Any guidelines for building a prime kit?

[Satyaa]

I got this idea way back and am just trying to see if there is a real meaning to it.

25+ years ago when I was buying my first film SLR, the internet was new and there were several small photography sites and blogs that have disappeared since. I read this somewhere and don't know if it still exists.

That article said something like, find the focal length that you use most and keep doubling the focal length for tele lenses or halving for wider lenses, as many steps as you need. Anything in between is inefficient in terms of number of lenses and frequent switching.

As an example, the author used 50mm as most used focal length. For tele lenses you would benefit from having a 100mm and 200mm. For wider lenses you would benefit from 25mm (or24) and 12mm (or 14).

The idea was that under normal conditions (= not near a cliff, not sitting in the audience with people around, not chasing fast moving subjects, etc.) there is room to move forward or backward to compensate for some focal length. Beyond that you need double or half the focal length for a meaningful difference. That was the guideline for an efficient prime kit (can't remember what the author called it).

I didn't think much of it and never used primes with film or DSLR cameras (but I always had a 50mm because theory said every photographer must have one!) People often ask me what lens I use but in all these years I was only asked twice if I use a 50mm!!

Without consciously thinking of it, I just happened to buy a 40mm, 20mm and 75mm primes for my FF ML body. The main reason for this was their price. I preferred 35mm but 40 was cheaper, etc. If I had to buy more expensive lenses I definitely would have bought one or two, not all three. If I went with my preferred 35mm, then I should have bought an 18mm, 70mm (75 is close) and 140mm (135 is close) per this guideline.

When packing the lenses yesterday for an event, I picked 40mm on FF body and 42.5mm for MFT body (which can be accepted for roughly 85mm view). This old idea came back to mind for no reason. Edit: Today I am using 75mm lenses on both Z7ii and G9ii for a similar event. So, this idea probably affected me more than I realize

As I think about it, the most popular focal lengths of 85mm and 135mm don't fit into this scheme! So, some might call this theory/guideline a hoax.

We all need some focal lengths but not everything in between. Are there such guidelines for what can be called an efficient prime kit? I recently covered an indoor event with 15/1.7 on one MFT body and 42.5/1.7 on the other. I believe it is possible.

I know there can be special lenses like macro or tilt/shift whose focal lengths may vary, but I am referring to general photography.

I intend to leave wildlife and zooms out of this because then we can scrap this entire post.

Thanks.

--
See my profile (About me) for gear and my posting policy. My profile picture is of the first film camera I used in the early 80s, photo credit the internet.

 

[Lensmate]

The best prime lens that would cover all your needs would be a high end zoom...

tease

Maybe just buy a Leica Q3 43 and crop with that huge sensor it has...

-M

 

[MediaArchivist]

I don't know about any specific formula, I picked a batch of primes that are "different" and cover the types of scenes I expect. I ended up with a 50/1.2, 35/1.4, and 20/1.8.

 

[rsn]

That article said something like, find the focal length that you use most and keep doubling the focal length for tele lenses or halving for wider lenses, as many steps as you need. Anything in between is inefficient in terms of number of lenses and frequent switching.

Most of us ignore sound advice for choosing lenses. This advice is simple, when you discover what you are doing with the lens(es) you are doing it with, then get a new lens when the current lenses aren't doing the job. So for example, if you want to shoot close up and macro, then get a macro lens.

Probably the most owned and least used lens in our camera bag is the 50mm (or equivalent in a crop camera), usually an f1.8 or f1.4 or wider. Many of us have told a newbie - and I have been guilty of this - now that you own a zoom get a fast prime to use in low light. This isn't bad advice if the newbie is taking a lot of shots in low light but most are not.

So to get primes because it fulfills a mathematical principle but not a photographic need would be a waste of money. Getting a 100mm lens because you started enjoying a 50mm won't be useful unless you shoot a lot requiring that kind of reach - probably portrait work. If portrait work, then a fast 85mm f1.8 or 1.4 would be good for quality bokeh. But if you aren't shooting portrait type images, an 85mm or 100mm probably wouldn't be that helpful, especially if you have a decent zoom that covers that range.

I recently covered a sporting event that included table tennis. I was shooting images for the organization. There were eight active tables with changing of players at the end of each match. I needed to get in and get the shots quickly. I had read to take a fast prime so I brought my Sigma 150mm f2.8, I also had my 24 - 105 f4 lens. I started with the zoom and decided to try the prime. The Sigma lasted on my camera literally two minutes, I didn't like it at all for that sport, and I love that lens. I "needed" the 24 - 105 f4 zoom, it was only one f stop slower than the Sigma and with today's cameras, one stop loss of light isn't a big deal.

Purchase a lens because it scratches an itch.

--
"Just go a different way." James Hoffmann

 

[ahaslett]

Get zooms for general photography and primes for a reason - size, character/IQ, subject isolation…

Pair your zooms and primes.

My MFT primes are 8/1.8 fisheye, 10/2, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, adapted 50/2 macro, 300/4.

