Primes primes primes

paleblue

paleblue

Suspended / Banned
Messages
705
Name
Rick
Edit My Images
No
Recently, I've become a fan of using primes. Although it is only a nifty fifty 1.8, and a sigma 105 macro - which I also occasionally use for close portraits or short telephoto - and I don't know what it is but I just prefer using them over zooms. You can get a wider aperture, it's usually lighter than a zoom equivalent, and the image quality speaks for itself.

I just want to know if anyone who uses only primes regrets not having zoom lenses, as in the future I would like to shoot only primes. Possible wish list is (once I upgrade to a full frame):
24mm 1.4L
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
200mm 2.8L

Bear in mind I am a poor student,so can't afford i.e. 70-200 IS 2.8. Would I be too restricted? I don't mind running back and forth to get desired focal lengths :nuts:
 
Just remember buying multiple cheaper primes can sometimes cost as much as buying one L glass zoom which will cover more range and be more versatile. don't go the prime route to save cash do it to improve your images...
 
I rarely use zooms now. the 400 and the 135 primes are the one i use 99% of the time, some situations i miss the versatility of zooms but not many.


For you the answer will really depend on what you want to shoot but with the primes you list you would have good options for Landscapes (24mm) Portraits, product photography (50 and 85) and sports and some wildlife (200mm) the 200 would also handle a teleconvertor better than a zoom with a similar reach eg the 70-200mm you mentioned.

Cheers

Andy
 
im on primes at the moment but not had a chance to use them for very long, ill let you know once get a bit more time but first impressions are good-i think its a personal thing though.

got a 35 f2, 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8

EDIT:
don't go the prime route to save cash do it to improve your images...
Click to expand...

completely agree, i paid the same for 2 primes as selling my f2.8 50-150 it was purely an image criteria
 
My zooms rarely see the light of day now and I get much more enjoyment that way.

Bob
 
wow im amazed at the prime users, i knew there would be a few primes in our bag but pretty much all of you use primes in your daily life. i want to try primes because of image quality, costant apertures, price and best of all compactness, ive realised that in a camera bag one lens section can hold about 3 primes compared to one lens.
 
I am always amazed by the quality of my primes, I tend to favour primes over zooms in most situations, although there are times when a zoom is handy too.

So in summing up my ramblings, I prefer primes but still use zooms every now and again. So I guess I use both then :thinking:
 
I have 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 primes and an 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom. The zoom is my least used lens tbh.
 
Don't forget the older primes off ebay too. Look in the completed list and you will be amazed at the prices that some quality glass goes for especially if you don't mind manual focus. I prefer primes too having a Nikon AF 50 f1.8 and Nikon AFS 105 f2.8 plus I'm getting a Sigma 20mm f1.8 shortly 2nd hand. You get far more speed for your money and the image quality is much higher, again for the money.
 
cowasaki said:
Don't forget the older primes off ebay too. Look in the completed list and you will be amazed at the prices that some quality glass goes for especially if you don't mind manual focus. I prefer primes too having a Nikon AF 50 f1.8 and Nikon AFS 105 f2.8 plus I'm getting a Sigma 20mm f1.8 shortly 2nd hand. You get far more speed for your money and the image quality is much higher, again for the money.
Click to expand...

Sssshhhhhhhhhhh.............:bat:

Keep that to yourself..........:)
 
onform said:
Just remember buying multiple cheaper primes can sometimes cost as much as buying one L glass zoom which will cover more range and be more versatile. don't go the prime route to save cash do it to improve your images...
Click to expand...

Oh yes it's totally about the image quality, I just wanted to put the statement about the 70-200 just incase someone said "instead of getting the 200mm 2.8 why not just get the 70-200 2.8"

It's good to hear your responses. Sounds like a viable option to go all primes. Another thing is I actually prefer running in close to get a shot, or taking a few steps back rather than standing in the same spot twisting the barrel. I don't know why.

24mm: Landscape and venues (bars/gigs), wide street
50mm & 85mm: Portrait, weddings, live music, street. Also product phtgrphy for the company i work for.
200mm: Astrophotography and general sport and wildlife
 
paleblue said:
24mm: Landscape and venues (bars/gigs), wide street
50mm & 85mm: Portrait, weddings, live music, street. Also product phtgrphy for the company i work for.
200mm: Astrophotography and general sport and wildlife
Click to expand...

Looks like a 135mm prime would fit in nicely. :D
 
cowasaki said:
Don't forget the older primes off ebay too. Look in the completed list and you will be amazed at the prices that some quality glass goes for especially if you don't mind manual focus. I prefer primes too having a Nikon AF 50 f1.8 and Nikon AFS 105 f2.8 plus I'm getting a Sigma 20mm f1.8 shortly 2nd hand. You get far more speed for your money and the image quality is much higher, again for the money.
Click to expand...

You're right, actually I have been looking at old Takumars (pentax fit) and lenses like the helios 44. I am just concerned about fungus on older lenses, but will hopefully get one or two in the future. The MF may be a little difficult in low light, but generally I get on well with it - especially with the sigma 105, it has rubbish AF!
 
It's good to hear your responses. Sounds like a viable option to go all primes. Another thing is I actually prefer running in close to get a shot, or taking a few steps back rather than standing in the same spot twisting the barrel. I don't know why
Click to expand...

