because of x,y,z, then it's time to think if there is any item that could help you overcome these regular obstacles.
E.g.
A friend wanted more in-focus, lowish light shots of his moving child than the kit zoom lens could provide. A 50mm f1.8 fixed this.
Now he wants something much wider to take family group pictures in similar situations and the 50mm on a crop sensor can't fit everyone in. So a wide angle lens is required, but a large aperture would likely be useless as too many people would be out of focus in the shot.

I have a wonderfully sharp prime but it never gets used. I prefer good quality zooms as they allow me to take shots I couldn't otherwise take with a prime.
E.g.
I make my living as a photographer capturing people's expressions and natural reactions. I can go from waist upwards shots to an individual's head to a couples heads with a few quick flicks of the wrist, capturing the scene, the moment, and the resultant expressions within 1-2 seconds. If I were to use a prime, I would find myself walking back and forwards quickly then trying to slow down to control my breathing for the shot, then trying to say excuse me to the people around me who close in and I have to push them out the way and end up with pictures of my subjects looking at me with puzzled/annoyed expressions wondering why I am interrupting their moment.

So ignore gas - live, love & learn the tools you have.
If you start finding a problem, then buy the right tool for the job.
 
I shoot a lot indoors and of pets and now doing some strete photography and I find that a prime is much better. I am yet to find a zoom (inc f2.8 ones) that work better for me. Of course I am also including the weight and size in to consideration here.

This is of course different for everyone, and only you can answer your own question!
 
Deadlock said:
A lot of people regularly have gas (gear acquisition syndrome).
If you are happy with the pictures you take then that's all that matters.
If you start finding problems and are getting frustrated that you couldn't get a good shot because of x,y,z, then it's time to think if there is any item that could help you overcome these regular obstacles.
E.g.
A friend wanted more in-focus, lowish light shots of his moving child than the kit zoom lens could provide. A 50mm f1.8 fixed this.
Now he wants something much wider to take family group pictures in similar situations and the 50mm on a crop sensor can't fit everyone in. So a wide angle lens is required, but a large aperture would likely be useless as too many people would be out of focus in the shot.

I have a wonderfully sharp prime but it never gets used. I prefer good quality zooms as they allow me to take shots I couldn't otherwise take with a prime.
E.g.
I make my living as a photographer capturing people's expressions and natural reactions. I can go from waist upwards shots to an individual's head to a couples heads with a few quick flicks of the wrist, capturing the scene, the moment, and the resultant expressions within 1-2 seconds. If I were to use a prime, I would find myself walking back and forwards quickly then trying to slow down to control my breathing for the shot, then trying to say excuse me to the people around me who close in and I have to push them out the way and end up with pictures of my subjects looking at me with puzzled/annoyed expressions wondering why I am interrupting their moment.

So ignore gas - live, love & learn the tools you have.
If you start finding a problem, then buy the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...

Yes. Because that's what photographers who shoot with primes do isn't it.

Someone should tell Ross Harvey, Fer Juaristi, Sam Hurd, Gabe Mcclintock...etc...etc to stop pushing people about and annoying everyone!

Of course I'm joking there. The fact is if you shoot primes you learn to live with the limitations the same way you do if you use zooms.
 
Last edited:
Adam, you are right.
Of course, it is an exaggerated & sweeping generalisation meant to highlight the differences that one needs to take into account as a beginner.
Of course, there is superb prime work out there created by people who understand how to work those tools and specialise in their craft.

The thing about GAS is yes, it can be a stepping stone into a new area of photography. It can inspire you to get back out there having a new toy to play with, but for me... its not the gear, its the end result.

Photography existed before the 5d7830 mk 57 came out.
There are amazingly beautiful, inspirational photographs that were created by photographers who had gear thats been eclipsed many, many times over by whats out today. Its the intrinsic ability and time a person puts in to learning to see and learning their craft, which makes all the difference.

