why own a prime lens?

[Expert_professional_photo_guy]

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.

 

[mr645]

Prime lenses are lighter, smaller & faster.

I find that very few lenses perform well wide open, so if I want to shoot a short tele at F2.8, I will use my 85mm F1.8 over the 70-200 F2.8. I can handhold the 85mm at 1/125th with great results, and down to 1/60th with decent results. The 70-200 needs at least 1/125th for me. I also seem to be more creative with prime lenses. They force me to move around more and plan differently for shots then when using a zoom.

But mainly because the 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8 do very poorly at F2.0

 

[Richard Weisgrau]

I am down to one prime lens, a 50mm f1.4. I use four zooms for my pro work. The 50mm is always on one of my D700 bodies. It is light and versatile. Remember that Cartier Bresson shot 90% of his enormous body of work with a Leica M3 and 50mm lens. It is a very versatile lens without weight or bulk like my zooms, a perfect walk around lens.
--
Richard Weisgrau
http://www.weisgrau.com
Author of
The Real Business of Photography
The Photographer's Guide to Negotiating
Selling Your Photography
Licensing Photography

 

[carl english]

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.

Now if you're a neurosurgeon with a weekend hobby, go ahead and buy all the primes you want. You can afford them.

Your whole argument is flawed, if you make your living from Photography then, just like the neurosurgeon you too can afford to buy primes.

Carl

 

[Expert_professional_photo_guy]

Your whole argument is flawed, if you make your living from Photography then, just like the neurosurgeon you too can afford to buy primes.

Either my argument is flawed or you didn't read my argument carefully. I didn't say anything about what photographers can or cannot afford.

 

[Expert_professional_photo_guy]

But mainly because the 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8 do very poorly at F2.0

My 24-70 F2.8 does very well at F2.0.

 

[Richard Katris]

if you are a pro....and do portraiture...with a DX camera...why would you really need anything other than a 50mm lens? It is a perfect short portrait length.

IF cost IS the factor...and you implied it.....then return on investment of a single ~$300 lens over a $2000 zoom lens would dictate that you would never need or buy the zoom....

cheaper
lighter
faster
shallower DOF available at wider apertures than any existing zoom
likely as sharp or sharper
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

 

[edwardaneal]

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

 

[mgblack74]

Money, business talk aside, a prime lens can replicate the look of a zoom lens (just shoot at 2.8+). But a zoom lens cannot replicate the look of a prime lens wide open. If all pros must have a 70-200 (for wedding portraits for example), then everyone (photog's work) looks the same. A full lenth portrait has a very unique look to it if shot with a 50mm at 1.4/2/2.2 vs 200 at 2.8. You have dramatic drop off of what is in focus, but without the compression of 200mm. For weddings I'm rarely above 2.5. I went the other way actually I had two 2.8 zooms, sold them and now have three 1.4 primes and 2 f/4 zooms. I have 1.4's for the look and f/4's for versatility/back up/wide angle/& VR for short video clips hand held. Using primes is more work I agree but the results are worth the effort. That, in turn, hopefully gets more business! Just my opinion of course. ;-)
--
"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

 

[AcquiredTaste]

It's not just about DoF, it's also about the practical limits of zooms. Not even mentioning distortion or sharpness, there is the necessary benefit of f/1.4 - f/2.6 in situations where an f/2.8 zoom simply doesn't cut it.

Ever tried shooting a cave-esque wedding reception where f/2.8 is still only getting you a 1/40th at 3200 ISO?

Exactly.

 

[John Motts]

I used to think like the OP about zooms. Not any more.

I've just sold my 70-200 VR11 and replaced it with primes. I've also sold my 24-70 and replaced it with a 16-35.

The 70-200 is a magnificent lens, but I'll never go back to it. Using an 85 f/1.4 is an absolute joy and it weighs much, much less. The weight doesn't matter to some but it mattered a great deal to me. And it's two stops faster. Two stops is a big deal if you work in low light.

Doing weddings I was carrying around 2 D700s all day long, one with the 24-70, one with 70-200VR11. The weight was killing me! Holding a 70-200 f/2.8 to your face for prolonged periods is no fun if you suffer from backache or you're not particularly strong.

But above all, using fast primes is an absolute joy if you want to stretch yourself a bit. And I don't care what anyone says, with the best primes (and I stress only the best ones) there is a certain quality that even a fabulous lens like the 70-200VR11 can't quite match.

And that bit about cost is a bit of a nonsense. You can buy, for example, a Nikon 85 f/1.8 and a 180 f/2.8 for little more than half the cost of a 70-200VR11.

Oh, and have you tried close up work with your current lenses?

