Prime Lenses....

Ross · Jan 31, 2005

Frank B said:
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

Frank,

Do you mean field of view rather than perspective? Cropping seldom alters perspective, just what is included/excluded fron the view. Usually with a fixed focal length that you have learned, you know the perspective and go about looking for pictures that fit or move to where they do. This previsualization isn't everyone's cup of tea as they like the distraction of seeing pictures all over the place. When I travel, I'm not usually in a prime frame of mind and love zooms. When I'm out trying to capture the world the way I see it in my mind's eye, them I reach for the primes or tape the zoom ring...

--
Bob Ross
http://www.pbase.com/rossrtx

OzRay · Jan 31, 2005

Adrian

So what you're saying is that anyone who uses zoom lenses in lieu of primes is perhaps photographically challenged and lacking in creativity?

I must admit that I find that kind of hard to swallow.

Cheers

Ray

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.

--
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

--
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/

rayk · Jan 31, 2005

Ray, you are either trying to pick a fight, or have not read Adrian's post well enough. And it is a stange day indeed when I am defending Adrian!

He said many people. Not everybody. Some people see more creatively with zooms, some with primes. I for one prefer to shoot with primes, as I have outlined elsewhere in this thread. You feel that you are better off with zooms. I'll allow you that, gladly, if you can recognize that some of us are different. Just as creative, but different.

And your statement elsewhere here to the effect that if you use one prime lens, you will get pictures that look kind of similiar, and so aren't as 'creative' as pictures taken with zooms, also needs some clarification, I think. You mean a certain similiarity like many photographers strive to get in their work? Cartier Bresson, whose pictures are easily identifiable? Or perhaps William Eggleston? Or Richard Avedon? I wish! Their work is recognizable by a certain style, which is in part due to the way they work, and the way they see. And each of them, and many other fine creative photographers, use the same equipment for each shot.

I have no idea why Higuma, and you, and others don't seem to want Olympus to make primes. Then I have no idea why some people ever want to stop others from doing what they want.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan

Peter A. Klein · Jan 31, 2005

What "highsee3" said.

My "people" photography is all about available light. That's why I shoot film rangefinders with fast primes. f/1.4 or f/2. I'd like to use my E-1 in a similar way. So I want a fast normal and/or moderate WA prime.

And when I'm photographing people, I want a small, unobtrusive outfit. Not a hulking behemoth with a honking bazooka. While this description applies more to C and N than O, I think you know what I mean. . .

Just as flash often destroys the mood of a scene, a big lens makes people more self-conscious at being photographed. And it's a lot more hassle to carry around all day.

Just give me chocolate and a fast prime, and I'm happy. . .

--Peter

highsee3 said:
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.

Higuma · Jan 31, 2005

I could live with this selection... Nice and thoughtful choices...

a t o m i c said:
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.).

OzRay · Jan 31, 2005

Ray

I'm not trying to pick a fight and I recognise that everyone's needs are different. It's just that the way I read Adrian's comment was that creativity comes through constraining yourself to limited fields of view. I wanted to point out that perhaps creativity of another sort can come from doing just the opposite.

When I see somthing that catches my eye and I know that there is an image worth recording, I consider the FOV needed to determine what might be the best perspective to capture the thing that caught my eye (zooms give me the best ability to get it right). It's a little like the cinematographer who uses the zoom ocular hanging around their neck to see what the best persoective for a scene might be.

What I meant by things looking kind of similar was the potential sameness of perspective and FOV, somewhat like always taking a photo at eye level. It may generate a particular style, but the likes of Cartier Bresson etc I believe got their style from the subject matter and lighting more than just the lens they used.

I have no objection to primes or Olympus making as many primes as people want, but there seems to be a feeling projected by some that primes are the only true way to take photos, in a similar the vein where many photographers still insist that film is the only way to take photos.

In the same way that digital has revived my interest in photography, these new and excellent zooms have broadened my horizons and how I look and record the world around me.

