Reading mode: Light Dark

Prime Lenses....

Go to last post
To me it is not just a matter of quality, although consensus here over the months would lead me to believe that the 50mm lens is better quality than any of the zooms released so far. It is my opinion, too, although that is not important to me.

I like shooting with primes because I shoot better with primes. I take photographs walking around. I prefer to walk around with one wide angle prime lens fitted. I 'learn' to imagine exactly what the subject will look like when I lift the camera up to my eye. The longer I can leave one lens on, the better this gets for me. And I don't think that I am unique in this. A lot of very good, even great photographers do and did just this. Not for the quality, for the consistent view. I don't 'imagine' when shooting with zooms, and so I don't compose well. Not easily, anyway.

You could say that I could just leave always my lens set on 11mm, and still use the zoom as a fixed focal length lens. There are two reasons that I don't want to do this. The first is human nature. I just automatically fiddle the zoom ring, deliberately, or accidently. The second is that I don't want to carry around a heavy lump of glass that I won't use. Minor point.

But Higuma, with respect, you seem to want everybody to do it your way. You think the zooms are right for you, so they should be right for everybody. I have been shooting this fixed wide angle way for years. I shoot best this way. I'm not saying that Oly shouldn't make zooms. And I haven't heard anyone else say that, either. But all, or mainly all that they have catered for so far, is for the people who want zooms, or long prime lenses.

And I think my argument negates the idea that primes should only be for specialist use. Of course, if it were available, I would buy a wide shift lens. And this would not get much use, and would be a specialist lens. But a reasonably wide, say 12 or 14mm prime, would stay on my camera for 95% of the photographs that I shoot. And my photography would improve from where it is now. I know this. I travelled around Europe a lot of years ago with a Nikon FM2 with a 28mm and 20mm lens. The 28mm took more than 95% of 100 odd rolls of film, the 20mm was used occasionally. They are amongst the best personal photos that I have taken.

The argument that I can't compose properly if I don't have a zoom, because there might be water, or some other obstacle in the way, doesnt work for me. I wouldn't try and take that photo. I want to work close, and I want to get used to seeing close. If I couldn't walk to the picture, I wouldn't want to shoot it.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan
 
rayk said:
But Higuma, with respect, you seem to want everybody to do it your
way. You think the zooms are right for you, so they should be right
for everybody.
Click to expand...
First let me say that I respect Higuma and you very much for the thoughtful, intelligent incites, I have learned much from you both. My observation is that I am not so sure Higuma really feels "we should all do it his way" and in no way am I attempting to speak for him. Higuma loves to play devils advocate and is very good at it...he wants to present a senerio and have us think. Look at his answer to Adrian, he asks why after he asks about which lenses he would bring on board...

I believe this is Higuma's contribution to keeping this forum thinking about photography and our chosen cameras and moving away from the which camera should I buy ect. ect. types of threads and I am in this camp.

This is purely an observation on my part and I love the interaction we have. I liked your answer and as we all know there are many ways to achieve the end result, it's the old different strokes for different folks thing I guess.

Cheers,

Bill
--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51
 
a t o m i c said:
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
Click to expand...
I understand that, but when one uses your feet then the probability is that one will have to crop as the perspective will not match the focal length of the fixed lens.
--
Frank B

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

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

You are mistaking my intent... I read the article by Reichmann and thought - Wow, if he wouldn't take primes to Bangladesh on a safari / workshop then what is everybody bitchin about....

What I don't understand - and I tried to explain a little up the list was that most modern / new photographers are at a disadvantage because digital has never afforded them the need to learn to SEE...

More importantly - I use my zooms EXACTLY the way that you ( and I ) use primes - I walk around, check prospective, foreground compression, angles of incedent... Using a zoom or a prime doesn't matter... if this is what you do - if this is how you've trained and how you SEE... ( Fast primes are another kettle of fish - who wouldn't want a nice 25mm f1.4 )

SEEING is not mutually exclusive to the use of Prime lenses... and I don't agree that people can only SEE with them... I SEE fine / OK because - just like you said - I look for my picture before I even look through the veiwfinder...

In my opinion the lens - zoom or prime - is of no particular significance when it comes to SEEING... Big apertures - a different story...

