Why do you chose a prime?

When choosing to mount a prime why do you do it?

1. they're faster.
2. they're smaller.
3. they cost less (well, at least the non 1.4 ones)
4. they've got better optics.
5. they inspire you as a photographer/force you to 'work' more for the photo.
6. other reasons

Smaller, lighter, closer nearest focus, lesser distortion, lesser flare.

RodluvanII said:

When choosing to mount a prime why do you do it?
3. they cost less (well, at least the non 1.4 ones)

Click to expand...

a f/1.4-zoom will cost much more!

Better control over DoF
--
Bluenose

I use them because of subject isolation they offer.

I would prefer zoom otherwise, but that would increase weight, price and size. Anyway zooms fast as f/1.4 are not available.

--

'Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.'

RodluvanII said:

1. they're faster.

Click to expand...

or there is no suitable zoom lens for the purpose (e.g. macro).

--
http://www.intopicture.com

All the reasons you mention are good reasons to choose a prime.
But there's some more (at least for me).
I started to take pictues some decades ago.
At that time there was no choice.

I started with the rolleiflex 6x6 that belonged to my father (twin lens camera!).
It took time to frame, adjust expo and focus.
That time gave me the chance to think what I was doing.
And the pictures were better, in quality and in looking.

When zoom lenses were firstly introduced they were not fast and were not so good (really not good).
Now there are a lot of very good zoom.
They are also fast (although bulky and costy).
But they allows quick shots. And that's a huge advantage (sometime)....
... but when I have the time, primes are still my favorite lenses.

--
FabioMassimo

Because they let in more light and give a smaller DOF

I'm not that satisfied with mine though, since I need to stop down more than 1 stop to get acceptable results
--
Nature and landscape photography: http://www.truphotos.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/truphotos
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/truphotos/

Yes, the image quality is at least for the time being superior, but the key reason why I use prime lenses is because they simplify what I do. When working with a fixed focal length, you are eliminating a variable that I find distracting ... "a zoom ring". Fixed focal length lenses force me to see images around me as a 50mm lens sees things for example. When I'm using an 85mm lens, I have trained myself to see what an 85 sees. Without the ability to zoom, I'm far more discerning when it comes to angles and composition.

Peace
Peter

http://www.peteranthonyphotography.com

I did some critical work comparing my 24-70 @ 28 to my old (KR recommended) 28 2.8. MF. I saw no difference in IQ which surprised me. Although the zoom is 10 times the size of the prime had I dropped the prime switching lenses it would be in Lake Erie about now.

Each has their use.
--

Sold the (old) half-frame from Thailand. Bought a 700 under my own personal stimulus
plan.

DoF and Bokeh.

Only two reasons makes sense today, faster glass at f1.4 if you camera has problems with high ISO settings and noise, or you need a specific type of lens, PC, DC, macro, super telephoto, or fisheye.

I use a PC prime, a DC prime, 2 macro primes, and a fisheye prime. Now with the D3 my standard primes are collecting dust so to speak as I do not need f1.4.

I shot only with primes until the 80-200 f2.8 and the 17-35mm f2.8 arrived and it no longer made sense to deal with standard primes except in low light with my ISO challenged D1x and D2x cameras.

Not cheaper to use primes if you compare cost of Nikon 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 to the cost of the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 zoom. And these are the primes you have to buy to get comparable image quality to the 24-70mm zoom.

1,2,4 You name it ...

Five lenses, only one zoom.

Tikkis

For low light and subject isolation.

6. They don't make tilt/shift zoom lenses.
7. They don't make Micro zoom lenses.

8. They focus the mind. When you are out walking, looking for photos to shoot, the limitation of one fl. can sometimes help you pick out images more easily. If you are carrying a full range of zooms, your mind can be a little overwhelmed with analyzing all the possibilities and ends up seeing nothing.
--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html

RodluvanII said:

When choosing to mount a prime why do you do it?
1. they're faster.

Click to expand...

Primes are often much slower to work with if you need to switch between several focal lengths. But generally speaking one chooses a prime because that particular lens is what one believes is the right one – out of the lenses which are available.

RodluvanII said:

2. they're smaller.

Click to expand...

One zoom lens can be much smaller than a number of primes. But if carrying a lens is included in the equation the smallness and weight can be a factor.

RodluvanII said:

3. they cost less (well, at least the non 1.4 ones)

Click to expand...

Not necessarily compared to the combined cost of a number of primes.

RodluvanII said:

4. they've got better optics.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but some primes are just made cheaper not better.

RodluvanII said:

5. they inspire you as a photographer/force you to 'work' more for the photo.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but for those who have used primes for a long period of time it can be inspiring to try zoom lenses. It is not a black and white situation.

It is true that the brain learns how a prime lens renders reality, so one can see the image even without looking through the viewfinder. But that is also the case for a zoom lens. The brain can even learn how a black and white image looks like before it is taken or the effect of a filter.

Of the more than 20 of my lenses 5 are zoom lenses. I am using them much more than the primes. I think one reason is convenience and the degree of readiness one can have with a zoom lens. With two primes I would probably carry two bodies with one lens on each. Still it would take longer to switch between the two lenses compared to utilizing one zoom. Of course, some time a prime with f/1.4 cannot be replaced by a zoom.