Cheers

Ray

rayk said:
Ray, you are either trying to pick a fight, or have not read
Adrian's post well enough. And it is a stange day indeed when I am
defending Adrian!

He said many people. Not everybody. Some people see more creatively
with zooms, some with primes. I for one prefer to shoot with
primes, as I have outlined elsewhere in this thread. You feel that
you are better off with zooms. I'll allow you that, gladly, if you
can recognize that some of us are different. Just as creative, but
different.

And your statement elsewhere here to the effect that if you use one
prime lens, you will get pictures that look kind of similiar, and
so aren't as 'creative' as pictures taken with zooms, also needs
some clarification, I think. You mean a certain similiarity like
many photographers strive to get in their work? Cartier Bresson,
whose pictures are easily identifiable? Or perhaps William
Eggleston? Or Richard Avedon? I wish! Their work is recognizable by
a certain style, which is in part due to the way they work, and the
way they see. And each of them, and many other fine creative
photographers, use the same equipment for each shot.

I have no idea why Higuma, and you, and others don't seem to want
Olympus to make primes. Then I have no idea why some people ever
want to stop others from doing what they want.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan

--
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/

Stacey_K · Jan 31, 2005

scott kirkpatrick said:
scott kirkpatrick 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.

That's my kit, 11-22 and 50 F2. Superb quality, light and covers -almost- anything I'd ever shoot.

Stacey

Stacey_K · Jan 31, 2005

OzRay said:
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

Exactly. Been there with a fuji GSW6X9. Has a FANTASTIC 65mm wide lens and the format rocks but after about a year of shooting, everything starts looking the same and you are FORCED to use this same composition. With a wide zoom like the 11-22, you can play with some ultra wide, some normal and some in between. I used to carry a 21, 28, 35, 50 and 100 with my OM, I can cover all this and the lengths in between with 2 lenses now with NO quality loss.

BTW I can't see why anyone would want a 43mm f1.4 when there is a 50mm F2 already.

Stacey

Higuma · Jan 31, 2005

Thanks for everyones input... It's been an education..

May I make a few points based on observation at this point ??

The issue of primes seems to boil down to a few different things...

1 - fast apertures

2 - size

3 - SEEING - creativity factor

4 - Nostalga...

On point one - I understand and believe that fast apertures are a useful and NEEDED commodity....

On point two - Yes indeed a 25mm f1.4 would be small / semi-pancake but this is not an issue for me...

On point three - And here's a niggler.. I agree that a prime can aid a photographer in learning to SEE by needing to look through a single point of view - I won't go into further detail as it has been described both well and ad-nauseum by contributors above...

BUT... 1) I believe that - most - people new to photography don't care or want to take the time to learn this art form... heck most won't even take the time to read the frickin manual and instead come here, don't take the time to constitute a search and simply post looking for instant gratification with the least amount of investment of their own brain...

2) If you are an "old timer" like perhaps RayK, myself and others and have already learned this "technique" then my question is... Independent of the speed / size / nostalgia issues can you not SEE just as well with a zoom lens ???? I mean I treat my 14-54 & 50-200 zoom as a about 150 different primes and use them accordingly...

On the other hand sometimes shooting with only 5 mp and a prime would be a real hindrance as physical constraints can some times severely limit your ability to get the right perspective and then that is when a zoom shines over the prime lens... I would rather zoom any day than crop 50% of my frame... How about you??

On point four... I can be nostalgic sometimes too but this is really costly nostalga...

Further up Adrian gave me a list of primes he would like to see.. I think it was a good list... but let me ask Adrian now for yet another favour... Tell me - realistically - What do you expect those fast primes to cost ?? Not pie in the sky - we are talking Olympus who are not cheap in the optical department - but a true realistic price for the lenses you listed complete with good focus motors, firmware upgrading, near telecentric and etc..,

I think that in the end Nostalgia is simply TOO expensive for the average guy...

NOW to clear a few things up... I NEVER SAID that I didn't want a prime roadmap... I NEVER SAID that people who do are twitts... I NEVER SAID that prime lens aficionados are "old school"...