So will a beginner who is happy with what they have and the results they are getting have their photography transformed by buying 3 primes to cover their range? From what we've been told, I think it unlikely to result in anything other than a heavier backpack, emptier wallet, and the frustration of having the wrong lens on at the wrong time - all without giving them any increase in pleasure as no problem has been identified.

@ Paul, Learn the tools you have. Have fun! If you start thinking along the lines of... "I've been trying to take shot X but been having problem Y", then we can advise you to try out a wider aperture lens, some high quality zoom or prime lenses, etc to help you take better pictures of the type of thing you enjoy photographing.
 
Some great advice on here, thank you all for taking the time to reply.
 
coddy72 said:
I think possibly the last poster sums it up for me, sticking with what I've got for the time being and finding out what the camera is capable of seems like the way to go, well, at least for the time being !
Click to expand...
Original question 'Are Primes all they are cracked up to be' is well answered; yes and no, it all depend on circumstance whether its useful to what you want to do..
Now onto next question...'Should I buy a prime? Would I get any benefit from one?'
There's a lot to be said for sticking with what you have got and learning to get the most out of it, but at the same time, there's a lot to be said for trying new things, and getting alternative references.
You say that the kit 18-140 'seems' to work well for you, and chances are it'll do 90% of everything most folk would ask of it... but with no other reference, would you know when you are asking to much of it? Or when it could offer more, if you knew a bit more?
But, without knowing what a prime can or might do for you, how will you know f it might be worth it, or useful?

Suggestion:-
The Nikon 35mm f1.8 is a cracking little lens; much loved, well regarded and pretty damn cheap. RRP is a tad over £150, but shop around you can get one new for about £120, and they can command almost that 2nd hand; most fetching around the £90 mark.
As mentioned, damn thing keeps giving me oy-dee-uz, and if got one, I'm pretty sure it would make the 18-55 kit I have almost redundant, living on the front of the camera as 'first call' glass, and I'd be zooming with my feet, rather than reaching for another lens, more often than not, and getting back into that bot of diligence and discipline of working with a prime. (Ahrg! I'm talking myself into this aren't I! Dam.. quick, hide my pay-pal password!)
But, FOR YOU.... £100 ish, not a lot of dosh compared to what your camera cost, and as far as higher grade lenses go a real 'steal'... so why not?
Get one - give it a go! - This will far better inform you of what one can do, than we ever can!
Buy 2nd hand, you'll like as not not loose a penny on one, if YOU don't find it to be all its cracked up to be, or not so useful, and tout back out after a bit of messing. even brand new, 'depreciation' is pretty negligible, it's the cost of an SD card dropped in the grass!
And, its all grist to the mill and more learning; even if you don't find anything 'useful' that a prime can do for you, its still teaching you stuff, and likely to help you appreciate what you are getting from the zoom, as well as likely to help you get better out of it. Just making you move your feet to look for the shot, rather than twiddle a ring, that a prime will beg you to do, is likely to help you 'improve' your photography overall...
What you got to loose? Price of an SD card dropped in the grass...
Its not an 'either or' question, you don't have to stop learning to get the best from your kit 18-140 if you get another lens, its ALL useful learning, whatever the conclusions to the experiment.

Add on Ed: Ie, Gadget Acquisition Syndrome is an occupational hazard... how you cope or not, with that, is not entirely relevant to the subject here, other than to heed the warning it exists. And far as the many gadgets you might acquire in photography are concerned, this could be a 'more' useful one to acquire.
 
Last edited:
rich_ said:
The 35 F/1.8 DX is also a good shout ...
Click to expand...
Yeah Nikon do a nice 35mm, wot he said.
Well worth it, or something around 50mm.
Used with a wide-open aperture you will notice the difference for people photos immediately.

