Reading mode: Light Dark

Why use a prime?

Go to last post
Petteri Sulonen said:
M5Laser wrote:

[snip]

In addition to the demonstrable advantages (weight, brightness,
flare) and the less tangible effect of primes as a creative or
compositional stimulant (works for many, but not for everyone),
there's something else.

Character.

Primes are like a woodworker's knives, planes, and chisels. Zooms
are like power tools.

Each prime has a very subtle character, and they're simple enough
that with time and attention you can get to learn to know them
thoroughly.

When wide-open, my 50/1.4 lightly kisses the subject. It gives
delicate detail a translucent quality. The field of focus pops out
like child's laughter at a funeral, with the rest fading into
misty-milky distance. As I stop down, the subject emerges like the
main theme out of a symphony; the background and foreground
coalesce out of the softness, taking up secondary melodies and
harmonies. At f/11, the lens plays like the Deutsche Oper in the
middle of the Ride of the Valkyries -- the scene sings in a chorus
of detail, almost intense enough to make the eyes burst.

My Tokina 17 is a gypsy violinist. He may not have the richness of
tone of a Guarnieri or a Stradivarius, but he has the
improvisational virtuosity of a Paganini. Wide-open on film,
vignetting makes the corners start to darken into deeper shades,
and the caprices of the player stertching the geometry into
dreamlike forms, taking you into a world where men wore felt hats
and suspenders, and women had their bright eyes in white faces,
with the mouth a dark, sensual gash, where music was overlaid by
the hiss and crackle of gramophone noise. There is a foreground and
a background, although the point where the tripping melody of the
field of focus fades into the harmonies of the background cannot be
defined -- look at it one way, and it's all melody, look closely,
and you hear the harmony. Stop down, use it on digital, but keep
your eye on the ball, and the lens sees as through clear water:
colors and contrasts almost more intense than real: the pictures no
more natural and seemingly as far away... but this time, in space
rather than in time. And, of course, there are the little
off-sounds of red and green CA here and there.

Zooms? Like power drills. Sure, you'll be able to produce a picture
with them, just as well as with a prime, only more efficiently. But
they lack personality and character. They're efficient and boring,
turning you into a picture-taking machine instead of an artisan.
For sheer feel and romance, there's nothing like primes that you
keep, treasure, and learn to know and love.

Petteri
--



Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
Click to expand...
Hi Petteri!
do you have 'Private Eye' in Finland?
I think you might get into print again!(G)
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
 
dyslexia said:
It's funny; the same reason you cite as a reason not to use primes
(that "zooming with your feet" changes perspective) is the same
reason I like them. I'm not anti-zoom, but I sort of enjoy the fact
that primes have a perspective all their own. Obviously, there are
times when a zoom is the only way to go, but in non-action shots
(ie. I have all the time in the world to compose), I personally
prefer to use primes.
Click to expand...
Well, I have both, and I like both. But I normally shoot with a zoom lens. My 28-105mm f/4-5.6 USM (one of the cheaper zoom lenses) and my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Sigma (another cheap lens) are usually on my 10D. My 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 and 50mm f/1.8 are only on it when I need the effect that they provide.

Zoom with your feet or zooming with the lens is a choice you have with a zoom lens. If you like a wider angle perspective, set the lens at the angle, and move your feet. If you like the tele end better, set the lens to tele, and move. With a zoom, this takes a fraction of a second. If you don't have a zoom lens, you can only zoom with your feet, which does change your perspective. I only use my f/1.8 prime when I want sharp, narrow DOF, or I have it on the camera and need a shot that I won't be able to get by switching lenses. It's a great portrait lens, but so is the 28-105mm, depending upon how much you can move and what perspective you want, a zoom lens is far preferable to a prime. Primes may be sharper, have less CA, be able to open up wider, etc. But all of these come secondary to the composition.

Yes, some L zoom lenses are even better than non-L primes. I can't afford them, but I spend my time composing, shooting, and processing, not spending money on expensive lenses. My 3 zoom lenses go from 24-480mm in 35mm equivalents on my 10D for about $900 total. Maybe someday I'll have the money to spend on an L lens, or maybe I'll just trade in my equipment for better lenses.
dyslexia125512 said:
Different strokes for different folks, I guess :)
Click to expand...
Amen.