WHAT I DID SAY was that " I am sick and tired of hearing all this bitching about the 4/3 future being bleak without a bag FULL of fast primes"...

WHAT I DO SAY NOW IS... it is helpful to have primes to learn to SEE as described in this thread BUT it is not absolute and it CAN be done with zooms if you try... I think that "EYE" as I call it can be a learned thing but the greats - as mentioned above by RayK - were born with it...

FAST PRIMES - bring em on - a got a fat wallet...

SMALL PRIMES - who gives a rat's arss...

SEEING - is in the eye of the beholder and not somehow magically built into a lens - prime or zoom...

NOSTALGIA - if I need it I just have to look in the mirror...

Cheers,

Higuma · Jan 31, 2005

Higuma said:
Thanks for everyones input... It's been an education..

May I make a few points based on observation at this point ??

The issue of primes seems to boil down to a few different things...

1 - fast apertures

2 - size

3 - SEEING - creativity factor

4 - Nostalga...

On point one - I understand and believe that fast apertures are a
useful and NEEDED commodity....

On point two - Yes indeed a 25mm f1.4 would be small / semi-pancake
but this is not an issue for me...

On point three - And here's a niggler.. I agree that a prime can
aid a photographer in learning to SEE by needing to look through a
single point of view - I won't go into further detail as it has
been described both well and ad-nauseum by contributors above...

BUT... 1) I believe that - most - people new to photography
don't care or want to take the time to learn this art form... heck
most won't even take the time to read the frickin manual and
instead come here, don't take the time to constitute a search and
simply post looking for instant gratification with the least amount
of investment of their own brain...

2) If you are an "old timer" like perhaps RayK, myself and others
and have already learned this "technique" then my question is...
Independent of the speed / size / nostalgia issues can you not SEE
just as well with a zoom lens ???? I mean I treat my 14-54 & 50-200
zoom as a about 150 different primes and use them accordingly...

On the other hand sometimes shooting with only 5 mp and a prime
would be a real hindrance as physical constraints can some times
severely limit your ability to get the right perspective and then
that is when a zoom shines over the prime lens... I would rather
zoom any day than crop 50% of my frame... How about you??

On point four... I can be nostalgic sometimes too but this is
really costly nostalga...

Further up Adrian gave me a list of primes he would like to see.. I
think it was a good list... but let me ask Adrian now for yet
another favour... Tell me - realistically - What do you expect
those fast primes to cost ?? Not pie in the sky - we are talking
Olympus who are not cheap in the optical department - but a true
realistic price for the lenses you listed complete with good focus
motors, firmware upgrading, near telecentric and etc..,

I think that in the end Nostalgia is simply TOO expensive for the
average guy...

NOW to clear a few things up... I NEVER SAID that I didn't want a
prime roadmap... I NEVER SAID that people who do are twitts... I
NEVER SAID that prime lens aficionados are "old school"...

WHAT I DID SAY was that " I am sick and tired of hearing all this
bitching about the 4/3 future being bleak without a bag FULL of
fast primes"...

WHAT I DO SAY NOW IS... it is helpful to have primes to learn to
SEE as described in this thread BUT it is not absolute and it CAN
be done with zooms if you try... I think that "EYE" as I call it
can be a learned thing but the greats - as mentioned above by RayK

were born with it...

FAST PRIMES - bring em on - a got a fat wallet...

SMALL PRIMES - who gives a rat's arss...

SEEING - is in the eye of the beholder and not somehow magically
built into a lens - prime or zoom...

NOSTALGIA - if I need it I just have to look in the mirror...

Cheers,

AngelicBeaver · Feb 1, 2005

I feel like a fly on the wall listening to you all speak with autohority of things I am only just beginning to learn exist and I don't want to intrude, but I believe my question to be very easily answered by folks with a greater understanding than I have.

As you are speaking of zooms, is it possible that a zoom lens will appear for an SLR that goes from 35-435mm? I have seen a few zooms that are much larger than the one that is on my camera (a prosumer FZ20) but the focal length is much shorter (200-300mm or so).