 

[canuck dave]

"Your whole argument is flawed, if you make your living from Photography then, just like the neurosurgeon you too can afford to buy primes.....Carl"......................................

In actual fact, most pros do not make a ton of money (all things considered), and pros are not the ones buying all the latest toys.

Zooms are very good nowadays and it depends what your market is whether they meet the requirements of those paying the bills.

 

[Ron Kruger]

I once thought the versatility of zooms were an advantage, but I've have evolved to all primes for a number of reasons that appear to me on the finished product. There's a certian quality to them you can't get from a zoom. There's fewer moving parts. They have better construction and smoother focus rings. But most of all, I shoot better with primes. I take more time to set up a shot and think it through. I'm more careful about composition. All along, my biggest problem has been hurrying and not thinking things through enough. Primes slow me down, make me think about an exact FL, instead of running through the range of a zoom to the "good enough" point. Zooms make me more of a snapshooter. Primes force me to take a more contemplative professional approach. The optics are better and I'm better.

They're not for everyone. If I were shooting weedings, where I often had to shoot quickly and couldn't take a few steps backward or foreward (and didn't have time to change lenses), I'd probably shoot zooms. But I'd still carry quality primes for posed shots.

There are wedding photographers out there shooting nothing but a kit lens on auto everything, and undercutting you guys. They prefer zooms too.
--

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

 

[Jeff Seltzer]

For some, photography is still at least partially an art form. It's like asking a painter why not just buy the cheapest brush that will still get the job done?

Indeed, I can tell difference between f/1.2 and f/2.8 in terms of DOF and low light performance. Others can, too. The best primes tend to outperform zooms when shot "wide open" as well.

But, it's not just about specs and performance - at least for me. Primes change they way I shoot - for the better. I have only three lenses: 28 Zeiss, 35L 1.4, and 85L 1.2 (I sometimes rent a 135L 2.0). I sold all my zooms a long time ago. I know these lenses soooo well - I know exactly what I will get. It actually frees me up to think about things like composition and light in a new way. Primes make me work harder to get the shot sometimes, which makes the shot better (believe it or not). I'm more often "working" the subject (vs. standing their zooming in and out). I'm more careful, more deliberate. My shots are better.

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.

--
http://www.jeffseltzerphotography.com

 

[BAK]

Depending on who you are photographing, the smaller size of a prime lens is less intimidating.

Macro primes serious beat macro zooms, for those who need real macro.

But I can fill the frame with the face of my watch with an 18-55 kit lens, and blow it up to 12 x 18 so all the scratches on the crystal are clear.

By the time a really great original goes through the computer editing process, and then the plate making process, and then the ink-goes-on-paper process,I too suspect that the difference between an 85 f1.2 at a professional aperture and the 85mm, at a professional aperture, position on a 24-105 or 70-200 or the new 70-300 L or even a 55-250 won't be visible.

On the other hand, I do suspect that a 20x30 inkjet print on some super Epson printer of a small town from a distance, with dozens of signs visible, might turn out better enough to matter with people looking at details, with a good prime lens like the Canon 35mm f1.4

 

[Skipper494]

If you are what your 'handle' says you are, then you already know the answer and are just 'trolling' us.

 

[John Motts]

If you are what your 'handle' says you are, then you already know the answer and are just 'trolling' us.

Just like his "which is better, Canon or Nikon?" thread.

 

[PicOne]

85mm, 1/60 sec; f/1.8, ISO 6400
Try it with a zoom..

It's not just about DoF, it's also about the practical limits of zooms. Not even mentioning distortion or sharpness, there is the necessary benefit of f/1.4 - f/2.6 in situations where an f/2.8 zoom simply doesn't cut it.

Ever tried shooting a cave-esque wedding reception where f/2.8 is still only getting you a 1/40th at 3200 ISO?

Exactly.

--
'Everything in photography boils down to what's sharp and what's fuzzy.'
-Gaylord Herron

 

[ekn]

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.

YOU don't need to own anything else. A REAL expert photographer already knows the answer to this question.

 

[ekn]

Sorry, I was being snotty.

1. Primes draw the images differently than zooms
2. DoF advantages (of some lenses)
3. Weight/Size
4. Cost
5. Less distortion
6. Closer focusing
7. Usually a little sharper
8. More consistent results
9. More "depth" to the image

Each photographer must make the decision of what is most important to him/her. Fortunately, we have options and some of us choose the less convenient answer for very specific reasons. Especially, if we have one of those special "artistic" lenses which draws the image differently than anything else.

But still, I question the "Expert Photographer" handle when you ask a question like that, or "Which is better: Nikon or Canon". That, sir, is nonsense and is indicative of you either being a troll or woefully under-experienced.