-Mike
 
Olaf.dk said:
If you don't have the zoom option, you are forced to think
of composition with your feet.
Click to expand...
Who's teaching this stuff. It's pure nonsense. You compose with your brain and your eye, the lense only helps you get your vision onto the sensor. What am I missing?
Olaf.dk said:
Might not be the perfect perspective
either, because what you really needed was a different focal length
(maybe the zoom would have been better). I guess it could be seen
as this: using your feet takes more time, effort and awareness.
Click to expand...
Again, who's teaching you this nonsense. I have a zoom attached to a sensor body and to the sensor body is a monopod/ballhead combo. Not exactly the convenient, time saving package. Up and down the street I walk. Find the vision, get my perspective with my eye and brain. Then I attach the viewfinder to my eye. From there, I frame the image with the zoom and then capture the image. Before I capture the image, I scan the viewfinder for distractions, consciencely remove any distractions that I can and make mental note of any necessary airbrush work I'll need to do in PS. But I fail to see how this saves time because I gain my perspective before the viewfinder goes to my eye.
Olaf.dk said:
This could lead to better pictures - if timing isn't crucial. In
photography where timing is crucial, zooms have it over the primes!
Click to expand...
Zooms are a tool as are primes, nothing more and to ascribe anything else to them is nuttyness. Here's another shot from this weekends efforts with a zoom.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1766384&size=lg
Olaf.dk said:
I rotated the camera around the lens axis in this picture, is this
bad composition? I think it worked well! (shot with a Canon G1 and
a shoe mounted 420EX bounced):

Click to expand...
A very nice pic of some very nice people but the rotation causes me to have to crink up my neck to straighten up the intentional rotation, this is distracting and can hurt and ole guys neck. This would come under the heading of bad composition as composition should hurt and ole man's neck:-)

They're still a lovely couple:-)

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Rylee

You have to use a prime to see the difference. I am using a 100-400 also but it is nothing compared to a 500 prime. A huge difference. Also focus tracking is much better and of course the 5.6 on the 100-400 is not much fun either.

The 100-400 is a nice lens but a big compromise also

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

photos at http://www.salzlechner.com/photo
 
When I see that, I think the photographer has just fallen out of a tree!
Olaf.dk said:
Olaf.dk said:
I rotated the camera around the lens axis in this picture, is this
Click to expand...
bad composition? I think it worked well! (shot with a Canon G1 and
a shoe mounted 420EX bounced):

Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
Doesn't the 500 cost about the same as 4 or 5 of the 100-400's?
I hope it does perform better.

I am considering the 400 5.6L, but would like to see how it compares to the 100-400
Michael Salzlechner said:
Rylee

You have to use a prime to see the difference. I am using a 100-400
also but it is nothing compared to a 500 prime. A huge difference.
Also focus tracking is much better and of course the 5.6 on the
100-400 is not much fun either.

The 100-400 is a nice lens but a big compromise also

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

photos at http://www.salzlechner.com/photo
Click to expand...
 
I sold all my zooms(including 2 "L"s), which were replaced by the following primes:
1)EF 28 f2.8 $110 second hand
2)EF 50 mm f2.5 macro $190 used from canoga camera
3)EF 85 mm f1.8 $200 second hand
4)EF 100 mm f2.8 macro $320 second hand
Total $820. I saved about $1700 by switching to primes.

My old primes:

1)14mm f2.8 (sigma), $500 shipped from Ebay. I got it a long time ago, even before D30 came out. People were not fond of super wide angle by that time, since I was the only one actually placed a bid for it.
2)EF 300 F4 (non IS version), $650 second hand.

So for a total of less than $2000, I had a set of primes that cover the whole range from 14mm to 300mm, better speed, superior optical quality and light weight.

Primes are not that popular today, so it is relatively easier to find some really nice deals on second hand ones.

Cheers!
Wangler
M5Laser said:
I understand that for the most part, primes are sharper than
zooms…. But aside from that, are there any advantages?
I keep hearing about people using their 300 L for sporting events….
But it seems to me that it must be somewhat frustrating? I would
imagine you would be somewhat limited as to where you can stand and
what you can capture. People would either be too close are too far
away.

So to the people out there with primes, what do you think about
them? Just looking for some input!

Duncan
Click to expand...
--
Darkness is made up of dark particles(people now call them noise).
 
Thomas Gardner said:
A very nice pic of some very nice people but the rotation causes me
to have to crink up my neck to straighten up the intentional
rotation, this is distracting and can hurt and ole guys neck. This
would come under the heading of bad composition as composition
should hurt and ole man's neck:-)
Click to expand...
Thomas, you read the picture the wrong way! You said it yourself - the rotation was intentional - meaning I didn't intend for the viewer to reverse the rotation by turning their head!

Of course, composition is a very subjective matter, and you are entitled to have your opinion. To me, the rotation added some dynamics and interest to the picture. Also, it made the woman seem more leaning on her man, which I think makes the photograph a bit more intimate. That's just my opinion. I am aware of different compositional rules, but am not afraid to break them. When I do, I make sure it is obviously intentional, otherwise it could very easily look like a mistake.