Nabal · Feb 1, 2005

Higuma said:
Further up Adrian gave me a list of primes he would like to see.. I
think it was a good list... but let me ask Adrian now for yet
another favour... Tell me - realistically - What do you expect
those fast primes to cost ?? Not pie in the sky - we are talking
Olympus who are not cheap in the optical department - but a true
realistic price for the lenses you listed complete with good focus
motors, firmware upgrading, near telecentric and etc..,

Prime lenses in the focal length range we are talking about, 28mm through 85mm equivalent, are not necessarily expensive to manufacture. For example, Canon offers an EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark II which sells new for about $75.00 US. Canon also has a 35mm f/2 for about $225.00 US. Now granted, these are mostly plastic lenses and the construction quality is not impressive - but they're compact, light-weight, and optically they perform quite well. While Olympus may never lower themselves to making such cheaply constructed lenses, this doesn't preclude some other optical company from making them.

Thus far it has been an issue of market demand and profitability. I suspect there is more profit in selling expensive zooms versus cheap primes - and this applies to the manufacturer, importer and retailer. Since the 4/3rds standard came to market only recently, there has not been a wide enough user base of camera owners to justify "specialty" lenses like primes. As more 4/3rds camera bodies fall into the hands of consumers, the market demand for prime lenses will grow to the extent that they can be produced and sold profitably - if not by Olympus then by someone else.

Fortunately, mid-range prime lenses don't require complex optical formulas or the mechanical complexity of zooms. Cosina in particular is a company who has developed a lot of excellent prime lenses in recent years for their Voightlander rangefinder cameras, and they have also produced many of these lenses in SLR lens mounts. There has always been companies like Vivitar, Phoenix, Soligor, etc. marketing lower-priced SLR lenses when they feel there is a market demand for their products. The production capabilities of Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma should also be mentioned.

As 4/3rds camera bodies from Panasonic (and perhaps Kodak) enter the market, these other manufacturers will have lens offerings of their own - some of which may be primes. In due course as the user base expands, I believe 4/3rds camera owners will eventually have a wider variety of lenses to choose from than Canon and Nikon owners. "Rome wasn't built in a day."

scott kirkpatrick · Feb 1, 2005

Higuma said:
Thanks for everyones input... It's been an education..

May I make a few points based on observation at this point ??

The issue of primes seems to boil down to a few different things...

1 - fast apertures

2 - size

3 - SEEING - creativity factor

4 - Nostalga...

Higuma said:
On point two - Yes indeed a 25mm f1.4 would be small / semi-pancake
but this is not an issue for me...

Given that the last time we posted our pictures you revealed yourself as roughly 1.5 x the average Japanese size, and apparently you are carrying roughly 1.5 x the average E-1 size around with the extra battery power grip, I can see why point 2 is not an issue with you. But there are those among us (see Sean Reid's posts, for example) whose holy grail is an unobtrusive, quiet camera with all the picture taking characteristics of the E-1 and the seeing characteristics of a contrasty 28mm lens on a 35 mm body. (Well, Reid seems to be questing for an 85 mm lens on a 35 mm body, but he'll have to explain that.) And it is not just #4 (M4 nostalgia). The E-1 is already a really good tool for turning what you see into pictures without disturbing the world around you.

I find that I am using mostly the 11-22 these days. It's zoom-ness is very convenient, but before taking a picture I usually set it at 11, or at 14 or at 18, then view and shoot. I get to 22 when 18 doesn't work and I am too lazy to change lenses. Of course, i did build some of these habits before digital was even a gleam in anyone's eye.

good thread.

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

Alan Wu · Feb 1, 2005

macmanlou said:
----------------------------snip-------------------------------------------------------

macmanlou said:

SMALL PRIMES - who gives a rat's arss...

Click to expand...

----------------------------snip-------------------------------------------------------

I think he meant to say slow primes.

alan

macmanlou · Feb 1, 2005

Higuma wrote:

----------------------------snip-------------------------------------------------------

Higuma said:
SMALL PRIMES - who gives a rat's arss...

