Must have Prime Lenses?

I am a total technical novice, just learning about how to shoot manual, and I have been caught up in this debate over Prime vs telephoto lenses. While I am really on the telephoto side (my Tamron 18mm-270mm lens really covers a lot and does it well enough to be an only lens) I am trying to learn to be a better photographer. So, I caved to "peer-pressure" and got a 50mm f/1.8 lens. So far, I love the sharpness and accuracy, and the light weight, but NOT the lack of zoom. I also realize that I tend to go for a lot of size and context in my photos. I want the big picture. So a wider angle lens is really important and maybe the 50mm isn't always what I need? Especially if it is the equivalent of an 80mm on a crop sensor lens.

So, I'm thinking I need 24mm, and maybe 35mm? Maybe I don't need the 50mm at all? Or do I need all three?

I will say this... once I get beyond walk around or street photography, and get into zoom, I don't see the value in separate prime lenses for my needs.

Thanks!

Hate to disappoint you , but buying a prime is not going to make you a better photographer. as you said you caved, and trust me they are not "peer"

Don

--
Olympus EM5mk2 ,EM1mk2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1

gedansky said:

Prime vs telephoto lenses.

Click to expand...

Couple of things. First the difference in lens types. I suspect you intend to say prime vs zoom. Telephoto lenses can be primes also, the term telephoto applying to their focal length.

gedansky said:

(my Tamron 18mm-270mm lens really covers a lot and does it well enough to be an only lens)

Click to expand...

Stop.

Right there.

Put your credit card back in your wallet and move on. If you just gotta spend money on something, take a look at your local community collage and see if they offer any photography courses.

Buying a lens due to peer pressure" rather than to solve a problem is not going to improve your images." Figure out what you actually need before you buy something.

So, I'm thinking I need 24mm, and maybe 35mm? Maybe I don't need the 50mm at all? Or do I need all three?

I don't see the value in separate prime lenses for your needs either

I also got caught up in the zoom vs prime debate. I decided to settle the matter once and for all by shooting test shots with all my lenses, comparing my primes to their corresponding equivalent focal length on my zoom lens.

The difference between shooting with prime and zoom lenses is at least as much a matter of shooting experience as it is a matter of image quality. It's a different way to "do photography"- I know it affects the way my body moves as well as the way iI see.

I shot exclusively with primes on film. Zooms were an expensive luxury when I got started, and Iater I never like the ones I tried- they were so big and heavy, and they felt sloppy.

When I started over with digital, I too yielded to peer pressure and bought zooms-- so much more flexible, and modern zooms don't have the sloppiness problem. The last point is true, but the lenses bored me stiff. I bought primes instead and now I am a happy digital camper. I have even learned to love using zooms for telephoto-- so handy for framing distant, shy and/or dangerous subjects.

My point in telling this story is that shooting experience is a matter of taste and there is a perfectly good chance that you are a "zoom person" the same way I am a "prime person". And it's all good.

Note that one of the few " normal" and mild telephoto primes I don't like much is a 50mm on a crop sensor. Love it on full frame but on crop, it's a bit blah. 27/28/30mm, 35mm, and 55/60mm are my favorite focal lengths on crop.

--
Instagram: @yardcoyote

OK... I realize I must have failed to word this properly.

First, I haven't actually caved to the prime vs zoom debate. I caved to buying an inexpensive lens many have called a "must have"... the 50mm f/1.8 STM. I am liking it so far for weight, speed, low light, clarity, etc., but I also realize I tend to shoot wide angle. So, maybe carrying a 24mm, a 35mm and a 50mm for every day street shooting, and saving my 18mm-270mm telephoto for the heavy lifting on vacations is a consideration?

thanks

Bob said:

I also got caught up in the zoom vs prime debate. I decided to settle the matter once and for all by shooting test shots with all my lenses, comparing my primes to their corresponding equivalent focal length on my zoom lens.

Click to expand...

what was YOUR preference? I understand it's just that, but, inquiring minds want to know.

I personally love having one lens that does it all. But, I also like having smaller lenses so I feel like I can carry my camera everywhere.