In my opinion using a 'travel zoom' on a DSLR produces results similar to using any of the hundreds of compact superzoom cameras...
 
coddy72 said:
Hi, quite new to photography and have just purchased my first dslr, a nikon D5300.
It came with a 18-140 kit lens, which i think is great and does a good job as far as i can tell !

But, i've heard a lot of taik about how good prime lenses are and am now thinking of getting one to have in my kitbag.

I'm just after a few of your thoughts and experiences with them.

I generally shoot most subjects and don't really tend to specifically shoot any particular subject, well, at least for now :)

Thanx.
Click to expand...

Paul, a lot of good advice on this thread. I don't often frequent this area of TP but your post caught my eye.

I think it's very much a case of using the right tool for the job at hand and there are many subjective views on what that may be for any given scenario. It also depends very much on the subject matter you shoot. Is it portraits, weddings, wildlife, bugs, etc. because each of those would require a different tool for the job.

Zooms give you ultimate flexibility. You don't need to change lenses to zoom in or out and if you are in a tight spot and can't use your legs, then zooms are worth their weight in gold.

Using primes can mean the difference between getting a good shot and getting a world class shot. Ask any wildlife photographer (especially birders, if you can brave the bird forum) and the proof will be in the pudding - a 500mm prime will p*ss all over my Tamron 150-600mm zoom. Same can be said for macro photography - a dedicated prime macro lens will outshine any zoom lens in that genre. Talk to a wedding photographer and, although there are those that shoot exceptionally well with primes on two bodies, the flexibility of using tried-and-tested zooms like the 24-70mm and 70-200mm could mean the difference between getting the shot, or not.

Those genres aside, if we look at 'normal' photography (i.e. something between 24-100mm) then I still believe it's a matter of 'right tool for the job'. For instance, if I shoot portraits in studio conditions then I will almost always rely on my D800 and 85mm combination. Why? Those two items were pretty much made to shoot portraits in the studio. I could stick my 24-70mm on but I it won't have the same feel as my 85mm and it won't be as sharp. If I need to go wider, I might stick my 50mm prime on for the same reasons, but that's as wide as I will go for portraits - essentially my zoom is wasted in this application and if this is all I shot, I would sell the zoom in a heartbeat and stick with the primes.

If I go walkabout at a car show for instance, I usually take the 24-70mm and 70-200mm and leave the primes at home. That way I have a lighter bag to carry and I can cover pretty much all eventualities. It's not studio conditions so I don't expect the same level of pin-sharpness. I've even taken just the 150-600mm and the 20mm prime to something like Dunsfold Wings and Wheels and haven't even bothered to take the 20mm out the bag.

So think very carefully about what it is you wish to photograph and whether a prime would benefit you. I will say this though, shooting a portrait at 85mm with a prime vs. at 85mm with your kit lens will/should blow your mind (in favour of the prime) and even does so when compared to the pro 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom.

Rather than clutter your thread with large views of my images, please take a look at the following links which will show prime vs. zoom in a real world application... All were shot in studio conditions at the same shoot and all lenses are calibrated to the body.

24-70mm at 50mm

50mm prime

85mm prime

View these at full size and you should be able to see the difference in sharpness and image quality... if there is any...
 
Some good advise here, I have been wondering like the author do I need a prime lens, is a lot of 'I use primes' a bit of snobery, one up man ship . . . I'm going to stick with my Micro 4/3, 12-35 f2.8 for the time being. thanks for all the coments.
CJS
 
CJS said:
Some good advise here, I have been wondering like the author do I need a prime lens, is a lot of 'I use primes' a bit of snobery, one up man ship . . . I'm going to stick with my Micro 4/3, 12-35 f2.8 for the time being. thanks for all the coments.
CJS
Click to expand...
On a few occasions I think it could be, but in reality it's preference and the right tool for the job. I prefer the bokeh from primes, but rarely use them as for the shooting I do zooms are far more convenient. I need several different focal lengths and don't have the time (or inclination) to keep swapping lenses ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top