Prime Lenses....

I was just reading with interest Michael Reichmann's review of his recent trip to Bangladesh entitled... "Bangladesh - What Worked – What Didn't"...

Now, regardless of your personal opinion of him, he does take some fine photos and his report is VERY INTERESTING...

Please keep in Mind that he took a 1Ds MII and a 20D along with quite a number of pieces of "L" glass including a 300 f2.8 L Prime lens... An article with how, what and why he kitted out for this trip is here... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangladesh-bags.shtml

Allow me to quote with regard to his conclusions...

"Next Time"

" If I were to do this trip over again tomorrow I would lighten my photographic equipment load considerably. I would take just the two bodies and two lenses, the 70-300mm DO IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8L. With these two lenses I would be able to cover 95% of all opportunities, and save my back a lot of grief. Laptop and storage would be pretty much as was used on this trip. "

The entire article is available here... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtml

NOW... What I found interesting is that with all of the Belly aching going on about the lack of Olympus Prime lenes... A guy like this - who I am sure has a shiit load of primes available to him - only takes one to start with and then in the end says that next time he would settle for two good zooms...

Perhaps some of you "prime aficionados" would care to read the aforementioned articles and let me know what all the belly aching is about...

Cheers,

The article pretty much reflects what I feel as well. In my early days, primes ruled because zooms were rare beasts and very ordinary as far as quality went.

Today's zoom optics are extremely good (if well made), that while a very good prime will be better to a degree, the practical implications are very much as MR states. Even Leica is now making zooms and I quote from a Leica promotion on the R9:

'It took Leica some years before it was comfortable with the quality available from zoom lenses, but you can be assured it is more than comfortable with the seven zoom lenses in its range today.'

Cheers

Ray

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

Photography is like a good book, you become absorbed by the image, not the syntax and sentence structure - me (unless someone said this first as well).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

Sure like my 150/f2. Now if I was traveling to Bangladesh expecting to be in out of cars, trains, etc., I might leave it out of the kit in favor of a couple of zooms. But for going across town to take sports shots its great. Conclusions like Reichman's depend on the situation ....

Jeff

OzRay said:

The article pretty much reflects what I feel as well. In my early
days, primes ruled because zooms were rare beasts and very ordinary
as far as quality went.

Today's zoom optics are extremely good (if well made), that while a
very good prime will be better to a degree, the practical
implications are very much as MR states. Even Leica is now making
zooms and I quote from a Leica promotion on the R9:

'It took Leica some years before it was comfortable with the
quality available from zoom lenses, but you can be assured it is
more than comfortable with the seven zoom lenses in its range
today.'

Cheers

Ray

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said
it first).

Photography is like a good book, you become absorbed by the image,
not the syntax and sentence structure - me (unless someone said
this first as well).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

Click to expand...

--
Jeff

I really prefer using fixed lenses. To be honest, I prefer manual focus too. I don't have any complaints about my 11-22, except the huge size and weight of the blasted thing!

--
Adrian

'I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have
been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and

then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great
ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.' - Sir Isaac Newton

Jeff

I agree on that. I read MR's report when it first came out and he was certainly writing it in the context of what he was doing/does. I don't think even MR would suggest that primes were of no use.

I guess what Higuma was perhaps trying to convey was that in the general way of things, zooms will more than adequately cope with the majority of situations most photographers will encounter (pro or otherwise) and will be a more cost effective solution to boot.

If I were a sports photographer (paid of course), then I would most likely own a 150mm and the 300mm and possibly not one/any of the zooms. Even for me, there are times that I would appreciate a longer lens. But again, I would probably prefer say a 200-400mm (high quality, but in smaller zoom factors), which would work in many varied situations. Flexibility is what I am after and primes, for me, tend to be somewhat limiting.

Cheers

Ray

Jeff said:

Sure like my 150/f2. Now if I was traveling to Bangladesh expecting
to be in out of cars, trains, etc., I might leave it out of the kit
in favor of a couple of zooms. But for going across town to take
sports shots its great. Conclusions like Reichman's depend on the
situation ....

Click to expand...

