Prime lens users - your thoughts

teddyt72

teddyt72

Suspended / Banned
Messages
367
Name
Eddie
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Dumb Monday morning question time! :cuckoo:

It's a question about people's use of prime lenses... So I get that that they're generally better in terms quality vs a zoom lens, but I'm intrigued as to how most people use them and in what situations.

I'm sure there are many answers to this question, but here are some use cases I can think of... do you...

- Use zoom for walk around and have primes in the bag for anything that comes up which you have time to prepare for and for which a prime would fit the bill (would lead to a lot of lens changes!)

- Use zoom for walk around and take primes solely when on “specialist assignments” where you know what focal length you’ll need, e.g. doing a portrait shoot, or indoor gig where you’ll need the fast aperture

- Use primes only, even when just “wandering around” and just make compromises in terms of focal length. Maybe some people don’t do “random” photography and have more defined styles and subject matter and so primes are better for them?

The reason I’m asking is that I’ve recently upgraded to a 5D and until I can afford a 24-105 (I’m not here to discuss the pros and cons of that lens choice, so let’s not open that one up!) I’m using the 50mm 1.4 along with my 70-300 when needed. I’ve found the 50mm fun to use and good for more than I imagined, but I’m also aware that I’ve missed shots where I needed wider, or fancied a bit more reach or to flatten perspective (when I didn’t have my tele with me).

Maybe my situation is that a lot of the photography I do could be classed as “travel” photography, even though I’m not abroad. I.e. I mainly just wander around London with my camera or take it on weekends away.

Anyway, bit of a rant but keen to know what your thoughts are on uses, limitations and advice on how and when to use prime lenses.

Cheers,
Eddie.
 
- Use primes only, even when just “wandering around” and just make compromises in terms of focal length. Maybe some people don’t do “random” photography and have more defined styles and subject matter and so primes are better for them?

This one covers me. I only own primes now other than a 70-300. The 70-300 rarely gets used. I probably don't go out with the DSLR that much without a clear objective in mind (have an X100 for that, no zoom, go figure! ). So a typical scenario for me might be going out to take a landscape or city scape. I'd probably have the 28mm on my camera, with a 20mm and a 50mm in my bag. If I was going to be shooting people, I'd probably have an 85mm on the camera with a 50mm in my bag, if indoors, probably the 50mm on the camera. Funnily enough, despite the 50mm being the most versatile prime I own, it actually gets the least use and by quite some margin.
 
It really as all about how you see the world.

I use primes alot, as I still shoot alot of film and all my medium format use prime lens. Also have prime glass from 35mm stuff that I use on digital as well.

If you are used to using zooms then moving to primes will I think be tricky because you will see things you want to shoot but can't zoom in.

I don't see primes a limitation I simply work around them and with them, plus for me the big thing they have is DOF scales so working out hyper focal distances is really easy, espically on the older lens.
 
gad-westy said:
- Use primes only, even when just “wandering around” and just make compromises in terms of focal length. Maybe some people don’t do “random” photography and have more defined styles and subject matter and so primes are better for them?

This one covers me. I only own primes now other than a 70-300. The 70-300 rarely gets used. I probably don't go out with the DSLR that much without a clear objective in mind (have an X100 for that, no zoom, go figure! ). So a typical scenario for me might be going out to take a landscape or city scape. I'd probably have the 28mm on my camera, with a 20mm and a 50mm in my bag. If I was going to be shooting people, I'd probably have an 85mm on the camera with a 50mm in my bag, if indoors, probably the 50mm on the camera. Funnily enough, despite the 50mm being the most versatile prime I own, it actually gets the least use and by quite some margin.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I have a Panny GF3 + 14mm pancake as my "compact" camera for when I'm out and don't want the DSLR, I'd forgotten about that aspect too. I guess it's similar to the X100 as provides good quality in a small package.

Interesting that you rarely go out without an objective in mind - I wonder if that's the case for a lot of people on here? Maybe I should try that :bonk:

I find your 50mm comment interesting. I actually think I'd also maybe prefer a 28mm as a prime walkaround (so similar to my GF3 setup) since for city scapes/ street photography it's probably a better focal range.
 
Knikki said:
It really as all about how you see the world.

I use primes alot, as I still shoot alot of film and all my medium format use prime lens. Also have prime glass from 35mm stuff that I use on digital as well.