Hope this clears up my thought process... Oyasuminasai...

Cheers,
 
Bill Wallace said:
rayk said:
But Higuma, with respect, you seem to want everybody to do it your
way. You think the zooms are right for you, so they should be right
for everybody.
Click to expand...
First let me say that I respect Higuma and you very much for the
thoughtful, intelligent incites, I have learned much from you both.
My observation is that I am not so sure Higuma really feels "we
should all do it his way" and in no way am I attempting to speak
for him. Higuma loves to play devils advocate and is very good at
it...he wants to present a senerio and have us think. Look at his
answer to Adrian, he asks why after he asks about which lenses he
would bring on board...

I believe this is Higuma's contribution to keeping this forum
thinking about photography and our chosen cameras and moving away
from the which camera should I buy ect. ect. types of threads and I
am in this camp.

This is purely an observation on my part and I love the interaction
we have. I liked your answer and as we all know there are many ways
to achieve the end result, it's the old different strokes for
different folks thing I guess.

Cheers,

Bill
--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51
Click to expand...
 
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...

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...
Higuma,

I found the article interesting, because he arrived at the same conclusion that I did after a couple of overseas trips. That said, Michael also goes the other "prime" way when he does his landscapes usining medium format with his Contax 645. The gap between quality and convenience is closing, but the difference in approach and style is affected by the tool used. Zooms make me compositionally lazy, but the same thing could be said for color vs B&W.....:-)
--
Bob Ross
http://www.pbase.com/rossrtx
 
Hi Higuma

Higuma, you are doing exactly what you (maybe Bill?) said you weren't doing. You are telling me how you shoot, and then stating that I shouldn't have the need for a different method! I don't compose like you, if you can do it by being able to 'see' at a different focal length for each photo that you take. I can't, or at the very least, don't want to.

I will try again, so please be patient. I walk around with a fixed focal length lens, say for argument 28mm. Deliberately. My picture seeing system, whatever that is, eye to brain maybe, learns to know, after a while, what a particular thing will look like through that lens. The longer I walk around like this, the better 'in tune' everything becomes. If I keep changing the focal length, ie zooming, it never gets in tune. If it does for you, that's great, but I have proved to me that it doesn't for me. This may be an inadequecy on my part. If it is, so be it. Too late to change now.

That's why I want one decent wide angle prime.

Interesting, but this is how Cartier-Bresson worked. With one, constantly used focal length lens. Now, it may be that this had nothing to do with his remarkable sense of timing, and his uncanny ability to imagine, frame and shoot to turn that timing into a picture. But I think it does. Not that I think that I can ever achieve anything near his ability, but I think I can learn from it.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan
 
i embarked in the oly bandwagon...lightweight and small lenses to lug around on my frail back for long hiking trips..w only 2 lenses 14-54 and 50-200 i can pretty much have 95% of my fotografy covered...now if i'm ambitious, another 11-22mm will find its way into the backpack w/o adding too much weight ...on my recent london trip i walked 8 hours a day thruout the city , imagine doing that and carrying another 6, 7 lbs worth of gear on ur back ..ouch ...no thanks, been there and done that w canon gear , time to 'lighten' up and oly is the answer
cheers
 
Well, its just a matter of priorities. There are many PRO who would run their work with Zoom and then their usage and environment do benefit from using the Zoom. Even if a majority of PRO use Zoom does not automatically mean that all of us should just use zoom. They choose their tool that fit them best, and we choose ours. There are those, who like me, have no problem with Slow operation, changing lens and in general using a fix focla lens. Granted a new fix foclas designed using the up to date material and optical know how would surely out perform like zoom or give more option in speed. We want that extra bit of performance over the convenience of Zoom

So in the end its not about whether the fix focal is better than the zoom or vice versa ( there is rationals to the debate to both end ) Its about photographer choosing a system that can fit his/her shooting need and style. I think the community just voice out to the Mfr that they've not been able to provide them with those tool - after all, a DSLR is about system capability, the keyword here is system - All other DSLR Mfr had a battery of good zoom as well as good fix focals - and what do Olympus have

--
Franka
 
Count me among the pros who use primarily prime lenses. Over the past two years I've sold virtually every zoom lens I owned and these primarily were excellent Canon L zoom lenses - several thousand dollars worth of them. I've been a photographer for twenty years and the longer I do it, the simpler and lighter my kit gets. For architecture (my primary specialty) I use a 1Ds with a Zeiss 18/4, Canon 24/3.5 TSE and Canon 35, 50 and 85 primes. For most other work I use the 1Ds or, my favorite, the Epson R-D1 with a VC 28/1.9, Canon 28/2.8 or Canon 35/2.8. I very much like the E-1 that I'm testing right now but if I buy another one at some point (had one in 2003) I'll use it primarily with OM primes.