Thanks!

...preferably a recurring need.

I use zooms and primes. It depends on what I'm doing. I have a couple of reasons for using primes. Image quality is rarely one of them. Usually its to get a shallower depth of field.

I'm not a fan on the massive range zooms, but nothing wrong with zooms in general.

I would stick with what you have until you know what would make things easier or give you better quality for what you do.

Why not just get a smaller zoom - maybe a 17-50 or something like that.

gedansky said:

So, I'm thinking I need 24mm, and maybe 35mm? Maybe I don't need the 50mm at all? Or do I need all three?

Click to expand...

If those are your core questions, only you can answer them. Some people have a dozen prime lenses while some do almost everything with just one prime lens. Some have several zooms while some do almost everything with a single zoom. Still others have several primes and zooms.

We're all different. If we weren't, we'd have all the same stuff.

Favorite field of view is another whole issue for those who love primes. Wide angle is many people's favorite for general shooting-- a phone camera is about the equivalent of a 28 to 30 mm lens on film/FF.

Back in the day, many people carried pairs or "trinities" of primes. I had a 50 and an 85-- many people added a 28 or 35mm, but I've never been much for wide angle. My "extra" lens of choice is a tele macro. If you look at my gear list you see I still have that same three lens set repeated over several systems.

You can use your zoom to explore which prime(s) are right for you: set it at each focal length that you are considering and leave it there for a week or so and see what you can see.

I'm not against them but I have only one expensive zoom left and it's not a preferred substitute for my primes. Over time, they have become less valuable compared to cost and use. I'm glad you caved to peer pressure.

For many, a photographic objective is simply being able to capture any observation with hope that it will be a good shot. Using zooms are quite good for that, especially when going out into an infinity of unanticipated possibilities. One may feel the zoom improves the odds and I'd say there's limited truth to that because capturing an observation with zooms is very different from planning it with a prime. Maybe the opposite poles of photographic thinking.

Primes are usually more suited for a strategy, where one is more wary of how to use the lens to meet an objective. It's easier to learn about a 50mm prime and easier to envision what you'll get. They are more consistent and usually more distortion free. A 50mm is very close to how the eye sees, especially with depth effects. This characteristic is a huge plus to reflecting reality, a strong element of communicating with an image.

Consider classic large format, medium format or even older 35mm film photos where zooms rarely had any roll at all. Look into it and observe, then try to mimic it with a zoom that has no fixed formula... especially for a novice.

Instead of zooming on something that luckily turns out to be pleasing, think about how to use the expanded advantages of your 50mm prime lens to make something look even better. No matter how ugly the subject, it's camera skill that can make it appealing. When you've done this, you'll be ready to consider other primes... or even how to better use a zoom.

There was a time when photo schools prescribed a normal prime or 50mm lens. When you come to understand why, I wouldn't be surprised if your zoom starts collecting dust. I think the prime will grow on you and if you really work on it, will become addictive.

http://www.abwatson.com/why-i-only-use-one-lens/

More tips on exclusive use of a 50mm lens and he made quite a name doing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Cartier-Bresson

get a 18 or a 28. or restrict yourself to those two when you work with the zoom

gedansky said:

I am a total technical novice, just learning about how to shoot manual, and I have been caught up in this debate over Prime vs telephoto lenses. While I am really on the telephoto side (my Tamron 18mm-270mm lens really covers a lot and does it well enough to be an only lens) I am trying to learn to be a better photographer. So, I caved to "peer-pressure" and got a 50mm f/1.8 lens. So far, I love the sharpness and accuracy, and the light weight, but NOT the lack of zoom. I also realize that I tend to go for a lot of size and context in my photos. I want the big picture. So a wider angle lens is really important and maybe the 50mm isn't always what I need? Especially if it is the equivalent of an 80mm on a crop sensor lens.

So, I'm thinking I need 24mm, and maybe 35mm? Maybe I don't need the 50mm at all? Or do I need all three?

I will say this... once I get beyond walk around or street photography, and get into zoom, I don't see the value in separate prime lenses for my needs.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

If you spend most of your time at the wide end and you want an extra lens , might be worth considering a lens like the Canon 10-18, or Sigma 10-20 etc. This would give you something you don't already have with your 18-270.

Do a search on images captured with these and see if they fit in with what you like to shoot.

May be of help,

David.

gedansky said:

I am a total technical novice, just learning about how to shoot manual, and I have been caught up in this debate over Prime vs telephoto lenses. While I am really on the telephoto side (my Tamron 18mm-270mm lens really covers a lot and does it well enough to be an only lens) I am trying to learn to be a better photographer. So, I caved to "peer-pressure" and got a 50mm f/1.8 lens. So far, I love the sharpness and accuracy, and the light weight, but NOT the lack of zoom. I also realize that I tend to go for a lot of size and context in my photos. I want the big picture. So a wider angle lens is really important and maybe the 50mm isn't always what I need? Especially if it is the equivalent of an 80mm on a crop sensor lens.

So, I'm thinking I need 24mm, and maybe 35mm? Maybe I don't need the 50mm at all? Or do I need all three?

I will say this... once I get beyond walk around or street photography, and get into zoom, I don't see the value in separate prime lenses for my needs.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Hi gedansky,

When I bought my first camera it had a fixed lens zoom and I was reasonably happy with it although it was quite a basic camera.

When I bought my first dslr I bought 2 zooms, a Sigma 28-70 f2.8 and a Nikon 80-400 AFD.

The 28-70 was for general photography and it seemed ok but it was big and heavy.

I think like you I had heard that the 50 prime was a good bet and that most people had them. So I bought one used and cheap from a local camera store. It was very sharp and tiny and light compared to my zoom and I wondered if I would get on with it. However, a 50mm is considered a normal lens on a FF camera and my camera was a crop sensor, so on my camera it was (as you note) a 75mm equivalent which is probably too long for a walk about lens.

If you want a prime for a crop sensor which is like a 50mm is on FF, you should be looking at a 30mm.

Anyhow, I liked my prime enough to buy a couple more, a 20mm f2.8 and an 85mm f1.8 both of which were longer on my crop sensor camera than they were designed to be.

Now however I have a FF camera and my primes work as they were designed, my 50 is a walk about lens and my 20mm is truly wide

I would advise when you see someone praising their lens, prime or zoom, you pay attention to the camera that they have been using them on.

Mark_A

Welcome to G.A.S Society. Only place that let you enjoy the feels the emotion of the buyin'-even-you-drop.

You never have enough lenses.

gedansky said:

....

So, I'm thinking I need 24mm, and maybe 35mm? Maybe I don't need the 50mm at all? Or do I need all three?

Click to expand...

What focal length setting do you most often use on your current zoom? What setting feels most natural to you? That will give you an idea of what prime you want.

Use some masking tape to lock your zoom at that setting and see how it works for you over a couple of hours shooting. If you keep feeling an urge to rip the tape off and zoom either you have the wrong focal length or you're not a good candidate for primes.

Gato

gedansky said:

I am a total technical novice, just learning about how to shoot manual, and I have been caught up in this debate over Prime vs telephoto lenses. While I am really on the telephoto side (my Tamron 18mm-270mm lens really covers a lot and does it well enough to be an only lens) I am trying to learn to be a better photographer. So, I caved to "peer-pressure" and got a 50mm f/1.8 lens. So far, I love the sharpness and accuracy, and the light weight, but NOT the lack of zoom. I also realize that I tend to go for a lot of size and context in my photos. I want the big picture. So a wider angle lens is really important and maybe the 50mm isn't always what I need? Especially if it is the equivalent of an 80mm on a crop sensor lens.

So, I'm thinking I need 24mm, and maybe 35mm? Maybe I don't need the 50mm at all? Or do I need all three?

