why own a prime lens?

[edwardaneal]

The way I see it I dont have to convince anyone that one kind of lens is different or better than another kind I dont expect potential clients to even know what a prime lens is. I do believe that the differences will show in my work and those differences could be the deciding factor in me being chosen for a particular job over another photographer.

I guess what I am saying is that I do not think you need to use an f/1.4 prime to be able to see the difference in a portrait shot with one at f/2 when compared to one shot with an f/4 zoom.

I think convincing folks that good lenses, prime lense, make a difference is a hard sell - they have to use them to understand.

As a professional I believe it is your obligation to use the best tool for the job at your disposal. I think that often that tool is a fast prime. I don't really care if anyone else can see the difference in my work - If I can see it thats all that matters.

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Wifes kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
Wifes kit – D80, 18-105VR
SB800, SB600 and other misc lighting equipment

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 

[William Carson]

There is a definite use for both prime and zoom lenses. 24-70 will be used for event photography where you need that range but don't have time to change lenses. But for macro or portrait where best quality or speed in dim llighting, 85/1.4 as an example of best quality lens or a macro. I choose to go with all primes. Only own three but they cover the range I find useful. For the best of quality and prime, -if you have the bucks and muscles- the 200-400.
Will

 

[aardvark7]

Coming at this from the opposite perspective, using zooms is an answer to just one of the everlasting problems for photography and I think, in many cases, is the wrong approach.

The problem to which I refer, is of trying to have the perfect solution to the widest possible variety of shots.

Unfortunately, a zoom only answers a very small part of that and, in many cases, is actually not the main difficulty!

The simple fact is 'zoom' only addresses maintaining a field of view as simply as possible. Certainly, there are cases when moving position is not possible, but the other more significant aspects such as low light and DOF are effectively relegated to lower imortance when choosing a zoom. Furthermore, the optical compromises introduced when building zooms can have an additional detrimental effect, such as distortions (my CZ16-35/2.8 is hideous wide!!).

So, I think it important to return to the 'real' starting point: What do you want to achieve?

In this regard, I think many of us (and I include myself) get lost by trying to 'be all things to all men', or to put it another way, spreading our discipline too thinly.

We simply need to accept that, in a changing environment, we will never be able to capture everything perfectly, so we should not attempt the impossible!

On the contrary, we should choose an 'envelope', so to speak, in which we want to work; pick the tools best suited for it and try to maintain the highest quality within that framework. Without realising it, we often praise those who have done just that most successfully and simply refer to it as their style!

It is when we panic about what we might miss, and mourn that which we believe has passed, that we reach for all the zooms and gizmos. They have their place, as with all things, but they can just as easily handicap us and, more significantly, without our ever realising it.

--
2011 : My new year's resolution -
To be positive, not negative.
To help, not to hinder.
To praise, not to criticise.

 

[Im Kirk]

If I have to go to 85mm I use my 50 which ends up being a 75mm, close enough..I have an adapter now where I can use my Tamron 80-200 2.8 film lens on my Canon 50D..pretty doggone sharp too.

 

[mailman88]

....since I can't take my 100-400mm IS into major league baseball games because of its size. I bought the 200mm 2.8 mkII and extenders. No problem now!

 

[TonyGamble]

"The simple fact is 'zoom' only addresses maintaining a field of view as simply as possible."

Indeed.

For 20 years I worked with SLR's and DSLR's and zooms - buying the best money could buy. I never felt I needed a prime.

I am now using an m4/3 and in my armoury is an f1.7 pancake equivalent to FF 40mm. Instead of zooming I walk. The way my field of view alters is far more than I'd have achieved with a zoom.

Yes, I have some zooms for my m4/3 - but I am glad to have been reminded of the flexibility of a prime. And it is interesting to read on the m4/3 forum how many people are crying out for more primes designed for m4/3.

Tony

 

[Expert_professional_photo_guy]

no text

 

[Skatterball]

As you said, the decision is only up to you and your business. If it is a legitimate investment that allows you to do something you otherwise could not do, then I guess you need it. Otherwise, not a good business investment.
--
John

 

[Gary Martin]

--
http://www.pixelstatic.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelstatic/

 

[KentPhotos]

There are many cases where corner sharpness doesn't matter, but many where it does. The 16-35 is particularly weak in that area. The Zeiss 21mm is particularly strong in the corners, as is the 28mm, even the old C/Y 2.8. For my work, I need it. Moreover, as much as I love the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, it's much softer at 2.8 across it's range than is a 100mm f/2.8 or the EF 135mm f/2 L (I even like the Zeiss Jena 180mm f/2.8 P6 mount converted to EF better, when there's time to manually focus the beast). As a short-ish sports or flexible portrait lens, there isn't anything better than the 70-200 however.

What lens to I use most often? the EF 24-105 f/4L. It's just too versatile not to use it a lot.
--

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." - Albert Einstein

 

[Pangloss]

Hi,

As a professional I believe it is your obligation to use the best tool for the job at your disposal. I think that often that tool is a fast prime. I don't really care if anyone else can see the difference in my work - If I can see it thats all that matters.

Just wanted to say that this concise answer is also probably the best, to the original OP's question.

Of course many people have posted the obvious fact that at any given focal length, one always get a better shot out of a good prime, compared to even the best zoom, besides the also obvious advantages in size and weight of prime lenses vs. zooms.

But really what it all boils down to, for professionals, is using the best tool for the job.

Amateurs (like myself) can make do with zooms, they are practical and one learns a lot by using for example, a triplet of inexpensive zooms to cover a range between 24 and 300mm. Learning to use for example a fast 50mm prime is another experience altogether.

Cheers,
--
Andrew

 

[palincss]

Not a rhetorical question. If you make a living from photography, generally you want to minimize your costs and buy only what you really need to get the job done, no more and no less.

So in the ranks of professional photographers, there are only examples of "economic man," and no enthusiasts? I doubt it highly. One reason people enter any given profession is that they like to play with the best toys and like getting paid to do so.

 

[Ron Kruger]

This is a post from another thread:

It took me a long time to realize all the advantages of primes. Developing a photographic eye boils down to being able to visualize the shot. While FL and composition are not the only things, they always have ben, and remain, the most important.

Improvements in zooms and auto functions and PP have narrowed the gap between pro and enthusiast, but what one puts into the shot, how he frames it and the moment he snaps the shutter are still aquired skills that involve some combination of experience and artistic vision never prefected.

The fact the OP even asks such a question indicates he/she has advanced beyond the average snapshooter who gets lucky once in a while.
Very well put, Cajuncc.

One thing that helped me a lot was to choose one prime lens and shoot with that constantly for a while. Eventually you start to be able to "frame" things in your mind. Do that with a couple more prime lenses and eventually you can pick a lens (or a zoom setting) without even putting the camera to your eye.

--

In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ronkruger

 

[ArtinAga]

Well there are a number of reasons for prime lenses most of all the fast aperture for available light. My 85 1.4 has its sweet spot at f2.8 it gives the sharpness that I can not achieve with my 80-200 2.8 until around F 5.6. If you are shooting weddings this may not be a problem but if you are shooting for publication spreads that is huge.

The distortion is another wide primes are far better controlled the wide Zooms. I shoot a lot of interior work for my customers in the cabinet making industry and believe me wide angle primes are my bread and butter.