If you are used to using zooms then moving to primes will I think be tricky because you will see things you want to shoot but can't zoom in.

I don't see primes a limitation I simply work around them and with them, plus for me the big thing they have is DOF scales so working out hyper focal distances is really easy, espically on the older lens.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I did start on film with a 50mm prime but it wasn't long before I got a 350D and so now I guess I've got used to the convenience of a zoom.

Maybe I just need to hone my style a bit more and go out with specific assignments in mind and use a prime that's suitable for that. Although that'd mean buying a bunch of primes I can't afford right now!

Or maybe I'll just be happy with the versatility of a zoom until I figure out what exactly I'm doing this photography lark for :lol:
 
teddyt72 said:
Interesting that you rarely go out without an objective in mind - I wonder if that's the case for a lot of people on here? Maybe I should try that :bonk:
Click to expand...

I never used to be like that but since having our first kid a year ago, I have less time generally for photography so I'm rarely just out wandering around with the camera any more. If I do get the chance to go out, I like to make the most of it now and have a fairly clear plan of where I'm going and what shot/s I'm after. Just a lifestyle thing more than any kind of artistic objective.

teddyt72 said:
I find your 50mm comment interesting. I actually think I'd also maybe prefer a 28mm as a prime walkaround (so similar to my GF3 setup) since for city scapes/ street photography it's probably a better focal range.
Click to expand...

I use the 28mm on full frame so it's pretty wide. Great for landscapes but not so great for portraits. I don't do street stuff as such but I could see that focal length working in some scenarios. 35mm could also work well but I can't afford Nikon's 1.4 version :(
 
Its a compromise between a prime and a zoom. OK I mainly used mine prime lenses for action photography, motorsport and aviation and yes there are times when the mind switches off and said, I would have loved a zoom in that situation, but, big but, for my photography, you ask someone with a zoom whether they zoomed in and out when the action was happening or just set the zoom to a range and took the shots and majority would say that they didn't move the zoom.

Yes I would love a 100-400mm f4 or f2.8 but how much would that cost and would I use the 100-350mm range as often as I use 400mm.

A prime makes you think more about the shot you are taking, if you need more reach you move closer to the subject, if you want wide you more away, you are the zoom. I think a prime lens make you a better photographer because you're thinking about composition etc because you are limited in terms of flexibility you become more creative with your shots.
 
teddyt72 said:
- Use zoom for walk around and have primes in the bag for anything that comes up which you have time to prepare for and for which a prime would fit the bill (would lead to a lot of lens changes!)
Click to expand...

I guess this is the closest to my use - I tend to have a 24-70 f/2.8 as my general purpose lens, with a 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 as my fast primes.

I do find the 85 f/1.4 gets a lot more use than the 50 f/1.4, as it offers both more reach and a wider aperture - if I've got the 24-70 on and want 50mm, I'll often be happy with f/2.8 and the flexibility of the zoom.
 
Sometimes I agree with the "Primes make you a better tog as they force you to think and move your feet", sometimes that's just not practical. For example I went to Richmond park last sunday (some example pics here of what I came back with. Even though I wasn't rushed for time I occasionally found the 50mm (on full frame) restrictive. I got my tele out for the deer shots, but I didn't really get any landscape shots I was happy with. If I had a wide angle I could have got some really nice shots in amongst the tree canpoes but as it was I couldn't seem to get what I wanted and couldn't step back 'cos there were trees in the way! Maybe I could get a 20mm prime, but I imagine a decent (L or Nikon equivalent) zoom would have worked as well and given me more flexibility.
 
So yeah, maybe a 20mm prime and 400mm prime would have been all I needed in Richmond park. I guess it comes down to knowing what your photography style is and what you'll want to shoot and assessing if there is a prime that would fit that requirement. If you're not always sure what you'll need to shoot, a zoom is the compromise.
 
It just depends on what you shoot zooms are more flexible for me as I do mainly Zoo and wildlife photographpy and the subjects can be varied :)
I think for most people zooms are perfectly Ok as the quality of zooms like for example the Canon 70-200 and 100-400 are really excellent:)
Where I see the advantage in when shooting in low light or when wanting a narrow depth of field, I wish I could afford the Canon 400mm F2.8:)
I agree with Pete about fixed focal lengths making you think more about what you are shooting tho:)
 
Last edited:
teddyt72 said:
- Use primes only, even when just “wandering around” and just make compromises in terms of focal length. Maybe some people don’t do “random” photography and have more defined styles and subject matter and so primes are better for them?
Click to expand...