Why? I've decided that I prefer to be thinking in terms of one focal length at a time. Leaving architectural work aside for a moment, I do much of my composition before the camera ever comes to my eye. Working that way requires a strong familiarity with the way each of my lenses "sees", not only in terms of FOV but in many respects. I also prefer smaller, lighter lenses to larger, heavier ones. With cameras I prefer smaller, lighter, quieter... I also rarely use AF, after a brief 3-year flirtation with it.

That's not to say that anyone else should be using primes, only that they work for me. I don't for a moment think that Michael believes that his choice of kit would or should work for everyone else. Like myself, he experiments constantly with cameras and lenses.

Everyone has to find his or her own way and there is no such thing as a "silver bullet" combination of lens and camera. If Olympus (or another maker) starts to produce new prime lenses in 4/3 mount, it will just create more choices for us - and that's a good thing. They have done a marvelous thing, however, in providing this OM adapter to owners so that all these great old Zuiko lenses can be used provided one is willing to accept stop-down metering. I'm eager to test the Zuiko 21/2 with the E-1.

Cheers,

Sean Reid
Contributor
Luminous-Landscape
 
Franka T.L. said:
So in the end its not about whether the fix focal is better than
the zoom or vice versa ( there is rationals to the debate to both
end ) Its about photographer choosing a system that can fit his/her
shooting need and style.
Click to expand...
That's it in a nutshell. I want a small, wideangle prime. I don't care if it's any better than my 11-22 zoom (just-as-good would be fine).

Even though the "normal macro" isn't wideangle, I will probably buy one if it's a bit smaller than the 50mm ƒ2.

The simple fact is that I would have the camera with me more often if the lens-camera combination was smaller.

Regards,
Lou
 
I would rather pay for a 8-9mm/2.8 than the 7-14mm/4. And it would probably be much lighter.

Even a f4 lens would be nice. Just like there isn't a affordable/light super telephoto, there isn't going to be a affordable/light super wide. Zooms are okay for the rest.
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...
--
http://www.4-3system.com/
http://jonr.light.is/
http://getfirefox.com/
 
Higuma said:
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??
Click to expand...
For the type of photographs I would tend to take, I'd love to see a proper FourThirds normal of 22.5mm, ideally with a maximum aperture of at least 1:1.4. Even better if they could complement this with a portrait lens of 40-45mm again at 1:1.4. The last one would be a nice 14 to 16mm 1:1.4 which would be a great lens for 'social' photography (though much of this seems to be done with flash these days, so maybe a 1:1.7 design would be just as good.).

However, I have a deepening suspicion that we'll NEVER see a ZD from Olympus faster than f/2.

--
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 believe that the reverse is true. A zoom allows much greater creativity, as you have the ability to compose more effectively, especially in constrained/tight environments.

If all I had was a wide prime (or any focal length), every shot would look kind of similar because the FOV was always the same (else I'd have to carry a bag of primes as one used to do). Even though I have zooms, I always change my perspective, rarely taking photos from my natural eye level (one reason why I'm hanging out for the angle viewfinder).

Cheers

Ray
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...
--
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/
 
At the risk of getting off topic here, this debate of primes vs zooms reminds me of the debate of fixed power vs zoom telescpic sights in the shooting world. Back in the 70s 'serious' shooters insisted that they would only use fixed power scopes on their rifles, as they were optically superior to zoom scopes. The market then was split maybe 50/50. Since then most hunters and shooters have voted with their $ for the versatility of zooms over the optical superiority of fixed power scopes. The manufacturers still make fixed powered scopes, but it is a small niche market of dedicated competition shooters and nostalgia buffs. I think lens makers see their markets going the same way, hence the emphasis on zooms. I intend to pick up a 50mm zd macro for my E-1 one of these days, but I think my 14-54 and 50-200 zooms will remain my main lenses.
 
