Reading mode: Light Dark

With primes, how many shots do you miss?

Go to last post
Well, you still did not address the issue of dropping, which is always a potential problem, and worse as you get older. Not only might the lens be damaged, but it could also be lost overboard or over a cliff. Also, I forgot the issue of moisture due to rain, other water conditions, or condensation.

I use zooms most of the time, and I carry multiple bodies (at least 2) so I can minimize lens changes and have instant full coverage. When I am in a situation where I am not sure what the targets might be (anywhere from large scenic to closeups of faces) and where they can change rapidly I might be using 3 bodies with 3 zoom lenses covering from 12mm to 400mm. But on those occasions when I need the capability of one of my primes I will use it (assuming I have it with me).

Fast primes provide for very low light conditions and very shallow DOF, both of which can be important, albeit in a limited number of circumstances. I would hope the "primes all the time" purist would also focus and meter manually as well since MF and MM offer the optimum control for both.

Anyhow, in line with the season, I wish good shooting to all, and to all a good shoot.
 
»Well, you still did not address the issue of dropping, which is always a potential problem, and worse as you get older. «

I´m 28. When I´m 82 I´ll get a set of zooms.

Cheers.

--

 
vintage said:
with primes, I would be looking to add a 35mm f2.0D and 85mm f1.8D
prime now, and probably a 180mm f2.8D prime later. If I were to
go with zooms, I'd either be looking at the 28-70mm f2.8D AF-S
(used) or the 35-70mm f2.8D for now, and adding more later.
Click to expand...
If you're shooting in a church, you'll want a zoom that's sharp wide open.
I have the 17-55mm DX and 28-70mm, and the 17-55 is sharper wide open.
vintage said:
I already have the 18-70mm kit lens, but may sell it in the future.
After shooting with the 50mm 1.4D, I crave the faster and sharper
lenses. I shoot a lot of photos in our church, where most of the
scene is often dimly lit and flash is not always acceptable.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you should be looking at faster lenses. The venerable 85mm f/1.4 is
probably what you would want in a church, along with the 28mm f/1.4 .

They'll deliver a decent f/2, although the shots at wider apertures are also pretty good. To me, softness is better than a ton of noise (raising the ISO) . The 35mm f/2 really is too soft until you hit f/2.8 . The 28 f/1.4 is
much better than the 35mm at f/2 .
vintage said:
I'd love to know how many shots you miss either not anticipating
the correct focal length for a coming shot or not changing lenses
fast enough.
Click to expand...
I do largely indoor sports and some concert/dance/people photography.
I would lose most of my shots were it not for the 28/50/85mm f/1.4 trio.
 
This is something i have thought considerably about myself. (Hence this long writeup)

I own a D200 (1.5X crop) with a 24/2.8, 50/1.4, and 12-24/4. I used to own the 180/2.8.

I just bought my first zoom 2 weeks ago, the 12-24. When I had an F100, the 24/2.8 was my favorite lens ever. I was horrified to mount it on the D100 and find it turn to a 36 mm. Worse yet, there NOTHING equivalent to it for a 1.5X format. Sigma makes a 14/2.8 but triple the price at $850 and won't take a front filter. Nikon's 14/2.8 is $1300. Everything wider than 20 mm under $850 is a fisheye. And price is an advantage of primes! So basically you can't get a good ultrawide prime for DX. No option there.

My gripe is that Nikon and other lens manufacturers aren't coming out with many new primes. In addition, the existing primes don't have the technology of the new zoom lenses (VR, AF-S). The 180/2.8 was a portable gem, a but SLOW focuser. With so much glass to move, AF-S is important.

But back to the question. It depends on the situation. In parties a zoom is good because you want to grab the shot quick and you often don't have time to zoom with your feet. For situations where you have time to compose (when I walk around the city), a prime is preferred. I think zooms are better for telephotos because these are the situations where you can't zoom with your feet -- otherwise you wouldn't need a telephoto.

But I really like the argument of "seeing a shot in a certain focal length" (12, 24, 50, or 180) -- and knowing which lens to pull out. Or walking around with a 24 and looking for shots that fit that focal length. You can't imagine every possible shot every moment with every focal length. You need to focus. A zoom takes away this compositional thought process.

