I love Primes.
- Thread starter RLPhoto
- Start date
- Status
I love my primes. I do wish I had a full frame camera, though, because I would enjoy 35 more than my current 135 (with crop). The other two FLs overlap on either system (56 and 80 with crop, 50 and 85 without). The smaller depth of field would also be fun to take advantage of. That's not to say I haven't taken good pictures with them, or have not enjoyed using them, but 'the grass is always greener...'
Upvote
0
.
I like a good lens.
Whatever one gets the current job done is the one I love best for now.
That's why I have a camera that allows me to use different lenses.
I like a good lens.
Whatever one gets the current job done is the one I love best for now.
That's why I have a camera that allows me to use different lenses.
Upvote
0
As you can see from my sig I pretty much shoot exclusively with primes. The only zoom I have left is the old 16-35mm but with the ZE 21 on top of the 14mm it doesn't get much use anymore, but I do appreciate it's versatility. If all zooms performed like the 70-200 II I may consider ditching at least some of my primes, but unfortunately they dont..
Upvote
0
(disclaimer: skip to the bottom for my point)
the first bit of advice I ever got before I even purchased my first DSLR was to ditch the kit lens and buy prime lenses. I was all for it for a while. I got the 50mm 1.4 and eventually the 35mm 1.4L (which I use for my video work). BTW I'm on a 60D. Just before I purchased the 35L, I thought, "man, this is really gonna upgrade my photos". In a way, it did. Colors are awesome with this lens, control over DOF in video and stills is awesome, and on a crop, I feel it's a great all around focal length for my photography. I had the expectation that having an aperture this large would solve all my low light problems but unfortunately it didn't. I still feel the strain on my 60D and it's high ISO noise limits. This forced me to look at my technique and eventually learn more/better ways to use my flash(es) (onboard, 430ex ii, and 600ex-rt). When flashes are used well, I can get pictures to look more like the way I see them in my head but the metering in my camera is now useless. My shadows are more interesting and I feel like I can create "moods" with my pictures using bounce flash and some OCF tricks. If I'm using a flash, I don't need as wide of an aperture that primes offer so I went back to my 24-105L. Maybe this will all change again when I upgrade to a full frame camera.
My point: my primes don't completely solve my low light woes (at least on my 60D) but they offer very narrow DOF if I need it. For portraits, they are great but I still like using primes with a couple flashes. I'd rather walk around with the flexibility of my 24-105 zoom and a flash or two.
the first bit of advice I ever got before I even purchased my first DSLR was to ditch the kit lens and buy prime lenses. I was all for it for a while. I got the 50mm 1.4 and eventually the 35mm 1.4L (which I use for my video work). BTW I'm on a 60D. Just before I purchased the 35L, I thought, "man, this is really gonna upgrade my photos". In a way, it did. Colors are awesome with this lens, control over DOF in video and stills is awesome, and on a crop, I feel it's a great all around focal length for my photography. I had the expectation that having an aperture this large would solve all my low light problems but unfortunately it didn't. I still feel the strain on my 60D and it's high ISO noise limits. This forced me to look at my technique and eventually learn more/better ways to use my flash(es) (onboard, 430ex ii, and 600ex-rt). When flashes are used well, I can get pictures to look more like the way I see them in my head but the metering in my camera is now useless. My shadows are more interesting and I feel like I can create "moods" with my pictures using bounce flash and some OCF tricks. If I'm using a flash, I don't need as wide of an aperture that primes offer so I went back to my 24-105L. Maybe this will all change again when I upgrade to a full frame camera.
My point: my primes don't completely solve my low light woes (at least on my 60D) but they offer very narrow DOF if I need it. For portraits, they are great but I still like using primes with a couple flashes. I'd rather walk around with the flexibility of my 24-105 zoom and a flash or two.
Upvote
0
Primes are great; until you travel in Africa with lots of sand and dust and wind and simply can't change lenses when you want.
There's a tool for every situation and while traveling I prefere L zooms. Primes when I'm in a more controlled environment or for low light.
There's a tool for every situation and while traveling I prefere L zooms. Primes when I'm in a more controlled environment or for low light.
Upvote
0
There are lenses that I love that happen to be primes. The first two that spring to mind are the TS-E 24 II and the 400 f/2.8, but there're plenty others. The 180 macro, for example, is awesome for passport-style head shots, in addition to everything else it's awesome at.
There are, of course, situations where a prime would be a royal pain in the ass. I'm not a wedding photographer by any stretch of the imagination, but I did just play "Uncle Bob" at my niece's wedding, and I can't imagine using anything other than the 24-105 for the reception. (I'd definitely want primes for the ceremony and portraits, though.) Well...granted, I can imagine having enough experience at shooting wedding receptions to know how to do it well with primes, but even then I strongly suspect I'd still prefer a zoom.