My FE primes are 15/4.5, 21/2.8, adapted 24/3.5 TSE II, 35/2, 35/1.2, 50/2 APO, 55/1.8, 90/2.8 macro, 100mm T2.3. I have zooms from 17-75mm and 100-400mm

A common carry is 20-70/4 plus 35/1.2 or 100/2.2.

You can see that my FE primes follow roughly a 1.5x ratio. I don’t believe in zooming with your feet - FL determines the degree of expansion or compression.

No-one can tell you want you want to photograph or how you think about composition. This thing about fast lenses for low light only works if you are willing to compose for shallow depth of field. There was a thread a couple of years ago from someone wanting advice shooting in a mine working. Lots of people said to get a fast prime!

OP reported back that there wasn’t enough depth of field. IS would have been better advice.

A

 

[Joe Lynch]

I'm pretty much in line with ahaslett, above, but I have far fewer primes than he has.

I'm thinking just get two primes roughly doubles of each other and see how it goes, then add/swap as needed. In my opinion, no matter what one's initial choices for primes, one will wind up with 3 or 4.

Joe L

 

[ahaslett]

I'm pretty much in line with ahaslett, above, but I have far fewer primes than he has.

I'm thinking just get two primes roughly doubles of each other and see how it goes, then add/swap as needed. In my opinion, no matter what one's initial choices for primes, one will wind up with 3 or 4.

Joe L

I got the TSE and 55/1.8 first, then 21/2.8. It turns out that 21mm and 55mm are my favourites. I only duplicated those in MFT when I wanted a small but capable kit.

A

 

[RubenJ]

Aren't you overthinking this? In SLR times plenty people had a 50+100, 35+85, 24+100 or whatever combination. Suggesting rules is silly, call them advices. Use your zoom and see which FL you use most, or what you need it for (all in one 35mm, portrait 85mm, indoors 20mm etc). Try what you like and sell what you don't use. In under $500 I acquired Canon 24, 28, 35, 40, 50, and 85. I'll be selling the 28 and 35/40 soon.

 

[yardcoyote]

Guidelines? Formulas? The heck with it. Buy the primes you like for shooting the kind of subjects you want to shoot. Do not "build an all purpose kit". Do not "cover all focal lengths". Buy primes that give you the views of the world that make sense to you even if that means a lot of lenses in one part of the range and none in others.

I like primes in focal lengths between 40 and 90mm equivalents. Those are my favorite lenses, and the ones I use the vast majority of the time. Nothing wider than 40 at all, and over 90 sparingly as a special effect. From the lenses that are usually available in most systems, that means a 40 (absolute requirement-- that's my "wide angle") probably a 50 (by default, although I actually would prefer a 55) a 75 (my new favorite for walkaround) and an 85 or 90 for getting in closer. If I could have only one lens it would be a 55. If I could have two, a 40 and a 75, with my third an 85 or 90. If the 90 was also a macro lens, that would cover two requirements. Otherwise add a good macro lens for plants and bugs. And that's it, though I will confess to liking a good cheap slow tele zoom as the equivalent of photographic junk food.

Is this well rounded? Of course not. But the list of photographic genres or areas that don't interest me is long, starting with landscape, wildlife, action, portraits, etc. I dabble in all of these, of course, but only if they come within range of my street/walkaround/generalist's "third eye".

Know yourself, and buy the primes you actually want, not the ones some formula tells you you need.

 

[Klaus dk]

If I were to build a set of primes, I'd look at shorter steps of approximately square root two, to minimize the loss of pixels when cropping.

If you want a field of view of an 85mm lens, and the 100mm is too long, you can crop a 50mm shot to get there. With a crop factor of 85/50 = 1.7 you lose (1 - (1 / 1.7^2 )) * 100 = 65.4% or almost 2/3 of your pixels.

But in reality, I've done what

Get zooms for general photography and primes for a reason - size, character/IQ, subject isolation…

... that is 85/1.4 for subject isolation, 100/2.8 for macro — and a type 1 sensor zoom compact for travel, social and street.

 

[Satyaa]

Aren't you overthinking this?

Something I read years ago just came to mind. I was asking to see if long timers really used such rules.

In SLR times plenty people had a 50+100, 35+85, 24+100 or whatever combination.

OK

Suggesting rules is silly, call them advices. Use your zoom and see which FL you use most, or what you need it for (all in one 35mm, portrait 85mm, indoors 20mm etc). Try what you like and sell what you don't use. In under $500 I acquired Canon 24, 28, 35, 40, 50, and 85. I'll be selling the 28 and 35/40 soon.

For context, I know such statements were made at a time when zooms were considered 'inferior' or that they could not go past 3x to be of acceptable quality. With zooms like the OM 12-100/F4 for MFT, those notions are out the window. With high ISO capabilities and NR tech today, F4 to F5.6 zooms are not an issue.

As other responses pointed above, today I mostly use zoom for general purpose and primes when there are specific needs.

 

[Satyaa]

If I were to build a set of primes, I'd look at shorter steps of approximately square root two, to minimize the loss of pixels when cropping.

That's a good point. Today's considerations are digital.

But in reality, I've done what

ahaslett, post: 68456667, member: 395517"]
Get zooms for general photography and primes for a reason - size, character/IQ, subject isolation…

... that is 85/1.4 for subject isolation, 100/2.8 for macro — and a type 1 sensor zoom compact for travel, social and street.