--
http://www.justinphoto.com (virtually all taken with primes)
 
The only time I feel limited by primes is at events...

Like weddings..

That's when you really don't have time to move around, and the zoom ring is your friend.

That said, that doesn't mean a prime won't do just as well, you just gotta be fast on the draw..

perspective-wise:

28mm (group shots)

50mm (involved shots)

90mm (portrait shots)

90mm macro (memorable items shots)

are what you probably need to be able to cover in a wedding event. If you've got 3 primes and are quick on the draw, then no problem.

I have more fun shooting primes... But feel it too much stress in a wedding shoot.
 
Just for fun I had to take an opposite view - from this post it seems everyone likes primes!! Nothing like playing devil's advocate.

I have one prime and three zooms. It depends on how you shoot. For pj/event type work zooms are king. You can take the shot first time. They are easy to use and the pro glass is fast.

The lens quality i think is on a par with primes. Look at the fairly new 70-200 VR - already a legend. Zooms are not intrusive you can take those candid shots undetected. Going travelling - zooms are great particularly when the wife and kids are around. Lets take the crowded sidewalks of Venice, New York's Time Square or London's Oxford Street for example.

If I am under pressure to bag that shot only one lens is on the camera - the fast focusing ultra sharp "beast" 28-70mm. I know I will not fail. I think the emphasis in this debate should be not so much on missing the shot with primes but whether with zooms you will gain more great shots. Yes - your percentage of keepers will rise.

My sole prime is the 85mm cream machine - regal and in a class of its own.You can virtually shoot in the dark with this f/1.4. No zoom lens matches it for portraits. Edward makes an excellent point with the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 vis a vis the 12-24mm re sharpness. I have not as yet bought either. Maybe 20mm will be wide enough?

I would liken the primes (and especially the 85mm) to the great red wines vintages of France and California - lenses for connoisseurs - to be savored, respected and enjoyed far from the hustle and bustle of event work.

I will certainly buy more primes but the lens on the camera will depend on the job in hand. You need both!
 
I started SLR photography with kit zooms (over 15 years ago), then got struck by LLD and switched almost entirely to a nice collection of primes (24mm, 50mm, 85mm and 180mm, a great combination on film IMO).

But I soon realised that there were a number of cases where a zoom was handy. Especially "events" and "family" type of pictures. So when the family started to grow, I bought a Sigma 28-70 2.8 and more recently a Nikon 80-200 2.8. But I haven't stopped buying primes either... when I am not constrained, I love just taking one small, light & fast lens with me.

Now that I have some experience with the D70 and kit lens, I'd say the following:
  • the 18-70 kit lens is great. I'd rather keep it and use it in combination with fast primes than sell it for a large and bulky 28-70 2.8. I completely stopped using mine. At 2.8, the Sigma isn't great (it is much worse than moderately fast primes in the range). It will soon go on eBay.
  • I find that the convenience of a zoom is much more appreciated in the longer lenses. Although not great at 200mm f/2.8 compared to my 180mm prime, I love the 80-200 2.8 and stopped using my 180mm 2.8. I think I will never be able to sell it (for sentimental reasons), but I would not recommend its purchase.
In conclusion: I'd recommend 18-70 + 80-200 2.8 + primes in the 20 to 85 mm range (hoping that an affordable 12 or 14 mm DX prime will come soon)
 
Do you find that 85 is long enough for you? What I like about the 70-200 is 200 seems to be just right for getting a close up from the back of the room, and less than that to get the band/choir/whatever... do you use a longer fiocal length prime, like a 105 or 135?
sting said:
I do largely indoor sports and some concert/dance/people photography.
I would lose most of my shots were it not for the 28/50/85mm f/1.4
trio.
Click to expand...
--

There is no such thing as taking 'too many pictures', you can always delete the extra ones, but you can never go back in time, and take more pictures...

See profile for equipment (so far)
 
Exactly.

How many shots do you miss with a slow lens as opposed to how many shots do you miss with a prime lens instead of a zoom?

More with the slow lens, I'm guessing...
 
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