This will also improve you as a photographer because it forces you to think far more about you composition.

You get far more speed for your money and the image quality is much higher, again for the money
Click to expand...

This is the reason i sold the 70-200 2.8 as for sports i found most of the time i was keeping it at between 100 and 130 and with the 135 being f/2 you have more room to manouvre in poor lighting
 
At work I often have to take shots in low light so out comes the cheapest lens! AF 50mm f1.8........ the dog's left one.
 
while my bank account recovers from the initial spendings
Click to expand...

Its ok you get used to that feeling and it goes away after a while :D(at least thats what i keep telling myself :bonk:)
 
Have a look here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

Lots and lots and lots of reading and mostly very objective and balanced opinions too.

Enjoy!:thumbs:

Apart from IQ, most worthwhile primes are faster than f/2.8 which is the standard for good constant zooms. Excellent for low light and AF works better due to the huge hole in the lens:D
 
I just sold four primes and bought one zoom plus a set of tubes.

The major benefit of primes is a low f/number, if you want that for shallow depth of field, or low light. I tend not to want very shallow DoF and am happy to raise the ISO if I need that extra stop in low light, or use flash. Personal thing I guess.

If it's shallow DoF you want, then it makes sense to go primes on full frame. Full frame gives you over a stop less DoF than crop, f/number for f/number. You only get half the deal on crop.

I find I get better pictures with a zoom, as I can choose the best shooting distance for perspective, then adjust the framing with the zoom. Unless you have a big bag of primes, you are stuck with only foot zoom, which is not as good.
 
I use only primes at the moment but will be getting my first zoom (other than the kit lens) for the long end.

The thing with primes is that you get a lot of performance for your cash, providing you can put up with moving around to get the shot a bit more. As already mentioned, if you buy primes to cover all focal lengths, it won't be much (if any) cheaper than a good zoom.

The 35mm f/2 is a great lens and pretty cheap. Fantastic for indoor shots, nice and sharp images with good colour. The 50mm f/1.4 USM is another gem but the Sigma version is worth a look if you're looking at using it wide open (where the Sigma is reportadly sharper than the Canon).

Then there's the glorious 85mm f/1.8 ISM. This would be my next lens but I may go for the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM instead to cover more at the long end (and to stop me paying a lot of two or three long primes!).

One thing to note is that the L's often don't give you the same value you get from non-L primes. They're often 3 or 4 times as expensive but don't give images even twice as good as the non-L version. Read this article for more weight to this argument:
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/a0101_Why_I_Diss_L_Lenses/a_Why_I_Diss_L_Lenses.html

George.
 
BadgerLover said:
....
One thing to note is that the L's often don't give you the same value you get from non-L primes. They're often 3 or 4 times as expensive but don't give images even twice as good as the non-L version....
Click to expand...

Price versus quality almost always results in an exponential relationship and it's the same with optical gear.

Bob
 
have both them ^ and 17-40 f/4L

just got my first prime, 400mm f/5.6L primarily for birdies + wildlife - lovely lens :)

drew
 
mixtures of both for me, i have the 50 1.4 and 150 2.8 siggy. Until recently i had the 85 1.8.

at the end of the month i have secured a 2nd hand 24-70 2.8 i also have the 70-200 2.8 siggy.

the primes are generally used on the film camera (lack of FF short zoom) and also when i have full control of the situation, i.e have room to suit the focal length, DOF is great on the primes as well especially when i want to get all arty farty.

zooms have their place when i have to travel light, events when i can just use the 1 or maybe 2 lenses. For holdiay they are great when i know i dont have a car to cart all the kit round etc...

I would like the 28mm 1.8 as well as the 135 f/2 but at the moment a 2nd body is more useful to me.
 
Not a Canon user, but just talking as a Sony user.

I guess it depends on whether you are switching to a prime for IQ, faster than f2.8 aperture, or for the fixed focal length/framing.

From an IQ point of view, the Sony CZ2470/2.8 gives 'prime' IQ from wide open (just like I'm sure the Canon and Nikon version does), colours are fantastic, so there is no advantage in switching to a prime just for the IQ.
 
I go to primes primarily for size, weight, speed, sharpness at low apertures compared to zooms and in my case price.

I'm a manual lens fan so I can get very high quality glass for a fraction of their AF counterparts.

Currently own a 28mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.4 and 200mm f/4. Also keeping my eye on a 35mm f/2, a 105mm f/2.8 and/or a 135mm f/2.5.
 
2Thumbs said:
Also keeping my eye on a 35mm f/2...
Click to expand...

This lens doesn't get anywhere near as much attention as it deserves. It really is fantastic, especially on a crop-sensor body where it's the equivalent of just over 50mm on a FF body. Small and light with incredible IQ considering the asking price of around £200. It is, however, well over-due for an upgrade.

It's the lens which is on my camera most of the time and if Canon get their act together and release a version with USM I'd upgrade to that in a second as the buzzy and slow AF is the only thing which annoys me about an otherwise stellar piece of glass.

George.
 
^^^ Sigma 30 1.4? I got one for all those reasons, but I just never used it in preference to my 17-55 2.8, as I hardly ever wanted f/1.4. It was a nice idea though :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top