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

Photography is like a good book, you become absorbed by the image, not the syntax and sentence structure - me (unless someone said this first as well).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

Adrian

The 11-22mm is barely bigger than the 14-54mm and balances exquisitely with the E1. In fact, I think all of the lenses balance well with the E1. Even though I use a tripod in 99.9% of cases, I can hand-hold each one very comfortably regardless.

Cheers

Ray

a t o m i c said:

I really prefer using fixed lenses. To be honest, I prefer manual
focus too. I don't have any complaints about my 11-22, except the
huge size and weight of the blasted thing!

--
Adrian

'I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem
to have
been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself
in now and
then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary,
whilst the great
ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.' - Sir Isaac Newton

Click to expand...

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

Photography is like a good book, you become absorbed by the image, not the syntax and sentence structure - me (unless someone said this first as well).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

Understand what some have said - a few points...

Adrian... I get you completely and your lucky in that you prefer primes that are MF and as such can choose almost any lens that now exists and use it through an adapter.. but it's not you who is suggesting that Oly will never have a professional system without fast primes... I could see 2 or 3 fast primes being of use for very specialized work - portrait studio, sports etc.., but this big hullabaloo about wanting a 50 F1.4 is pokey IMO...

Jeff - regarding situational use... I agree 100% some people need tilt & shift / fish-eye etc.., it is specific to SPECIAL needs..

My point is that - with current zoom technology today - Primes are "SPECIAL USE" lenses... They are definitely NOT the standard and articles such as MR's suggest that Zooms can do the job for a demanding photographer like him... I doubt that he would go to Bangladesh purposely ill equipped and if he thought that Primes would be a CLEAR advantage then he would have taken them...

I guess I just feel that sometimes the Bitching vs Use Ratio gets a little skewed toward the vocal minority...

Cheers,

10mm f/2.8 = $600*
7-14mm f/4 = $2300*
(* Prices are based on 1998 35mm equivalent)

Advantage of fixed WA over WA zoom
1-cost
2-weight
3-faster aperture
4-closer minimum focusing distance

5-And the biggest advantage is that a fixed WA gets your creative juices flowing, because you have to "see" & think the photo as a 10mm. With a WA zoom you think a lot less and use the zoom to compose the image.

Back in my 35mm days I bought a 20-35mm f/2.8 and ended up using for 6 months before selling it in favour of a fixed 20mm f/2.8 primarily for advantages 4 & 5 above.

The major advantage with a WA zoom is flexibility in the field for PJ work, which is not what I do so I am a little biased.....

Just my 2 cents.

Tony

Ps. I would buy in a heart beat a 9mm/10mm f/2.8 & a 43mm f/1.4

--
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=579&page=user_images

Higuma,

I agree. Even the pros seem to be using zooms as the workhorses of their kit, with primes relegated to 'situational' needs. And they are worth the price in those situations. But if you're packing light, it's hard to beat the Oly 14-54 as a one-lens kit.

Still, I can imagine a lot of situations where a 25/f1.2 would very cool to have.

Jeff

Higuma said:

Understand what some have said - a few points...

Adrian... I get you completely and your lucky in that you prefer
primes that are MF and as such can choose almost any lens that now
exists and use it through an adapter.. but it's not you who is
suggesting that Oly will never have a professional system without
fast primes... I could see 2 or 3 fast primes being of use for very
specialized work - portrait studio, sports etc.., but this big
hullabaloo about wanting a 50 F1.4 is pokey IMO...

Jeff - regarding situational use... I agree 100% some people need
tilt & shift / fish-eye etc.., it is specific to SPECIAL needs..

My point is that - with current zoom technology today - Primes are
"SPECIAL USE" lenses... They are definitely NOT the standard and
articles such as MR's suggest that Zooms can do the job for a
demanding photographer like him... I doubt that he would go to
Bangladesh purposely ill equipped and if he thought that Primes
would be a CLEAR advantage then he would have taken them...

I guess I just feel that sometimes the Bitching vs Use Ratio gets a
little skewed toward the vocal minority...

Cheers,

Click to expand...

--
Jeff

Jeff wrote:
. But if you're packing

Jeff said:

light, it's hard to beat the Oly 14-54 as a one-lens kit.

