To Prime or not to Prime

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 8670
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 8670

Guest
I've been building up a basic backpack of gear for my amateur dabblings - primarily places, buildings, events, landscapes and dramatic postcardyness. After starting with the cheap stuff (D40 + basic short and long zooms), I've progressed on to mid-range zooms, and now have a 16-85 and 70-300 to go with my (hopefully) future-proof D300. My current lenses aren't fantastically sharp 'pro glass', nor are their apertures anything to whistle at, but I may come closer to that when the credit card has cooled down.

The idea now is to eventually end up with a good portable set of lenses for all my needs. I'm not interested in the big beast lenses because of the cost, size and weight. An amateur friend of mine is convinced that I need a prime lens, but I'm not so sure. His (valid) argument is that I don't have anything with a big aperture, but I'm having problems both seeing applications for such a lens and, which would potentially be the most use.

He argues that I might change my mind when I use one in earnest, after seeing the creative possibilities of the short DOF and the light grasp, but I can't say I'm keen on spending up to 300 quid on a paperweight for my backpack.

Can anyone advise on a long-term buying strategy?
 
why not try a basic 50mm prime whatever Nikons equiv to the 50mm 1.8 is it wont break the bank OR hire a prime from www.lenseforhire.co.uk and road test the possibilities. I love my 2 primes but my most used lens is a zoom.
 
Hi Yammer,
do yourself a favour, beg, borrow or rent some really high quality glass first..
I did the cheap zoom thing at first, now my 2 fave lenses are a nifty fifty F1.4 and a 85mm F1.8 soooo sharp, with creamy bokeh, the dof control is luvverly. If you can, try before you buy, If image quality is in any way important to you, you'll love the primes...:thumbs:

Doh ! typing too slow !
 
At least buy the 50mm f/1.8.
It's very cheap, good quality and you'll find yourself using it more than you'd think.

Even if you own good quality zooms and good quality primes of various focal lengths, it's great fun to put the 50mm f/1.8 on the camera and leave your house without anything else (apart from perhaps a t-shirt and shorts.)
 
I use mainly my prime, the 400mm f4 they make you think a little more about what your doing rather then zooms.
 
Thanks for all your comments. No one has mentioned applications for different focal lengths yet - I'm still trying to work out what I need them for.
 
You can spend less than a tenth of that £300 if you're prepared to focus manually and buy 2nd-hand.

Virtually all macro lenses are good. You can use a 90mm for macro, portraits and some landscape work.
 
Yammer, a 50mm is a reasonably useful walkabout lens but can sometimes be a tiny bit long if your camera has a 1.6 crop sensor, never the less it's a good one to have.

For portraiture an 80mm lens is good since it produces the most accurate/flattering perspective.

For Landscape, either of the above but also wider (30mm) and longer (100-150mm) can be good.

Generally prime lenses offer much better quality for the money but at the expense of convenience. I have a German friend who uses nothing but primes, he reckons his feet are the best zoom available.
 
To my mind, the main advantage of fast glass is DOF control. This allows you to isolate subjects and do artsy stuff; you have to try it to see I guess. It also gives you options for night shooting, indoor and outdoor, that even a 2.8 wouldn't. For examples look at the Sigma 30mm group on flickr.

Primes are no longer better than zooms for sharpness but they may have better tone and range. Btw don't underestimate the gear you have. At many lengths the 16-85mm is as sharp as any lens Nikkor makes.
 
If you cannot afford top class zooms, primes will give you the best quality available. However, if you can afford super-duper zooms, you may consider getting them; you will need to carry less tubes of glass ;) around and you will find it more flexible.

Another plus is less cr*p on your sensor (cameras LOVE to suck dust, at least my S5 loves it when I am changing my primes :)

I use prime lenses in the studio (mainly 50mm and 85mm). But I am thinking about selling them. I need speed and flexibility... But here comes the price thing... Cruel world.
 
I thought I ought to update this topic with my own findings, six months down the line.

Besides the 16-85 & 70-300, I bought two more lenses: a Sigma EX 10-20 DC and a Nikon 50 f/1.8 D.

I was impressed with the Sigma lens. It's nice and sharp and well-built, but not really up to Nikon standard in colour and contrast. While I've had good fun with this lens, it never stays on for long, as it's really a wide-only lens.

I was looking forward to a bit of creative DoF with the 50mm, but initial results were poor. I soon realised that the lens AF was front-focussing, and set the D300 to compensate, with better results. Again, I've had some fun with this lens, which has been especially useful in limited light, but I noticed quite unpleasant fringing (compared with my other lenses), which has a big impact on image quality.

Carrying a D300 and four lenses around has created its own problems. I'm now on my third camera bag. The backpack was too sweaty and slow to access. The shoulder bag was too bulky. Now I have a sling bag which slides from front to back and is only about 15cm thick.

So, now I'm going backwards, and trying to cut down the number of lenses I carry! The 50mm went back in its box, and I'm not sure that carrying three zooms around most of yesterday was much fun.

Okay, not necessarily the most interesting thing you've read today, but I wanted to impart some personal experience for people who are now where I was six months ago.
 
Yammer said:
Can anyone advise on a long-term buying strategy?
Click to expand...