Horses for courses and all that....
Cheers,
b&
There are, of course, situations where a prime would be a royal pain in the ass. I'm not a wedding photographer by any stretch of the imagination, but I did just play "Uncle Bob" at my niece's wedding, and I can't imagine using anything other than the 24-105 for the reception. (I'd definitely want primes for the ceremony and portraits, though.) Well...granted, I can imagine having enough experience at shooting wedding receptions to know how to do it well with primes, but even then I strongly suspect I'd still prefer a zoom.
Horses for courses and all that....
Cheers,
b&
Upvote
0
.
Interesting perspective. I hadn't thought of that, but thinking back to the seventies, I can't remember even having a zoom. Can't think of anyone who used one either.
Times sure have changed. I've been sitting here processing some stuff shot through an EF-S 15-85 and I'm stunned by the sharpness of some of them. No 35mm in the seventies would have produced such work.
Interesting perspective. I hadn't thought of that, but thinking back to the seventies, I can't remember even having a zoom. Can't think of anyone who used one either.
Times sure have changed. I've been sitting here processing some stuff shot through an EF-S 15-85 and I'm stunned by the sharpness of some of them. No 35mm in the seventies would have produced such work.
Bob Howland said:
Upvote
0
I suppose, given the types of replies we're seeing in this thread making comparisons with zooms (which is not the apparent intent of the poll - which doesn't mention zooms at all), a better set of questions would be:
Do you prefer primes?
Do you prefer zooms?
No preference.
Do you prefer primes?
Do you prefer zooms?
No preference.
Upvote
0
.
On the other hand, it doesn't mention lenses either.
Maybe he's asking about prime numbers? I think they're pretty special.
Or prime rib? Never had it.
I guess zoom lenses were just conspicuous by their absence.
On the other hand, it doesn't mention lenses either.
Maybe he's asking about prime numbers? I think they're pretty special.
Or prime rib? Never had it.
I guess zoom lenses were just conspicuous by their absence.
smithy said:
Upvote
0
It's a mix of both, for sure. Primes are great because they tend to have wider apertures at a more affordable price. Wide apertures are important to a lot of my work. However, my 70-200 is great, and I'd never want to part with it.
But if I had to choose, I'd go a kit full of primes, since I have 3 bodies, I can still have some flexibility with focal length without swapping lenses if I need to. And I doubt I'll ever see any f2.0 or faster zooms!
But if I had to choose, I'd go a kit full of primes, since I have 3 bodies, I can still have some flexibility with focal length without swapping lenses if I need to. And I doubt I'll ever see any f2.0 or faster zooms!
Upvote
0
I am new to the DSLR side and am quite used to zooming from P&S cameras. I intentionally purchased the 100 macro with my kitted camera because macro fit my shooting needs. I found it to have other uses and love it for that. I got a 50 f/1.4 for low light use and use it quite a bit indoors.
I find I actually love any lens that gives me a great shot in whatever situation I intend to use it.
Indoors I think primes are better in my twisted thoughts because they are faster and there is less space to cover so "zooming with your feet" is just fine to me, and zooms are better outdoors but these are just generalized as I have lots of learning to do with a DSLR.
I find I actually love any lens that gives me a great shot in whatever situation I intend to use it.
Indoors I think primes are better in my twisted thoughts because they are faster and there is less space to cover so "zooming with your feet" is just fine to me, and zooms are better outdoors but these are just generalized as I have lots of learning to do with a DSLR.
Upvote
0
I use primes for following reasons:
- size and weight, cheaper filters (ND still necessary)
- big aperture = more lights for AF and viewfinder
- price
- easier to setup microadjustment
I own 28/1.8 and 85/1.8, both are excellent when fine tuned by microadjustment. Currenty waiting for 50/1.4 IS.
I dream about some lightweight zoom for EF-S with IS for video, e.g. 17-55/4.
17-55 is probably very good, but:
- too heavy
- too big lens hood
- too expensive
- size and weight, cheaper filters (ND still necessary)
- big aperture = more lights for AF and viewfinder
- price
- easier to setup microadjustment
I own 28/1.8 and 85/1.8, both are excellent when fine tuned by microadjustment. Currenty waiting for 50/1.4 IS.
I dream about some lightweight zoom for EF-S with IS for video, e.g. 17-55/4.
17-55 is probably very good, but:
- too heavy
- too big lens hood
- too expensive
Upvote
0
- Status