----------------------------snip-------------------------------------------------------

Candid "street" photographers who will line up for the first smallish, moderate wideangle (28 to 35mm equivalent) offered...

The 11-22mm Oly zoom is a fabulous lens, but point it in the direction of average strangers and they think you're shooting a close-up.

I was very disappointed to see the "fast wideangle" prime dropped from the lens roadmap. It was one of the reasons why I chose to buy into the E system a year ago.

Regards,

Lou

Higuma · Feb 1, 2005

scott kirkpatrick said:
Given that the last time we posted our pictures you revealed
yourself as roughly 1.5 x the average Japanese size, and apparently
you are carrying roughly 1.5 x the average E-1 size around with the
extra battery power grip, I can see why point 2 is not an issue
with you.

Knew that would come back to haunt me... in actual fact I am embarrassed to come clean and tell you I weigh in at 130kgs - probably closer to 2.5 times the average Japanese my age - the young'ns are bigger because of McDonald's or something....

scott kirkpatrick said:
good thread.

Thanks, I was thinking the same myself - The input was diverse and thought provoking - or perhaps just provoking...

)
Cheers,

Higuma · Feb 1, 2005

Alan Wu said:
I think he meant to say slow primes.

I did mean "small" primes - not meaning a 50 1.4 or the like but "small" meaning a range finder sized pancake type lens...

Even the OM 50mm 1.8 feels off balance to me when mounted to the E-1... However I think that it would be quick ergonomic on a E-300...

Cheers

macmanlou · Feb 1, 2005

Higuma wrote:

----------------------------------snip----------------------------------------------

Higuma said:
Even the OM 50mm 1.8 feels off balance to me when mounted to the
E-1... However I think that it would be quick ergonomic on a
E-300...

----------------------------------snip----------------------------------------------

The DZ 50mm ƒ2 is a great short tele, and is fine for candid portraits - outdoors.

It's unreasonable to wish that a moderate wideangle prime could approach the size of a comparable rangefinder lens because of the retrofocus required by SLR design, as well as the focus motor and electronics the E cameras need.

I'm guessing that the "normal macro" prime coming this year will probably be as small as it will ever get for an E system lens (so long as it's focused from several feet to infinity). It's the next Oly lens on my list.

Regards,
Lou

Kit S Aziz · Feb 1, 2005

Higuma :

Reichmann's compromised decision is based on the agony of lugging heavy camera equipment on his back while treking through a harsh landscape. My guess is that most of the photos are EV 16 or thereabouts ... so a zoom is perfect for that. Does he mention what he uses at home or in his studio ?

Yes, zooms are perfect travelling lenses because of their versatility but the complex design and many optical elements ensure that the image sharpness and contrast is not as good as prime lenses. Also, prime lenses designs allow larger maximum apertures which means that low light shooting without flashes gives sharper, more detailed images (larger aperatures allow for faster shutter speeds for a given EV measurement). Faster shutter speeds mean less shake which means sharper images.

It would be stupid to imply that zoom lenses are better than primes in terms of quality (I'm sure that you didn't imply that). Read up on the lens designs. Then if the debate is about the application of the glass ... it depends on what the use is - if the zoom fits the application and you are happy with the picture quality then fine.

I, personally am used to doing evening available light shots and I can tell you for sure that the 14-45mm F3.5 -5.6 zoom lens is not the right tool on my E300 and makes for poor quality photos. (It takes fantastic photos with the flash or in brighter light). The 50/2 prime is the right tool for that application...

You never mentioned what conditions YOU take photos in ...

Kit.

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,

a t o m i c · Feb 1, 2005

OzRay said:
Adrian

So what you're saying is that anyone who uses zoom lenses in lieu
of primes is perhaps photographically challenged and lacking in
creativity?

Nope, that doesn't even vaguely resemble what I wrote.

--
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

Prime Lenses....

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Active member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts