Reading mode: Light Dark

why own a prime lens?

Go to last post
no text
 
Maybe some of you will understand this:

You can get to know a prime lens like one of the family. You can instantly visualize it's FL when sizing up a shot; you can pinpoint it's sweet spot; you know how it behaves in various light; you know how it renders colors, shadows, contrast, DOF and bokeh; you know how it handles flair; you learn it's strengths and how to get the most from them.

Some of this is discernable with a zoom, but everything changes so much, it's more like a casual friend, while primes are like family. Primes become familiar and reliable, an extension of your photographic vision.
--

In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ronkruger
 
"If I own the 16-35 2.8, the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8, I'd like to hear a single reason why I need to own anything else."

I've just turned 70 and for 25 of those years shot with nothing but FF zooms.

I've just moved to m4/3 and buying a 20mm (40 to you ff folk) f1.7 has opened up a whole new sphere of photography.

That's my single reason.

Tony
 
T & S is not the first lens that comes to mind when talking of primes.
 
Expert_professional_photo_guy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Flawed argument.

Sometimes prime is the best tool for the job. For example, sports photographers use those 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 primes, would you tell them that they only need 16-35 and 24-70? Of course not, that's ridiculous.

There are many reasons to use prime lenses. But, for whatever reason, you have already decided that no one needs them. That's a narrow minded view, dont confuse your needs with those of other people.
 
Expert_professional_photo_guy said:
If I own the 16-35 2.8, the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8, I'd like to hear a single reason why I need to own anything else.
Click to expand...
There probably isn't a single reason unless you believe there is one.

Personally, rather than just using a system 'to get the job done' , I try to produce images that others will want to use and use a lot for years to come... because I charge for the use of my images.

So I believe the better the images are, the greater the chances are, that they will want to use them more. And because I charge for the use of my images, then the more they want to use them, the more I earn.

As a result, I mainly use a Hasselblad system to produce those images.
Which means, you will only see prime lenses in my main camera case...



.. because that's what I believe in.

Cheers,
Ashley.
http://www.ampimage.com
http://www.ashleymorrison.com
 
from what you have written i can tell that there is not point in you owning or using one. Clients may not be able to put their finger on what is different or better but they will appreciate it. My wife has just bought a nikon 50mm prime and is blown away by it having used a Sigma zoom in the studio for the last five years. not only will it give her more enthusiasm, but you can bet your life the customers will like the work she does with it as well.
They are worth the money, believe me.
jules
Expert_professional_photo_guy said:
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. For the vast majority of work, the end-consumer of your product (bride, magazine subscriber, purchaser of fine art) is not a professional photographer, and isn't going to be able to tell the difference between a shot taken on a quality prime vs. an L zoom. So if you need to take photos at 85mm F4, why buy the 85mm F1.2? Just use a 70-200 F2.8 mk II at 85mm. The result will still be awesome, and you have the added bonus of being able to take shots at a lot of other focal lengths.

Now if you're a neurosurgeon with a weekend hobby, go ahead and buy all the primes you want. You can afford them, and there's no need to justify the cost. But a professional needs to be able to explain to himself every expenditure convincingly, and in most cases the primes can't be justified. Sure, they're slightly sharper, but at the end of the day is that difference going to bring in a single additional dollar of revenue?

Now I know what some of you are going to say: shallow depth of field. Come on, 2.8 isn't shallow enough for you? You want one eye in focus and the other out of focus? You think people pull National Geographic out of their mailbox, and say, "I've had it, too much of this photo is in focus, I'm canceling my subscription!"???

If I own the 16-35 2.8, the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8, I'd like to hear a single reason why I need to own anything else.
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
 
Hi Guy,

There's been a lot of good posts with a lot of good reasons already. For me, I love the very wide open world that the art of photography is. You cannot imagine how wide it is until you start exploring. Reading a forum like this one is then sometimes a bit strange. I could compare it to somebody saying they're into transportation and all they know is their VW Golf. They forget about the bicycles, the roller skates, the airplanes, the tanker ships, ... Did you ever read about technical cameras, carbon prints, macro and astrophotography ? The amount you can learn never stops.

Now back to your question. A DSLR with a zoom. A lot of good shots have been made with these, but there's a lot very different equipment, and with very good reason. Primes for example. It's been said before that the best way to learn fast, is to mount a standard prime (e.g. a 35mm or a 50mm on full frame) on your camera for half a year and to take your camera everywhere. It's an interesting experiment ! You'll quickly learn that the DSLR may not be your best option, as it is probably a bit bulky compared to other offerings, which makes it less enjoyable to carry it everywhere (yep, everywhere). The fact that you're limited to just one way of looking at the world quickly becomes an opportunity: instead of going for the lazy zoom dial, you start understanding that a photo is something constructed by a photographer.

Because most pros have gone through quite intensive learning (while using the camera on the job), they know this. Once you start doing more with your camera than taking it to tourist spots or family parties, once you start building up your own style, you start understanding why there are so many bewildering varieties of photographic equipment. The DSLR with zoom is just one of it and has its own advantages and disadvantages. Primes have them, too. Use them, learn about them from practice and enjoy a deeper understanding of the art of photography.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
NAP (Nearly a PAD (Photo a Day)) at http://nap.techwriter.be
 
Big, first question - why should I pick you over the guy down the street as my photographer? What is your USP (unique selling proposition) or PA (pre-emptive advantage)?

What do you got or do that your competition can't do? Why must I come to you?

There is a difference to the look of the image between a prime and zoom, even or so at wider apertures.. Will mom and dad know you shot junior at 1.4 and not 5.6? Probably not and they won't care very much even if you told them all about it. So why bother?

Well your body of work will look different than mine if you have only 2.8 zooms and I shoot say, 30-50% of my images with primes at 2.0 and wider. Different enough that when someone is picking between photogs they'll pick me over you because my pictures look better - even if they can't articulate why.

It's very much like spices when cooking - you can make dinner without any spices but it's kinda bland and boring.

So add some primes to your toolbox - it will give you portfolio a bit of spice.

(there are practical reasons of course like low light or hiding an ugly background or being artsy and using selective focus for composition reasons)
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.
 
Hmmm...I know a lot of pros and the definition of 'best tool' varies widely.

I know a few shooting older bodies, mk 1 lenses, even consumer (low end) gear...like that 18-105 listed here and the 70-300

I think convincing folks that good lenses, prime lense, make a difference is a hard sell - they have to use them to understand.
edwardaneal said:
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
Click to expand...
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.
 
you probably do not need the answer from any of us, since you've pretty much made up your mind. And as for the rest of us who do own one, let say we had our reason for that. Most are quite legitimate both as a photographer and as a PRO.

Sorry up front if I sound harsh, but a conclusion up front while asking opinion is no way for a discussion. And putting your own reasoning before others is certainly so too.

--
  • Franka -
 
What about speed? F/2.8 versus f/1.4 is 1/100 versus 1/400 shutter speed. One will come close to stopping a baseball in flight, the other will not. No, not all ISO's are the same.
 
that's the practical aspect of a faster lens and for some that's the only reason they get them.

They're gonna be sharper too - if not wide open then at 2.8, A 1.2 lens will be sharper than a 2.8 lens at 2.8.

I rarely use the aperture for more 'light'. I almost always use it for shallow DOF as a compositional element to draw the viewer's eyes to what I want them to see.

The only things I ever shoot more than F4 are wedding formals and team pics, and of course studio strobe shots.
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.
 
The ability to take shots where I otherwise wouldn't be able to with my zooms.

The quality of modern zooms is plenty good for me, so I never go to primes for quality. I use f/4 and f/2.8 zooms, but occasionally switch to f/1.4 or f/1.8 primes out of necessity.

I also have a fisheye prime. I keep it despite the availability of the Tokina 10-17 zoom again for speed (the Tokina really needs f/5.6-f/8 because of field curvature issues, the Sigma is just great at f/2.8).

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
The Question should be, why buy the far more Expensive Zoom Lenses ?

Since my switch to FX i just use Primes like the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 the only Zoom ist my good old 80-200/2.8 and for wide stuff an 24/2.8

I have an 17-55/2.8 for my DX Body but i just use it occasional as the Body itself.

Maybe ist because i just shoot more Portraits, Studio stuff nowadays but i still don't miss the Zoom .

Maybe when i do more Press Work again, i would think about it . So far i just enjoy the lower weight and sharper Images.
 
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