This is me.
I made the decision to go down the primes route mainly for the increase in quality of a prime over zoom, despite the excellent quality of modern zooms.
My main interest is portraits, so my kit reflects that. I have a 50 f1.8G, 85 f1.4 manual focus, a 105mm f2.8, and a 135 f2 DC for that. I also have a Nikon 80-200 f2.8, which I rarely find myself using any more.

Although my go-to lens is my 135mm, I have plenty of options when it comes to other focal lengths if I need a certain "look" or picture style, so I don't think your comment on "making compromises" holds true for me.(Although it may mean compromising for others)

I find using primes does make me think more about the shot, not only from a composition point of view, but also the amount and type of bokeh I'm after, and the amount of "flattening of perspective" I need to achieve the look I'm after.
 
I only use my 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and I don't find it restrictive at all. That's for what I shoot though, I would struggle with sports or wildlife obviously.

In fact I find the max aperture of a lens more restrictive than focal length. I would take 1.4 or 1.2 over f2.8 any day.

What ever the scene is in front of me, I have 3 different ways to capture it, and I work to capture it the best way I can from those options available to me. This also means I know what the composition will be before I hold the camera up to my eye.

I'll admit, decent zooms are fantastic and convenient, but for me shooting with primes is much more fun. :)
 
I have one camera, an X100, so don't have any choice. I bought it knowing that clearly!

I take photos of anything I fancy (very random) and enjoy not even having to think about focal length or lens. I find a widish prime (as per X100) to be a very useful all round length but obviously it is a bit limited for small, far away things!
 
As I mainly shoot sports I find a zoom works best. I always carry a prime with me though (usually 85mm) just for when a fixed focal length is useful ie boxing.
 
I only have one prime which is a 30mm f1.4; I use this predominantly for night work and tend to rely upon zooms for everything else. It's quite light so tends to normally be in the bag but I've never actually found a specific need for it that I can't do with a zoom, during the day.

That's mainly because of the type of photography I do though; I think as others have said that's what it boils down to for the most part.
 
I've often thought of going all primes, but I know I'd miss having zooms in the bag. It doesn't matter how you prepare or plan for any photo-outing, something will always pop up that makes you wish you had a zoom on you. A couple of small primes and the 70-200 would be a good mix up, but that defeats the purpose of lightening the load, as the 70-200 is the heaviest lens I own. I have the 24-70, a 50mm and 105micro besides. And I know that any time I left the 105 at home I came across something I wished I could get a close up of. If I leave the zoom behind I'll spot something in the distance ...
 
I always have the wrong lens on, no matter what it is!
just got the nikon 50mm 1.8g, love the lens, but all the photos I wanted to take lately need either my 10-25mm or 500mm mirror :'(

what i really need is a 10-400 f1.2 zoom weighing less than 200g:nuts:
 
teddyt72 said:
It's a question about people's use of prime lenses... So I get that that they're generally better in terms quality vs a zoom lens,...
Click to expand...

I mostly use primes but IMVHO zooms are perfectly good enough. Didn't a wise man say years ago that lens sharpness wasn't an issue?

I mostly buy on specification and after that the look that the lens gives. For example if I'm looking for a f1.4 lens my only choice is a prime lens and if choosing between two primes I'll probably go for the one that gives what I think is the nicer looking bokeh. Other than that, I'll probably take into account the size, weight and even how nice the lens looks, feels and is to use. Sharpness is way down on my list as I believe that the vast majority of lenses are plenty sharp enough and focus speed isn't really that important to me either but I do like USM/HSM for the ability to alter focus manually when in AF mode.
 
Last edited:
I use wide-ish primes almost exclusively as I generally use large and medium format cameras, and prefer landscape type stuff where I dont need to use zooms. All I need now is a decent 20, 24 or 28mm prime for my Nikon and I am set.
 
I like a prime as it's discreet, light and does the job. As I mainly shoot street then a 50mm prime is ideal, but I can see that primes might not always suit everyone.
 
iamchrisphoto said:
I only use my 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and I don't find it restrictive at all. That's for what I shoot though, I would struggle with sports or wildlife obviously.