If I was still living in the UK, the following gentleman would be having a fair few calls from me:

www.lensesforhire.co.uk

The chap who runs the place is also a member here, his name is Stewart, send him a PM about various prime lenses.

The prices are more than agreeable.

I have a 50mm f/1.4 and it's a wonderful lens, razor sharp wide open and produces fantastic I.Q
In future I plan on picking up an 85mm f/1.4, that's a stunner.

All the best

P.S I'm doing my regular back maintenance, breaks and stretches just as you advised ;)

Tyke
 
Yammer said:
Carrying a D300 and four lenses around has created its own problems. I'm now on my third camera bag. The backpack was too sweaty and slow to access. The shoulder bag was too bulky. Now I have a sling bag which slides from front to back and is only about 15cm thick.
Click to expand...

I rarely take all my lenses everywhere with me.
I find having a think about what I want to shoot and caterihng for that is best - then bung in either a short zoom or a prime for anything else that may come up.
 
I've just re-read this thread, I started over three years ago, and I think it's interesting what I was thinking then, and what I've learned since.

I peaked at 7 lenses: four zooms (16-85, 70-300, 12-24 & 24-70) and three primes (50, 35 & 24). I have since sold the 24mm, and only use the 16-85 when I need to travel light.

I have a fear of being caught out without the right lens, so I tend to take too many with me. Fortunately, my camera bag (a Tamrac Velocity) makes light work of carrying them, due to its low profile. My walkabout kit includes a three-lens zoom range covering 12-300mm. I also often carry a 50mm f/1.4, which is small, light and inconspicuous.

The epiphany for me was replacing the Sigma 10-20 with the Nikon 12-24. I found the seemingly small change made a big difference. I apparently use the 20-24mm range a lot, and I could keep the 12-24 on camera for much longer.

I bought the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 second hand. It cost more than my camera did new. It is incredibly sharp, and the shallow depth of field it can produce is very professional-looking. Unfortunately, it's huge and weighs a ton. I keep thinking I'll sell it, and then it impresses me again. It's a love/hate thing.

The 70-300 has had long service now, and occasionally lets me down. The f/5.6 aperture restricts it a bit, and it suffers from a mediocre sharpness hit rate at max length. On the plus side, it's easy to carry, and when it works well it's great. It's my least-used lens, so I don't feel like I need to replace it any time soon.

I haven't made a major change to my kit for 18 months, so I seem to have struck the right balance for my photography. I did consider going full-frame for a while, but the thought of having to change my lenses again put a stop to that. The last time I spent a wad was to buy a u4/3 camera with a pancake lens, for when I didn't want to carry the packpack.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yammer said:
I've just re-read this thread, I started over three years ago, and I think it's interesting what I was thinking then, and what I've learned since.

I peaked at 7 lenses: four zooms (16-85, 70-300, 12-24 & 24-70) and three primes (50, 35 & 24). I have since sold the 24mm, and only use the 16-85 when I need to travel light.

I have a fear of being caught out without the right lens, so I tend to take too many with me. Fortunately, my camera bag (a Tamrac Velocity) makes light work of carrying them, due to its low profile. My walkabout kit includes a three-lens zoom range covering 12-300mm. I also often carry a 50mm f/1.4, which is small, light and inconspicuous.

The epiphany for me was replacing the Sigma 10-20 with the Nikon 12-24. I found the seemingly small change made a big difference. I apparently use the 20-24mm range a lot, and I could keep the 12-24 on camera for much longer.

I bought the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 second hand. It cost more than my camera did new. It is incredibly sharp, and the shallow depth of field it can produce is very professional-looking. Unfortunately, it's huge and weighs a ton. I keep thinking I'll sell it, and then it impresses me again. It's a love/hate thing.

The 70-300 has had long service now, and occasionally lets me down. The f/5.6 aperture restricts it a bit, and it suffers from a mediocre sharpness hit rate at max length. On the plus side, it's easy to carry, and when it works well it's great. It's my least-used lens, so I don't feel like I need to replace it any time soon.

I haven't made a major change to my kit for 18 months, so I seem to have struck the right balance for my photography. I did consider going full-frame for a while, but the thought of having to change my lenses again put a stop to that. The last time I spent a wad was to buy a u2/3 camera with a pancake lens, for when I didn't want to carry the packpack.
Click to expand...

Likewise to OP, started with D90 and Nikon 16-85, Nikon 35, Nikon 50 as well as Nikon 70 - 300. But after D300 and Nikon 24-70, have sold all other lens except 70-300. Very happy with D300/24-70 combination and after a recent trip to Scotland, even thinking of selling my recently acquired Tokina 11-16.

With your lens collection, its not that difficult to migrate to full frame as you already have 24-70 and 70-300:thumbs:

Kemp
 
raj_kemp said:
With your lens collection, its not that difficult to migrate to full frame as you already have 24-70 and 70-300:thumbs:
Click to expand...

True, but the changeover points would be different. At the moment they are 24mm and 70mm, which in FX terms are 36mm and 105mm. So, I think I'd have to also buy the 16-35mm f/4 (as a replacement for the 12-24mm). The 24-70mm would then only have 2/3 the reach, with a big overlap with the 16-35mm, and my telephoto would also only have 2/3 the reach ... see what I mean? :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top