August 27, 2014, 09:37:24 PM

Author Topic: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?  (Read 7267 times)

surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2220
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
    • View Profile
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2013, 12:45:08 PM »
A lens has little to do with taking better pictures as long as its the tight focal length.  The subject, composition and lighting are 99%.

+ 100 For me, Dear Teacher, Mr. Mt Spokane.
Yes, Sir, One of My Teacher " The PRO" use   1 time disposable  Kodak 35 mm  film camera,( $ 5-7 US Dollars ?) 20 years ago , and shoot some scenery Views , and get the best Photos that I have ever seen.---Yes, Sir, It depend on  the Brain, Heart and the Skill of the person who press the shutter to create the masterpiece. The good/ great equipment will help/ support to get better one.
Have a great Weekend, Sir.
Surapon

surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2220
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
    • View Profile
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2013, 12:50:03 PM »
At this time of year I skim through the year´s production (November is cold, dark and wet). I normally end up concluding that I do better with primes. I think this is because I work more for each image. Zooms tend to make me a bit lazy, so instead of moving around as i should, I move by zooming. Normally I do best with the 35/1.4, 50/1.2 or 85/1.2.

But this year is different. I believe this year´s winners are the 24-70 f2.8L II, 70-200 f2.8L IS II and 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x. Maybe because they have prime lens optical quality and they are fast enough to give sufficiently shallow DOF when needed. The 85 1.2L II is still the portrait champ though and for long reach the 600 f4L rules.

Dear Mr. Eldar, Thanks you, Sir---I agree with you 1000%---Special " Zooms tend to make me a bit lazy, so instead of moving around as i should, I move by zooming. Normally I do best with the 35/1.4, 50/1.2 or 85/1.2.  "---Yes, Ha, Ha, Ha.
Thanks you, Sir.
Surapon

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1335
  • M.R.S. = my initials! www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2013, 12:51:50 PM »
A lens has little to do with taking better pictures as long as its the tight focal length.  The subject, composition and lighting are 99%.

+ 100 For me, Dear Teacher, Mr. Mt Spokane.
Yes, Sir, One of My Teacher " The PRO" use   1 time disposable  Kodak 35 mm  film camera,( $ 5-7 US Dollars ?) 20 years ago , and shoot some scenery Views , and get the best Photos that I have ever seen.---Yes, Sir, It depend on  the Brain, Heart and the Skill of the person who press the shutter to create the masterpiece. The good/ great equipment will help/ support to get better one.
Have a great Weekend, Sir.
Surapon

Guess at the cost of the equipment used to make this shot:  ;D
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000 | SY14 f/2.8, Ʃ20 f/1.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, Ʃ35 f/1.4A, 50 f/1.8 I, Ʃ50 f/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12 f/2, Ʃ19 & 30 f/2.8 EX DN, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, Metabones SB | FT-QL, AE-1P | FD(n) & FL lenses.

stringfellow1946

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
    • Chris Weston Photography
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2013, 01:08:13 PM »
NO! Why should they?
1DX, 1Dmk4, 1D2N, 8-15 f/4L, 16-35 f/2.8L, 24-70 f/2.8 II L, 24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8 is II L, 15 f/2.8 Fisheye, 35 f/1.4L, 50 f/2.5 macro, 85 f/1.8, 300 f/4 L.

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1037
    • View Profile
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2013, 01:11:13 PM »
I'm increasingly finding that a 'classic' combination of wide-to-normal primes and tele-zooms works best for me. Given enough light I like to work with my 24-105 though, especially for events and holidays. In any case it's December - dark and miserable, it's 'prime' season to get the most out of the little light available.

I agree with what others said: primes force you to think more about what you're doing. Beforehand, even. Good shots follow from good preparation.

Opposite for me. I need the sharpest possible telephotos for big cropping of nature photos, and zoom moderate wide to moderate teles for general carry around.
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2220
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
    • View Profile
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2013, 01:13:26 PM »
A lens has little to do with taking better pictures as long as its the tight focal length.  The subject, composition and lighting are 99%.

+ 100 For me, Dear Teacher, Mr. Mt Spokane.
Yes, Sir, One of My Teacher " The PRO" use   1 time disposable  Kodak 35 mm  film camera,( $ 5-7 US Dollars ?) 20 years ago , and shoot some scenery Views , and get the best Photos that I have ever seen.---Yes, Sir, It depend on  the Brain, Heart and the Skill of the person who press the shutter to create the masterpiece. The good/ great equipment will help/ support to get better one.
Have a great Weekend, Sir.
Surapon

Guess at the cost of the equipment used to make this shot:  ;D

Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear mrsfotografie.
I can not guess how much the cost of Camera to recorded this Photo, But I can see = By the Skill Photographer, Who Have the Artistic in mind with Composition( Semi-Rule of Thirds), and strong hands to not let the camera move, and get the Sharp -Details of the subject.
Thanks , if you tell me that you use Fuji Disposal Card Board Camera = $ 3-4 Dollars.
Surapon
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 01:43:37 PM by surapon »

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8446
    • View Profile
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2013, 01:45:42 PM »

Opposite for me. I need the sharpest possible telephotos for big cropping of nature photos, and zoom moderate wide to moderate teles for general carry around.