Hi Ray,
rayk said:
I will try again, so please be patient. I walk around with a fixed
focal length lens, say for argument 28mm. Deliberately. My picture
seeing system, whatever that is, eye to brain maybe, learns to
know, after a while, what a particular thing will look like through
that lens. The longer I walk around like this, the better 'in tune'
everything becomes. If I keep changing the focal length, ie
zooming, it never gets in tune. If it does for you, that's great,
but I have proved to me that it doesn't for me. This may be an
inadequecy on my part. If it is, so be it. Too late to change now.
Click to expand...
There's no way I'd compare my stuff with yours or Cartier-Bresson pix but what you describe is exactly what I did during my 35mm days. 24mm and 135mm, occasionally 50mm and 400mm. I got very "used" to what to expect when looking through the viewfinder and when getting the pix back from the minilab.

I wouldn't say I'm struggling with the 14-54 but I find myself using mostly the 14 and 54 settings (that's something that was discussed not so long ago) which are close to my previous primes.

I appreciate the quality (optical and in terms of convenience) of the zooms but for me they take out some of the "angle hunting" associated with primes. Just my $0.02 (Australian).

Seeya, Michael
 
OzRay said:
I believe that the reverse is true. A zoom allows much greater
creativity, as you have the ability to compose more effectively,
especially in constrained/tight environments.

If all I had was a wide prime (or any focal length), every shot
would look kind of similar because the FOV was always the same
(else I'd have to carry a bag of primes as one used to do). Even
though I have zooms, I always change my perspective, rarely taking
photos from my natural eye level (one reason why I'm hanging out
for the angle viewfinder).
Click to expand...
This, of course, is the point of an interchangeable lens camera. The classic 3 lens 'kit' in the good old days was 28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 135/2.8, and those three can cover MOST photographic requirements very nicely, and probably take up less space than the currently favoured two zoom approach. Many people find that their creativity is actually boosted when they are somewhat constrained. The apparent flexibility of the zoom is often relegated to insignificance as many users take their photos at on end or another.

--
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
 
Hi Adrian,
a t o m i c said:
This, of course, is the point of an interchangeable lens camera.
The classic 3 lens 'kit' in the good old days was 28/2.8, 50/1.8
and 135/2.8, and those three can cover MOST photographic
requirements very nicely, and probably take up less space than the
currently favoured two zoom approach. Many people find that their
creativity is actually boosted when they are somewhat constrained.
The apparent flexibility of the zoom is often relegated to
insignificance as many users take their photos at on end or another.
Click to expand...
Nicely put, and more concise than my rambling a little further down.

Seeya, Michael
 
I think what most people are wishing for are FAST primes. I work at a photo lab, so I see what everone shoots with and I have to say, shooting with a 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4) is a lost art. Now everyone has a 28-90 3.5-5.6 zoom. Some people can't believe that I shoot hand held night shots with just the street lights. A 50mm 1.4 w/ 1600 or 3200 speed film is a whole new world that can only be experienced with FAST primes. I can shoot hand held at concerts with my Zeiss 85mm 1.4 and
freeze the action.

Olympus has no IS or VR, but they do have a system that allows for faster glass. If they can make a 50mm f/2, they should make a 25mm f/1.4 (or 1.2 if they want to push the limits).

All I want is a 25mm 1.4, then I would stop my belly aching.
Until they have one, I'm going to continue to shoot low light with B&W film.

it's amazing what one "Legendary" lens can do to make people switch.
 
...grew up in the "golden age of primes" and owned many-- they were as big a pain in the ass then as they are now-- except for specialized uses of course-- love macros though.

I see a good zoom as a "a bag of primes", and I use every millimeter of my 14-54-- best lens I've ever owned/used bar non. ...also use the much praised 11-22, but consider it a specialty lens and greatly prefer the 14-54 and 50-200 combo.

I've enjoyed this thread reading others opinions-- thanks Higuma!

Cheers. Craig
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top