Click to expand...

The 50/2 is awful nice, and it fits into a case alongside the E-1 with 11-22 mounted in no more space than the E-1 with 11-22 would use alone. So the remaining advantage of the 14-54 is speed of shifting gears.

--
scott kirkpatrick
http://www.pbase.com/skirkp

Higuma,

although I'm not a "prime aficionado", I do pray for faster lenses (and less noise at high ISOs...) but at the moment only primes seems to be faster than 2.8.

I also prefer small equipment, and a fast zoom becomes even more bulky than a prime. I can live with one or two fast standard lenses and bring them with me to concerts orfor wildlife photography in the dark Swedish midwinter.

As this is my prime application of such lenses, I am currently in the process of upgrading my set of OM-primes to those in the professional series with f/2.

No hurry with the DZ primes for me - they are to costly for my current budget.

Cheers, Jens.

Higuma said:

The entire article is available here...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtml

NOW... What I found interesting is that with all of the Belly
aching going on about the lack of Olympus Prime lenes... A guy like
this - who I am sure has a shiit load of primes available to him -
only takes one to start with and then in the end says that next
time he would settle for two good zooms...

Perhaps some of you "prime aficionados" would care to read the
aforementioned articles and let me know what all the belly aching
is about...

Cheers,

Click to expand...

--
Everything is possible - miracles are just a bit harder



http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=407&page=user_images

It seems to me the main problem with primes is that they do not allow you to get the perspective you need for each picture without usually having to crop and thus throw away resolution. Perspective is a function subject distance and a zoom allows you to stand the exact distance (except if something intervenes e.g. water, a valley etc.) from the subject you need for the perspective you want and then frame the picture. How many primes, for example, would you need to cover the 28 mm - 300 mm range and allow you to get the perspective you require without substantial cropping?

Nikondude said:

10mm f/2.8 = $600*
7-14mm f/4 = $2300*
(* Prices are based on 1998 35mm equivalent)

Advantage of fixed WA over WA zoom
1-cost
2-weight
3-faster aperture
4-closer minimum focusing distance
5-And the biggest advantage is that a fixed WA gets your creative
juices flowing, because you have to "see" & think the photo as a
10mm. With a WA zoom you think a lot less and use the zoom to
compose the image.

Back in my 35mm days I bought a 20-35mm f/2.8 and ended up using
for 6 months before selling it in favour of a fixed 20mm f/2.8
primarily for advantages 4 & 5 above.

The major advantage with a WA zoom is flexibility in the field for
PJ work, which is not what I do so I am a little biased.....

Just my 2 cents.

Tony

Ps. I would buy in a heart beat a 9mm/10mm f/2.8 & a 43mm f/1.4

--
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=579&page=user_images

Click to expand...

--
Frank B

Pictures (E-300, A2, 10D, E10, Nikon 5700)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=234606

Frank B said:

It seems to me the main problem with primes is that they do not
allow you to get the perspective you need for each picture without
usually having to crop and thus throw away resolution. Perspective
is a function subject distance and a zoom allows you to stand the
exact distance (except if something intervenes e.g. water, a valley
etc.) from the subject you need for the perspective you want and
then frame the picture. How many primes, for example, would you
need to cover the 28 mm - 300 mm range and allow you to get the
perspective you require without substantial cropping?

Click to expand...

A prime is a fixed FOV lens. You have to move forward and backward as you try and compose the shot. There is no doubt that this changes the way that you have to think about a subject. While a zoom allows you to keep the perspective constant while changing the FOV. This requires that you think differently about the subject and composition.
You'll be a better photographer if you can work the problem from both angles.

Just my two cents........

--



Your're not going to take my picture with that Nikon are you?

Frank,

Yes I agree primes make you think and work as stated in my WA example. I know I got better photos from my 20mm over the 20-35, not because of better glass, because I learnt to "see" with the 20mm and I'd find the BEST angle for the shot as opposed to letting the zoom choose an ACCEPTABLE angle.

I'm not saying I'd replace my 14-54 with a 14, 17, 25 & 50 or my 50-200 with 3 or 4 primes. I'm saying that a prime Ultra WA has it's place in any system. I know Oly has the prime Fisheye on the roadmap, but that is a "specialty" lens not a Ultra WA.