--
Olaf

 
Always pointing the finger elsewhere. If users sought to educate themselves about an icon as much as their tool, we'd would see better results.
DavidP said:
Nilo Here said:
Majority of the people here would not know who Bresson is and why
his work is so important?
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and
tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
Click to expand...
 
I think this comparison was done in another thread on this forum by DavidP and some others. I don't know exactly which lens but I remember a DO lens and the 100-400L were in the mix.

You'll have to do a search as I don't have the url handy.
sjstokes said:
I am considering the 400 5.6L, but would like to see how it
compares to the 100-400
Michael Salzlechner said:
Rylee

You have to use a prime to see the difference. I am using a 100-400
also but it is nothing compared to a 500 prime. A huge difference.
Also focus tracking is much better and of course the 5.6 on the
100-400 is not much fun either.

The 100-400 is a nice lens but a big compromise also

--
Michael Salzlechner
StarZen Digital Imaging
http://www.starzen.com/imaging

photos at http://www.salzlechner.com/photo
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Bob Lindabury
 
M5Laser said:
So to the people out there with primes, what do you think about
them? Just looking for some input!
Click to expand...
To the point:

There simply is no way that the best possible zoom could ever be as good as the best possible prime. It never occurred to me that I should buy a zoom and trade quality for (an overrated) convenience. Quality and sharpness are more important than anything else, given that the content and composition of the image is also good.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/
 
I wish I could use my 17mm FD f4. I'm having real trouble not being able to have a true 17mm in my lens arsenal. I used to shoot with that lens a ton for PJ type work.
weirdrob said:
Thomas Gardner said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
weirdrob said:
Bad
example Petteri:-) You're using romantisim as a reasoning to use
primes.
Click to expand...
Not reasonING. Reason, yes. Isn't there an irrational, romantic
aspect to photography for you? For me, there is. I think that for
most people, there is. Some camera makers would be long out of
business if there wasn't. That was what I was describing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I had passion for my old FDn 17/4 and it was one of my most used
lenses. It seemed to be the lens I grabbed most often when I saw a
shot developing in front of me...and I always had time to change
lenses, decide on exposure, and focus.

The only thing digital about this shot is the final scan and
tweaking in PS:

http://www.pbase.com/image/21469683

--
Rob Wierman
http://www.pbase.com/weirdrob/001_10d
Click to expand...
--
Bob Lindabury
 
Thomas Gardner said:
You have to forgive them David. They don't understand that when
you zoom with your feet, you also change the image perspective. I
guess just like I can't see telephoto, they don't understand
perspective:-)
Click to expand...
Unless that perspective is the reason they zoom with their feet. But I've got to give you credit; this is a new one. It's usually the people who stand in one spot and reframe with a turn of the wrist who are said to not understand perspective ... this is a great spin!
 
Thomas Gardner said:
primes are all there is. Hence the mixture. I have a Sigma
100-300, that kicks Canon 300mm f/4.0L, non-IS bu++.
Click to expand...
I didn't even want to reply to this but My 300F4 Non-IS outresolves the sensors in my 1D and 10D even wide open let alone a D30 - I don't know exactly what the Sigma 100-300F4 beats the 300/4 for but it certainly ain't image quality !!! - the Sigma is a superb Zoom but from what I've seen it matches the old slow 100-300 F5.6L both at F5.6 at best - in otherwords good value but no prime killer ..

the 120-300 F2.8 stopped down to F4 maybe another matter but it's twice the weight of a Canon 70-200L F2.8 !!

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

The No1 Dedicated 1D forum in the UK -------->

http://www.1dforum.co.uk/php/phpBB2/

 
Remember, in school, when we all had to do that excersize, where we wrote down the instructions to make a sanwich? Every step? Like walk into the kitchen. Walk to the cubbord. Open the door. Reach for the peanut-butter. Grab the container. Pick it up, lift it, put it on the counter. Now walk to the other cubbord -- the one where the bread is. And so on, for two or three pages.

And then, when you're done, and look over the instructions you wrote down, you wonder how we all survived. I mean, it's so much work to eat, that we really should have starved to death.

That's the prime/zoom thing. Each one is an indispensable tool in the right situation for it. But people who prefer zooms make shooting with a prime out to be that three-page instruction set for making a sanwich. It's something intuitave, that you can make sound like brain surgery ... but when you try it, it's more like riding a bike.

Too far away from the subject - yeah, but I think I did well, and I don't know of a 300 mm zoom that goes to 1:4 and gives F-TM:



By the way, I just had an 8x10 printed by my pro lab ... amazing!!
 
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