Three primes?

[junior]

IF you had only three primes to have for general photos, what would they be?

 

[iotatau]

IF you had only three primes to have for general photos, what would
they be?

28/1.4, VR Micro 105/2.8, VR 300/2.8.

 

[edwardneal]

If you look at my profile you will see that I only shoot primes and if I had to I could be very happy with just my Nikon 20mm f/2.8, 35 f/2 and my 105DC. actually you could cut it back to just the 35 and the 105 and I would still be able to cover 90% of what I like.

IF you had only three primes to have for general photos, what would
they be?

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

 

[Keith Aitken]

choices from current :
35/f2 - ideal for walkaround

85/f1.8 - portraits, street shooting

300/f4 - wildlife and airplanes

wishlist and current choices :
200/f2 - ultimate portrait / low-light / indoor outdoor sports tele

35/f2 - perfect all-around lens

300/f2.8 - wildlife and airplanes

Keith

--
Sunshine :
The photographer's friend . . . And nemesis.

 

[fraserj1]

I would never use only primes (with so many good, versatile zooms, why bother using only primes), but if I had to it would be:

28mm
60mm macro
200mm

 

[papabear2]

I'm sort of the same school, and have been using the 35f2, 60f2.8 but feel I need to go wider past 35f2, but fear the quality of the 24 2.8 and 20 2.8 won't have the same quality of the above. I'm willing to stitch two/three 35f2 shots together if I need.

Once you've tasted the good glass the rest seem unacceptable?

P. Bear

 

[lawnmower]

I agree with using zooms more so than primes for every day use. I have a 35f2 that doesn't get used. It rarely comes out of my bag. I use the 17-55 almost exclusively. I tried various primes such as the 50mm, 180mm, 35mm and sold most of them. These are all good primes in there own right but I didn't enjoy using any of them nearly as much as the 17-55.

I am not a pro but I started to pursue photography quite seriously for a while shooting events such as a wedding or an honors program or retirement ceremony. I can tell you that in the quest to make money taking pictures I found good zooms to be as productive as a good prime from a picture quality stand point and I didn't have to let my feet do the zooming. I fully understand the benefit of a bright prime but I can assure you that the average Joe photographer won’t get any better pictures with a prime than they would a with a zoom and they won’t get tired of changing lenses.

If you want a great combo and have the money try the 17-55 and 70-200VR and you won't go wrong.

 

[Phil Youngblood]

IF you had only three primes to have for general photos, what would
they be?

With the operative term here being "general photos", my choices would be the 35/2, 85/1.4, and the 180/2.8. Since primes are used more for specialized purposes these days and zooms are more for general purpose, my primes choices would actually be a little different. Those 3 would be my choce for general use, though.

Phil

 

[SteveDoubleU]

Both the 20 and 24 are excellent. Rumors are repeated endlessly by those that wish to appear knowledgeable.

 

[SteveDoubleU]

Depends on what you plan to do that day as to which three you choose. The 24, 35, 85 is an excellent start though.

 

[edwardneal]

Actually, the 20mm f/2.8 is very good, when tested on digital Bjorn Rorslett rates the 20mm f/2.8 AIS, which is the exact same optical design as the current AF version a 4.5 on a scale of 1-5. in his review of the Nikon 12-24 zoom at 18mm he rates it a 4. Personally I replaced my 12-24 with the 20mm f/2.8 because I really didn't need anything wider than 20mm and when I compared them side by side at 20mm the 20mm was clearly sharper especially in the corners at f/4, and still sharper at f/5.6. I would say that at f/8 they were very close with a very slight edge going to the zoom. Would you add to that that the prime is a stop faster it was an easy choice for me.

papabear2 wrote:
but fear the quality of the 24 2.8 and 20 2.8 won't have the same quality
--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

 

[EvilGreg]

28mm f/2, the 50mm f/1.8 and the 200mm f/4 (not the micro). All small, light, and cheap enough that I have two of each of them and don't feel like the extra $250 it cost me was a waste at all (I got my second set for $125, $75 and $50 respectively). Added bonus, all use the same small filter thread size (52mm).

I also like the 35/2, 85/1.8 and 180/2.8. I just don't like the 35/2 enough to use it over my 28/2, even though the 35/2 has the convenience of AF. And the 180/2.8 AF is nice but it's aslo a fair bit bigger and heavier than the 200/4's, which I find more convenient to carry.

Though I would probably carry my 50/1.4 over my 50/1.8's if I could remember where I left it . . .

Greg

 

[AFS]

28mm f/3.5 AI

45mm f/2.8P

200mm f/2.0 VR

Possibly substitute 30mm f/1.4 sigma for the 28/3.5
--
Got the lenses...Talent currently under construction.

 

[Kraig]

I could squeak by with just the

21mm F2.8 Zeiss Distagon in a ZF mount
60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor
200mm f/2G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor

21 is not as wide as I would like and I’m just not happy with the DX wide prime choices so far. (wish Nikon would make a 16DX tilt/shift) since the Zeiss 21 is not yet in an f-mount I will opt for the Nikon 14mm f/2.8D to give 3 real prime choices

K.

 

[edwardneal]

From the reviews I have read the 14mm f/2.8 does not perform well on digital

Bjorn Rorslett only rates it a 3.5 on a scale of 1-5 when used on a D1x, d2H, or D70. on the D1 which it was designed for he rates it a 5

Kraig wrote:
I will opt for the Nikon 14mm f/2.8D to give 3 real prime choices

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

 

[yph05]

The practical 3:
20/2.8

85/1.8

300/4

The dreaming 3:
14/2.8

85/1.4

200/2
--
--------------------------
Yi-P
Please visit my gallery
http://yiph.zenfolio.com/

 

[Andrew Philip]

shooting I would take:
20mm/2.8
84/1.4
400/2.8

Andrew

 

[Kraig]

From the reviews I have read the 14mm f/2.8 does not perform well
on digital

Bjorn Rorslett only rates it a 3.5 on a scale of 1-5 when used on a
D1x, d2H, or D70. on the D1 which it was designed for he rates it a
5

well it sounds like Bjorn knows his glass
,,ok I’ll go with the sigma 14mm f/2.8

in reality I will stick with a 12-24 zoom until a DX prime I want comes out.

 

[Ali Doig]

Ohh...stop please, it is painful enough that I am having to save my pennies for a fast-ish telephoto prime! Was that taken with the 300mm/F4 + TC14?

I Don't know about 3 primes, but since buying my 60mm/2.8 Macro I rarely get my 50mm/1.8 out, let alone any other lens. Sometimes I wish I had the reach of the 105, but find the 60mm is just a fantastic all round lens for portrait, group, baby and insect/product macro work (none of which are for proffesional reasons). This is the only lens I have that I would not consider being without....until I get a prime that will allow me to start going after the birds, but even then I doubt I would give up my 60mm because of its size and versatility!

I won't post any examples, because whilst the lens is great I am pretty pants :-(

Alistair

 

[Duckie]

For me it is 35/F2, 85/F1.8, 200/F4 (or 300/F5.6 for wild life)

If no tele is expected, I may swap the tele with the 50/F1.4 as well

If i need landscape, I'd cheat by swapping the 35m with a wide zoom because I don't trust wide primes