My preference for the ultimate kit-
9mm / 10mm f/2.8* (Ultra Wide Angle)
14-54 14-35 (Standard lens used 80% of the time
43mm f/1.4* (Fast portrait lens)
50mm macro (Standard macro fair)
50-200 / 40-100 (Standard Tele lens)
maybe the 150mm ( Specialty Tele, which I don't really need, but I can dream)
Not available or on Oly Roadmap

Tony

Frank B said:

Nikondude said:

10mm f/2.8 = $600*
7-14mm f/4 = $2300*
(* Prices are based on 1998 35mm equivalent)

Advantage of fixed WA over WA zoom
1-cost
2-weight
3-faster aperture
4-closer minimum focusing distance
5-And the biggest advantage is that a fixed WA gets your creative
juices flowing, because you have to "see" & think the photo as a
10mm. With a WA zoom you think a lot less and use the zoom to
compose the image.

Back in my 35mm days I bought a 20-35mm f/2.8 and ended up using
for 6 months before selling it in favour of a fixed 20mm f/2.8
primarily for advantages 4 & 5 above.

The major advantage with a WA zoom is flexibility in the field for
PJ work, which is not what I do so I am a little biased.....

Just my 2 cents.

Tony

Ps. I would buy in a heart beat a 9mm/10mm f/2.8 & a 43mm f/1.4

--
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=579&page=user_images

Click to expand...

--
Frank B

Pictures (E-300, A2, 10D, E10, Nikon 5700)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=234606

Click to expand...

--
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=579&page=user_images

My interest in primes isn't really related to picture quality -- I'm well aware that modern zooms produce good quality images.

I like primes for their small size (especially the small size of wide-angle primes even with fast max apertures), and the fact that you can use them with a small camera body to make a very unobtrusive -- but still high quality -- picture taking machine. I want a camera that I can slip into a coat pocket, that is quick to use, and that doesn't automatically draw attention to itself. Portability and unobtrusiveness far outweigh the compositional advantages of a zoom lens to me -- I'm happy to shoot loose and crop later.

It's the Leica ideal, for lack of a better way to sum it up. It's not a better way to shoot, but it's not worse either. To each his own, yada, yada, yada.

Unfortunately, the E-system doesn't have a body yet that would really make this ideal a reality (neither does any other high quality -- i.e. non-consumer digicam -- digital system). Even the E-300 with the 14-45 is a big, can't-fit-in-your-pocket, lens-banging-on-doorways, look-at-me-I'm-taking-pictures setup.

So for me, E-system primes wouldn't really be attractive until there's a body about 25-30% smaller than the E-300.

Obviously, this all relates to the kind of photography I primarily like doing, which these days is mostly walking around New York City and trying to capture amusing or interesting or unusual moments in the unfolding drama/farce/pageant.

I recognize that for many people, probably the vast majority even, zooms are a better choice, and, in fact, if I were making decisions at Olympus I would certainly have mandated a good lineup of zooms first. It's a no-brainer.

Higuma said:

I was just reading with interest Michael Reichmann's review of his
recent trip to Bangladesh entitled... "Bangladesh - What Worked –
What Didn't"...

Now, regardless of your personal opinion of him, he does take some
fine photos and his report is VERY INTERESTING...

Please keep in Mind that he took a 1Ds MII and a 20D along with
quite a number of pieces of "L" glass including a 300 f2.8 L Prime
lens... An article with how, what and why he kitted out for this
trip is here...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangladesh-bags.shtml

Allow me to quote with regard to his conclusions...

"Next Time"

" If I were to do this trip over again tomorrow I would lighten my
photographic equipment load considerably. I would take just the two
bodies and two lenses, the 70-300mm DO IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8L.
With these two lenses I would be able to cover 95% of all
opportunities, and save my back a lot of grief. Laptop and storage
would be pretty much as was used on this trip. "

The entire article is available here...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtml

NOW... What I found interesting is that with all of the Belly
aching going on about the lack of Olympus Prime lenes... A guy like
this - who I am sure has a shiit load of primes available to him -
only takes one to start with and then in the end says that next
time he would settle for two good zooms...