In fact I find the max aperture of a lens more restrictive than focal length. I would take 1.4 or 1.2 over f2.8 any day.

What ever the scene is in front of me, I have 3 different ways to capture it, and I work to capture it the best way I can from those options available to me. This also means I know what the composition will be before I hold the camera up to my eye.

I'll admit, decent zooms are fantastic and convenient, but for me shooting with primes is much more fun. :)
Click to expand...

and a great job you do with them looking at your flickr, nice. Can I ask what PP approach you use? They all have a nice dreamy look about them - is that a lightroom preset, or just a technique I haven't yet discovered?
 
Cagey75 said:
I've often thought of going all primes, but I know I'd miss having zooms in the bag. It doesn't matter how you prepare or plan for any photo-outing, something will always pop up that makes you wish you had a zoom on you. A couple of small primes and the 70-200 would be a good mix up, but that defeats the purpose of lightening the load, as the 70-200 is the heaviest lens I own. I have the 24-70, a 50mm and 105micro besides. And I know that any time I left the 105 at home I came across something I wished I could get a close up of. If I leave the zoom behind I'll spot something in the distance ...
Click to expand...

Yeah I think I agree with this for now. If I only had a very specific task in mind and absolutely had to have the best image, I'd stick with primes only. But given that I don't take things super serious - I'm happy with the flexibility of a zoom, but with a few primes for fun.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
When I'm out with the family, I've started using primes a bit more recently due mainly to portability. Taking out a 50mm on the camera and maybe a 20mm and / or a 35mm in a pocket is just easier than carrying my 28-70 F2.8 on the body.
Click to expand...

I can see this argument too. I'm just embarking on full frame and L lens zoom so I'm sure there will be times when I'll opt for the lighter prime option.
 
Interesting thread this...
For me, primes are not about sharpness - they are about big apertures.
I have a 135mm f2 and a 50mm f1.4 and rarely stop them down.
Their sharpness wide open is acceptable, not stellar - but that's missing the point!

Here's an example from last weekend where the background distraction would have killed the shot without the shallow DoF magic from the big aperture only available on prime lenses.
20121117-111724-I39A6320-M.jpg


I also have a 24mm TSE II, it's a prime lens out of necessity.
I have it for the tilt/shift tricks, usually huge DoF.
Being a super sharp prime lens is of secondary importance.
20121006-174112-I39A4429-M.jpg
 
teddyt72 said:
I can see this argument too. I'm just embarking on full frame and L lens zoom so I'm sure there will be times when I'll opt for the lighter prime option.
Click to expand...

I've been lugging a full frame DSLR round for nearly 4 years, wish I'd got some primes earlier on. While the zooms I have are outstanding (28-70 and 16-35 Nikkors), and I wouldn't be without them, I only tend to bring them out now for when I'm doing 'serious' photography, which is lamentably infrequently these days:'( However, I do enjoy using the primes on my D700 or my film SLR's, now that I have a family, far more compact and discrete than the zooms. Not sure the image quality is significantly better though.
 
teddyt72 said:
and a great job you do with them looking at your flickr, nice. Can I ask what PP approach you use? They all have a nice dreamy look about them - is that a lightroom preset, or just a technique I haven't yet discovered?
Click to expand...

Thanks. :)

Yeah, it's mostly done using the contrast/blacks sliders, custom curves and split toning in Lightroom. I've made myself 3 presets, 1 B&W, 2 colour, and then tweak for each photo.
 
Ironically, the only people mentioning sharpness as a factor are those who say it's not important.

I rarely ever think "this prime will be sharper than my zoom" because the zooms i use are more than sharp enough. On Dx my17-50 replaced a 35 & 50mm, sold them because they weren't getting any use.

Primes are all about a feel, certain look/bokeh, space saving , lighter weight (usually) and often saving money.
 
iamchrisphoto said:
Thanks. :)

Yeah, it's mostly done using the contrast/blacks sliders, custom curves and split toning in Lightroom. I've made myself 3 presets, 1 B&W, 2 colour, and then tweak for each photo.
Click to expand...

Hmm, shall have to have a play. Thanks.
 
I prefer almost everything about the top primes. The only thing I'd change about the new Nikon G primes are the build quality. It's expensive, but if you want the top IQ it is the way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top