I think the distinction is better pictures versus sharper images.  I think of content when I hear better pictures, versus higher IQ or sharper images.  A sharp image of a poor subject, or poorly done one might be inferior to a good camera phone shot done well.  Given the exact same subject at the exact same distance, its still not clear if a prime would do better at f/8 or f/16.  There are too many variables that the OP has left for us to assume.

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4407
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2013, 01:54:31 PM »
When I use a zoom, I am aware that the laziness factor kicks in sometimes, and I take the easy road to composition by just twisting the zoom ring, rather than expending the extra effort by getting closer or lower. Do you find that to be the case with your personal shooting style?

Currently I'm using my 100L/2.8 on ff a lot because the dof is really a change from crop with 70-300L/4... but that's because of the different look and depth of field, not because zoom vs. prime even if it's easy to attribute the difference to this. And it's easier to develop gas when buying primes :-p

That's why I'd like to make a case for zooms: Once you realize you have to beat your laziness, they have distinct advantages:
  • zooms are quicker: When something happens unexpectedly, you will be too late with a prime (i.e. have to crop a lot or you're too near)
  • zooms can be more inconspicuous: When moving or crawling around the ground with a prime wildlife tends to be disturbed sooner or later unless you carefully set up the shot up front
  • zooms are cleaner: Changing primes a lot outdoors is a pita because of sensor dirt or humidity, you also need 3 hands to do it correctly
  • zooms let you frame better: If a part of the foreground is bothersome or the subject-background relation isn't what you want you can re-frame with a zoom, resulting in a better shot
  • zooms let you frame differently: you can quickly re-frame the shot for printing (more border) or screen viewing (different aspect ratios with space on different sides)
  • zooms are easier to carry around than 2-3 primes covering the same focal length, and the best lens is the one you have with you

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1457
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2013, 02:02:30 PM »
.
This seems overly arcane to me.

Sort of like asking if your food tastes better when you use a spoon instead of a fork!

I most agree with the comment about the need for good preparation. For me, I think through to the outcome I want, and then I pick the lens(es) I think will do the job.

Some lenses are just wrong in certain circumstances, no matter what.

For something concrete to discuss, how much different can a picture be with a Canon 40mm pancake vs a Canon 24-105mmL? The 40 will take you down to f/2.8, but that's only one stop off the f/4.0 of the zoom. And the zoom has IS while the pancake does not. I'm seeing few instances these days where the 40mm gets mounted to my 5D3. The 24-105 usually gives me adequate results -- and a lot more versatility.

Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

takesome1

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #24 on: December 07, 2013, 02:04:07 PM »

 
I think the distinction is better pictures versus sharper images.  I think of content when I hear better pictures, versus higher IQ or sharper images.

I think of all of these when someone says "better pictures". Making a "better picture" should include everything that goes in to creating an image.

The lenses are nothing but tools and primes can improve your image when its specialty is required.

Making an assumption of the OP's post, it appears he is noticing some of the things the primes are capable of. Perhaps he noticed this by accident, it doesn't mean that what he is seeing makes the prime superior in all situations. In reality zooms and primes both have unique abilities and recognizing those abilities help make a "better picture".

Side note, some of my favorite pictures have been taken with my iPhone. What I find unfortunate is that the images will not hold up to large print.

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1335
  • M.R.S. = my initials! www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2013, 02:11:36 PM »
A lens has little to do with taking better pictures as long as its the tight focal length.  The subject, composition and lighting are 99%.

+ 100 For me, Dear Teacher, Mr. Mt Spokane.
Yes, Sir, One of My Teacher " The PRO" use   1 time disposable  Kodak 35 mm  film camera,( $ 5-7 US Dollars ?) 20 years ago , and shoot some scenery Views , and get the best Photos that I have ever seen.---Yes, Sir, It depend on  the Brain, Heart and the Skill of the person who press the shutter to create the masterpiece. The good/ great equipment will help/ support to get better one.
Have a great Weekend, Sir.
Surapon

Guess at the cost of the equipment used to make this shot:  ;D

Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear mrsfotografie.
I can not guess how much the cost of Camera to recorded this Photo, But I can see = By the Skill Photographer, Who Have the Artistic in mind with Composition( Semi-Rule of Thirds), and strong hands to not let the camera move, and get the Sharp -Details of the subject.
Thanks , if you tell me that you use Fuji Disposal Card Board Camera = $ 3-4 Dollars.
Surapon

Not quite, but it is this, bought last week (new) for 69 euro (95USD):  ;D ;D ;D
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000 | SY14 f/2.8, Ʃ20 f/1.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, Ʃ35 f/1.4A, 50 f/1.8 I, Ʃ50 f/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12 f/2, Ʃ19 & 30 f/2.8 EX DN, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, Metabones SB | FT-QL, AE-1P | FD(n) & FL lenses.

surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2220
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
    • View Profile
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2013, 03:30:46 PM »
A lens has little to do with taking better pictures as long as its the tight focal length.  The subject, composition and lighting are 99%.