Thanks.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Ruby Rod]

1) Figure out what primes cover the things you want to shoot.

2) Figure out what size suitcase, backpack or pickup truck will hold them all.

3) Add up the published weights of everything.

4) Accept that it's a crazy idea and buy a couple zooms instead.

5) If you then get the itch for a prime, go for it.

 

[BAK]

You write:>> Are there such guidelines for what can be called an efficient prime kit? <<

If you go back to the early days of 35mm single lens reflex interchangable film cameras most people bought a camera body that came with a 50mm lens.

Then they could choos additional lenses from a very limited selection. On the wide side, most camera makers had a 28mm lens and a 35mm lens. On the telephoto side, most had a 85mm, 100 pr 105, and 135.

So the first lenses people bout for their "system were some combin ation from each side.

I liked lots of content in my picture, so had a 35mm lens and a 100mm lens.

BAK

 

[Guy Parsons]

In film days and with earlier digital it may have made sense to buy a set of zooms with focal lengths separated by square root of 2, about 1.414.

Now with higher res digital that can stand more cropping then maybe 2x separation factor makes more sense.

But it all depends on what you need to shoot.

Best advice would be to use a zoom lens for a year then map out which focal lengths were most used, then wait another year to think about it then buy the set of primes that you think you need.

Or stick with the useful zoom instead and make life easier.

Here's what two weeks on holiday with a compact camera with "24-200mm" lens taught me....



The usual crazy bumps at zoom ends but where most intermediate traffic falls gives me a clue as to what would be useful if I ever decided to go all primey. But I stay with f/2.8 zooms with my M4/3 gear as that works best for me.

 

[ishwanu]

...keep doubling the focal length for tele lenses or halving for wider lenses, as many steps as you need. Anything in between is inefficient in terms of number of lenses and frequent switching.

As an example, the author used 50mm as most used focal length. For tele lenses you would benefit from having a 100mm and 200mm. For wider lenses you would benefit from 25mm (or24) and 12mm (or 14).

Coincidentally, that's pretty much the way I've chosen my prime lenses.

 

[Schrodingers cat]

... of starting with a 50 (on FF) and moving outward as you discover what your needs are.

My personal choice is doubling the longer focal lengths: 85/90/100/105 (depending on availability with your brand), 200 and adding a 24/28 at the short end.

--
Personal travel snapshots at https://www.castle-explorers.com
1. Making good decisions is generally the result of experience.
2. Experience is generally the result of making bad decisions.
3. Never underestimate your capability for doing incredibly stupid s**t.

 

[John Crowe]

Yes, you are correct. It is a guideline going back at least fifty years. However, it is a guideline, not a rule. With all the renewed interest in primes it is still a very good guideline. At least when first building a system. By doing so one can get a quick exposure to how various focal lengths affect one's photography which then makes it possible to determine how one needs to tweak the system that they have.

In the early/mid 80's my first three lenses were 24mm, 50mm, and an 80-200mm zoom. I used these lenses for five years and it became the framework to add others.

Sometimes you must go outside this guideline to get very specific lenses, or as you mentioned, to save money.

I have gone through system changes and very many primes since the 80's. Let's see how my current system compares to the guideline. 8, 12, 17, 30, 50, 50, 55, 70-200, 105, 300, 500, and 800. Not bad, sort of. The view of ultrawide lenses changes dramatically every few millimeters, and the 8mm is a fisheye, hence the extra 12mm lens. The 30 is also a fisheye, so I do have a weird gap between 17 and 50, but I will likely fill this with a zoom in the coming years. I've had 24, 28, and 35mm primes and never used any on a consistent basis, so a zoom it will be. The 50ish lenses are very specific, macro, shift, and superfast, so they stay. I don't actually use the 105 much, but will put more of an effort in. I do miss my 85/1.4 for it's specific character, not the focal length. The 70-200 gets a fair amount of use throughout it's range. I have had several 200mm primes over the years. One was my go to lens for twenty years, but I won't likely go back to that length. I bought the 300 and 500 to replace my 400, which I could not afford to upgrade to the newer model. The 400 and 800 are my preferred focal lengths, but 300/500/800 works well, and I use them all with a 1.4x, when needed to fill in the blanks.

I also have both full frame and aps-c so that fills out a lot of focal lengths in between.

I won't likely be able to afford to upgrade the 800, which means I'll probably have to settle for 600, and a 1.4x. Not a good fit with the 500, except the 500 can be handheld, and the 600 cannot.

My ideal dream set would look something like: 8-15 Fisheye, 11-24, 17 (it's a TS-E), 24-70, 50, 50, 55, 85, 70-200, 100-400, and 800. Throw in a 1200, just for yucks. I have always respected primes, but I also chose them as a cost saving method. As prices continue to drop on the zooms that I prefer to have, several of the primes may fall by the wayside.

 

[a_c_skinner]

A factor of 2 is reasonable.

 

[Ron Poelman]

I got this idea way back and am just trying to see if there is a real meaning to it.

Then compile your focal lengths and see what YOU need.
No theory required.