I will say this... once I get beyond walk around or street photography, and get into zoom, I don't see the value in separate prime lenses for my needs.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

One reason why some of us spend exorbitant amounts on the highest end zooms is because they perform like primes at most focal lengths and apertures - you get what you pay for. I feel I sacrifice virtually nothing with my high-end zooms - a 2.8 24-70, a 2.8 70-200 and so on. Now there are times when a prime is a better choice - not for image quality, but for weight, speed, or special purpose (macro for example). If I want a 1.4 for super low light I'm not going to get that in a zoom, or if I want to go light. Also, I tune all my lenses for maximum focus precision. In that respect primes are easier to tune as you tune for just the one fixed focal length - the tuning is always perfect; with zooms, tuning can be very good, but can also vary at different focal lengths, but those differences are pretty much imperceptible as depth of field typically negates the difference. Also, you do need to learn, lens-by-lens, the sweet and less-sweet apertures. A lens might be incredible at certain apertures (all lenses) but IQ may degrade at other apertures. The same is true with zoom focal lengths. I once bought a early Nikon 80-400 zoom and expected it to be great; it was the worst lens I ever owned even after trying several different samples; it was awful over 300mm at any aperture.

So there are many pros and cons - not just image quality. And I didn't even mention convenience - more lenses, more bulk to lug around. Everything has trade-offs. so when YOU make a decision that decision ought to be based on what YOU need - as the saying goes, the right tool for the right job.

Mike

My advice - probably the best do-everything prime is something in the 28-35mm focal length, as fast as possible. On a full-frame camera a 35mm f/1.4 will go a long way; on an APS-C camera a 24mm f/1.4 would be ideal.

The awkward thing with APS-C cameras is that there aren't many fast wide primes. Sigma's ancient 20mm f/1.8 is in theory ideal, but it's very large and the performance is poor.

With APS-C you need to go "one wider" and "one stoppier" to get the same effect. I shot the following with a 35mm f/1.4 on a full-frame camera; for the same effect with the same field of view you'd need something like a 24mm f/1.4:



Ignore the EXIF data; it was a manual focus lens with no electronic communication with the camera body.

Will it make you a better photographer? At the very least having to think about focal lengths, depth of field, the end result, the intended viewing medium etc will make you a pickier photographer. You will learn to accept that you won't be able to photograph some things. You'll learn how to think in a single focal length and how to vary composition to make your images look different, rather than just zooming in and out. You'll probably learn that it looks boring if the subject is in the middle of the frame all the time, unless you're Martin Parr and do it consistently.

--
http://women-and-dreams.blogspot.com/

gedansky said:

I am a total technical novice, just learning about how to shoot manual, and I have been caught up in this debate over Prime vs telephoto lenses. While I am really on the telephoto side (my Tamron 18mm-270mm lens really covers a lot and does it well enough to be an only lens) I am trying to learn to be a better photographer. So, I caved to "peer-pressure" and got a 50mm f/1.8 lens. So far, I love the sharpness and accuracy, and the light weight, but NOT the lack of zoom. I also realize that I tend to go for a lot of size and context in my photos. I want the big picture. So a wider angle lens is really important and maybe the 50mm isn't always what I need? Especially if it is the equivalent of an 80mm on a crop sensor lens.

So, I'm thinking I need 24mm, and maybe 35mm? Maybe I don't need the 50mm at all? Or do I need all three?

I will say this... once I get beyond walk around or street photography, and get into zoom, I don't see the value in separate prime lenses for my needs.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

As a novice, spend time and money on better technique. Buy books, take courses, do photo walks, ask for critiques, etc. Don't add gear to "fix" issues, especially if you can't find a problem in the first place!

Camera gear is good for opening up new photo opportunities:

"Hey, that bird is far away. I should get a longer lens."

"Hey, my zoom lens doesn't blur enough for good portraits; time for a prime."

If you're not experienced enough to get the most out of your existing gear, more refined lenses will look similarly.

You also have to understand that photography is a creative process and that you need to find the setup that works for you. Some people like to paint with oil pants while others prefer charcoal. Likewise, some photographers like an adaptable zoom lens to rapidly react to situations while others enjoy fitting their vision into a predefined focal length of 35mm, 50mm, etc.

There is no wrong answer here, but you need to time to develop your preferences and figure out if a different lens would fit those better. Trust me as another novice with too many lenses!