I believe it is important for everybody to develop their ability to see the images but also to find their preferences concerning focal lengths, lens types, type of camera and so on. Do not be fooled by someone who believes he have found his style of working and now is “selling” this style as if it would be the best for everybody.

RodluvanII said:

When choosing to mount a prime why do you do it?

Click to expand...

I mostly don't.

RodluvanII said:

1. they're faster.

Click to expand...

Not really. Many primes are 2.8 primes and there are plenty of zoom lenses that are f2.8.

RodluvanII said:

2. they're smaller.

Click to expand...

Individually yes, but if you want all of the available primes to cover a certain zoom lens' focal length range the primes will take up much more space in your bag and add a lot of weight.

RodluvanII said:

3. they cost less (well, at least the non 1.4 ones)

Click to expand...

Individually they often do cost less, but again to get all of the prime lenses to cover a zoom lens' range you will spend as much if not more than the cost of the zoom.

RodluvanII said:

4. they've got better optics.

Click to expand...

This is arguable. One of the worst lenses I've ever used is the 28mm AF-D - not terribly sharp and light falloff @ f2.8 was worse than any zoom I've ever used.

RodluvanII said:

5. they inspire you as a photographer/force you to 'work' more for the photo.

Click to expand...

This is a crutch - how can someone blame a tool for their own lack of creativity? Its simply foolish. Instead of blaming an inanimate object use the best tool you have -your brain- to challenge yourself to see things differently. Instead of shooting with a 24mm prime, set your zoom to 24mm and don't take it off the 24mm setting all day if you have to.

RodluvanII said:

6. other reasons

Click to expand...

The only reason I see for using a prime is that they don't have the capability that a zoom would have (1:1 macro is an example).

Zooms offer ease of use and convenience that is hard to beat with a single prime and with today's zooms there isn't as large a compromise in image quality (if any compromise at all) choosing a zoom over a prime.
--
http://jamesfraser.us

The longer version:

When there is plenty of light, and I don't need subject isolation, the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 do an outstanding job. Frankly, I have no need for primes in most cases. But when the light gets low, f/1.4 primes become the tool of choice. If I've got enough light for f/5.6, then the primes have no advantage for my shooting.

Between f/5.6 and f/2.8, a lot of factors come into play. But at events where I don't want to use flashes, fast primes come into their own.

In the old days, I normally used primes for nearly all my shooting. A zoom lens was a specialty lens to use when I was willing to sacrifice IQ for the ability to rapidly change focal lengths. Primes were designed as all-around performers, and were often weak performers when shot at wide open aperture. Zooms were weak at nearly all apertures.

Now the tables have turned. Pro zooms are amazing all-around performers, and have largely replaced primes for most shooters. Primes have become the specialty lenses used for conditions where zooms are not suitable - subject isolation and low light.

A lot of older primes needed to be stopped down to f/2.8 to achieve acceptable performance, so you give up IQ to get speed. Higher ISO performance cameras (like the D700) let me use pro zooms in pretty dark conditions, reducing the need for primes.

Some of the newer primes seem to be much more optimized for wide-open performance than in the past. Sigma really understands this, and their 50mm f/1.4 is a good example. I believe Nikon gets this now.

I now base my selection of primes on performance between maximum aperture to f/2. For my shooting needs, that is where I'll use a prime. Otherwise they don't justify the cost.

I'll bet you will see Sigma dive into this area to become the dominate player in fast primes. They can create a single design and spread the sales across multiple mounts. Nikon has wonderful f/1.4 AF-S primes, but they sure are expensive. I think this opens the door for Sigma.

All that said, I love the 85mm f/1.4 AF D, and shoot it more than any other lens - enough that it stays on a (almost) dedicated D700 body, with whatever-zoom on the second body.

--
Ken Elliott
Equipment in profile.

I shoot mostly in manual mode. So I hate zoom lenses where the aperture is not constant as you zoom in/out. Of course, the ones that don't change aperture cost a lot of money. So, I go with prime lenses and never looked back.

Other than that, they're smaller, lighter.

RodluvanII said:

When choosing to mount a prime why do you do it?

1. they're faster.
2. they're smaller.
3. they cost less (well, at least the non 1.4 ones)
4. they've got better optics.
5. they inspire you as a photographer/force you to 'work' more for the photo.
6. other reasons

Click to expand...

--
-Daniel
http://randomsnaps.tumblr.com

Various reasons. I've got enough lenses now that all my lenses are now specialty lenses. (The most versatile, the 18-200vr, is also used the least now).

I'll shoot an 85F1.8 or 105vr instead of my old push-pull 80-200F2.8 when I want less than 2.8, or closer focus than the zoom (but still not macro levels), or better IQ. (The 105vr is clearly better than the 80-200).

I'll shoot a 35F2 or 50F1.8 instead of my 24-70 on less-frequent occasions. The 50 if I'm really trying for small depth of field, and the 35 normally only when I feel like 'carrying light'.

I tried my 24F2.8 out recently on my D700, and soon realized why I never shoot it instead of my 12-24, 14-24 or 24-70. (Or probably even my 18-200). It's just not a very good lens in the corners, and F2.8 doesn't reduce depth of field much to give worthwhile effects there.

If I had a long prime, I've no doubt I would shoot it instead of my 80-400vr for IQ purposes.

There are times when one just feels like taking the grip off the camera, mounting a prime, and going around like it's .... 1970 or so.