Perhaps some of you "prime aficionados" would care to read the
aforementioned articles and let me know what all the belly aching
is about...

Cheers,

Click to expand...

OzRay said:

The 11-22mm is barely bigger than the 14-54mm and balances
exquisitely with the E1. In fact, I think all of the lenses balance
well with the E1. Even though I use a tripod in 99.9% of cases, I
can hand-hold each one very comfortably regardless.

Click to expand...

For a 2x vari designed to cover FourThirds it is enormous. It's bigger that my Distagon 25/2.8!

--
Adrian

'I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have
been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and

then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great
ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.' - Sir Isaac Newton

Higuma said:

Adrian... I get you completely and your lucky in that you prefer
primes that are MF and as such can choose almost any lens that now
exists and use it through an adapter.. but it's not you who is
suggesting that Oly will never have a professional system without
fast primes... I could see 2 or 3 fast primes being of use for very
specialized work - portrait studio, sports etc.., but this big
hullabaloo about wanting a 50 F1.4 is pokey IMO...

Click to expand...

Not so fast. I definitely DON'T want to be doing stop-down metering and manual focussing with the E-1. I'm not interested in a 50/1.4 myself, though a 22.5/1.4 would be attractive, as would a 42.5 of similar aperture (and maybe some defocus control...).

We do have a real problem with FourThirds regarding selective focus. If Olympus refuse to offer an f/1.4 design at a suitable length for portraiture then I think they'll limit their market unnecessarily.
--
Adrian

'I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have
been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and

then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great
ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.' - Sir Isaac Newton

Frank B said:

It seems to me the main problem with primes is that they do not
allow you to get the perspective you need for each picture without
usually having to crop and thus throw away resolution. Perspective
is a function subject distance and a zoom allows you to stand the
exact distance (except if something intervenes e.g. water, a valley
etc.) from the subject you need for the perspective you want and
then frame the picture. How many primes, for example, would you
need to cover the 28 mm - 300 mm range and allow you to get the
perspective you require without substantial cropping?

Click to expand...

One uses one's feet.

--
Adrian

'I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have
been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and

then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great
ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.' - Sir Isaac Newton

I know where you are coming from but let me add this point of conjecture...

Nikondude said:

Yes I agree primes make you think and work as stated in my WA
example. I know I got better photos from my 20mm over the 20-35,
not because of better glass, because I learnt to "see" with the
20mm and I'd find the BEST angle for the shot as opposed to letting
the zoom choose an ACCEPTABLE angle.

Click to expand...

This is a good point but... in all honesty, the advent of digital means that most people either don't learn how to SEE or could care less.... Zooms "work".... everybody and anybody with a computer can be a darkroom expert or wanna-be expert for the price of PS Elements.... No more taking your film to a LAB for crop, dodge and burning - any jerk with a $ 600 C'pewter can do it... Used to be the only way to get a decent crop and a background dodged was to do it yourself - NOT TODAY...

It's not that digital has made people lazy - well maybe - but for the most part they don't need to be able to SEE through the viewfinder when they can SEE through the monitor.... THAT'S THE POINT ISN'T IT... today the average photographer SEES through his monitor ( or thinks he does anyways - perspective discussions aside ) and so he doesn't need to learn to SEE enough to use primes effectively...

IN SHORT - using primes properly is likely a dying art form - perspective control etc is lost in the digital world...

As an aside.... I can't tell you how much I was enamored with the E-20 when I first picked it up about 3 years ago... I suddenly felt creative again looking through the viewfinder - I felt like I was composing a shot as opposed to taking a picture... The E-1 makes me feel the same way - it's a Zen thing...

Cheers,

Adrian,

Sorry if I got you wrong... And I agree, Oly needs at least a fast portrait type lens and perhaps 1 or 2 others... but I seem to be constantly hearing that 4/3 can't "survive" without a full line of primes...

What would be your input if Oly said - - - OK, we have the upcoming fish-eye, 50 macro, 150 f2.0 and 300 f2.8 but we want to make 3 more primes... What do "you" suggest and why??

Cheers,