+ 100 For me, Dear Teacher, Mr. Mt Spokane.
Yes, Sir, One of My Teacher " The PRO" use   1 time disposable  Kodak 35 mm  film camera,( $ 5-7 US Dollars ?) 20 years ago , and shoot some scenery Views , and get the best Photos that I have ever seen.---Yes, Sir, It depend on  the Brain, Heart and the Skill of the person who press the shutter to create the masterpiece. The good/ great equipment will help/ support to get better one.
Have a great Weekend, Sir.
Surapon

Guess at the cost of the equipment used to make this shot:  ;D

Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear mrsfotografie.
I can not guess how much the cost of Camera to recorded this Photo, But I can see = By the Skill Photographer, Who Have the Artistic in mind with Composition( Semi-Rule of Thirds), and strong hands to not let the camera move, and get the Sharp -Details of the subject.
Thanks , if you tell me that you use Fuji Disposal Card Board Camera = $ 3-4 Dollars.
Surapon

Not quite, but it is this, bought last week (new) for 69 euro (95USD):  ;D ;D ;D

Wow, Wow, Wow----- Same As my Dear Teacher SAID,  The Great Photos are created from the Heart, Thew Brain and the Skill of that Photographer.
Thanbkssssss.
Surapon

cellomaster27

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 157
  • Capture the moment!
    • View Profile
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2013, 04:14:33 PM »
Man, not gonna include any quotes because I agree with too many people here. But I want to say a few things..

The occasion determines zooms or primes. If you're dealing with fast moving subjects vs studio, you maybe want zooms. Oh and I am a strong advocate for primes! I've used my 28mm all day on a shoot before. Usually, because it's later in the day. Also, I feel like the IQ is so much better and sharper. Having the option of wider apertures is a major plus of course. Yes you have to move around for the framing but I don't know, for me that's the fun part. Main issue is not being wide enough. I think that the reason behind sharp primes is that it doesn't zoom and all that glass is focused on one focal length so the IQ is not compromised.

If you have a nice zoom, by all means use it. But I can get some excellent photos with a prime or two. I don't have to change too much either. Again, it's usually not being wide enough.  Anyways, I like this topic. Happy shooting!
Canon stuff

candc

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
    • View Profile
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2013, 04:27:12 PM »
a good zoom will give you what you are looking for in most cases but just as some others have posted you should think about what you want to do first and then set the zoom to that. if you want to isolate your subject then zoom to the long end and step back, if you want the exaggerated perspective then zoom short and move closer. if you know your zoom is only good at certain focal lengths then use it there and just zoom around if there is no other way.

i guess if you are shooting in one type of scenario and you know what that is going to be ahead of time then a prime is better but if i am going to go for a walk in the woods and just carry the camera then i want a zoom on it.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3011
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Do You Take Better Pics with Primes?
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2013, 04:56:31 PM »
A lens has little to do with taking better pictures as long as its the tight focal length.  The subject, composition and lighting are 99%.

+ 100 For me, Dear Teacher, Mr. Mt Spokane.
Yes, Sir, One of My Teacher " The PRO" use   1 time disposable  Kodak 35 mm  film camera,( $ 5-7 US Dollars ?) 20 years ago , and shoot some scenery Views , and get the best Photos that I have ever seen.---Yes, Sir, It depend on  the Brain, Heart and the Skill of the person who press the shutter to create the masterpiece. The good/ great equipment will help/ support to get better one.
Have a great Weekend, Sir.
Surapon

Guess at the cost of the equipment used to make this shot:  ;D

Ha, Ha, Ha, Dear mrsfotografie.
I can not guess how much the cost of Camera to recorded this Photo, But I can see = By the Skill Photographer, Who Have the Artistic in mind with Composition( Semi-Rule of Thirds), and strong hands to not let the camera move, and get the Sharp -Details of the subject.
Thanks , if you tell me that you use Fuji Disposal Card Board Camera = $ 3-4 Dollars.
Surapon

Not quite, but it is this, bought last week (new) for 69 euro (95USD):  ;D ;D ;D

Wow, Wow, Wow----- Same As my Dear Teacher SAID,  The Great Photos are created from the Heart, Thew Brain and the Skill of that Photographer.
Thanbkssssss.
Surapon

But you NEED! a $10,000 lens and a 1DX to keep up with exciting action.... like sleeping cats :)
The best camera is the one in your hands