Why use a prime?

[Thomas Gardner]

Few have heard of him (relative to say Ansel Adams) because he's so
"anti photography", at least according to some.

Not sure where you read that but AA was very into photography and was an active participant in the photographic process.

Heck, he was accused of being nothing more than a "snap shooter".

Don't know where you read that either as his "Zone System" required careful metering for the shadows and highlights as you exposed for the shadows and developed for the highlights but you couldn't compensate for what wasn't on the plate. Also, pulling an 8"X10" view camera out of the car doesn't qualify as a "snap shooter" style

I studied under students who studied under the Carmel gang Went to Weston's darkroom in Carmel in 77/78.

Just not "artsy fartsy" enough, I guess.

From my understanding, he was a convivial kinds guy.

I'm not a big AA fan but your description, doesn't match the persona. You might be thinking of someone else.

On the other hand, I kinda like him, because he didn't like to use
flash at all.

It's kinda hard to use a flash when you're getting shots of Half-Dome

I guess you could say he was the only "memorable"
photojournalist. "Memorable" being relative to other PJ's, of
course.

AA was a landscape photographer, not a PJ unless you want to call pics of trees and mountains a type of PJ work

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

(NT)

 

[bpjod]

1. less flare

2. better contrast when backlit

3. smaller

4. lighter

5. sharper than all but the best zooms

6. wider apertures:
(a) shallow DOF is possible
(b) brighter image in viewfinder (good in low light)
(c) faster shutter speeds possible (freezing action & handholdability)
(d) AF works much better/faster in lower light
(e) easier to tell in viewfinder if image is in focus (brighter, shallow DOF)

7. much cheaper than the best zooms

8. one less thing to think about when shooting (the zoom ring)

9. smaller filter sizes (=cheaper, less obtrusive filters)

10. less conspicuous

Just to name the first 10 advantages that pop into mind. That said, I shoot about 90% zoom and 10% prime. I'd shoot more prime though if I could just afford a long lens...

 

[Thomas Gardner]

Few have heard of him (relative to say Ansel Adams) because he's
so "anti photography", at least according to some.

Oops! Okay, my comprehension needs work. So what's your point

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me

 

[GGGG]

There is built in zoom in a digital picture. You can always crop a zoom with post processing.

I understand that for the most part, primes are sharper than
zooms…. But aside from that, are there any advantages?
I keep hearing about people using their 300 L for sporting events….
But it seems to me that it must be somewhat frustrating? I would
imagine you would be somewhat limited as to where you can stand and
what you can capture. People would either be too close are too far
away.

So to the people out there with primes, what do you think about
them? Just looking for some input!

Duncan

 

[dnjake]

An obvious reason is to have a fast lens that can be used in relatively low light. Indoors it is usually not that hard to move to frame the picture as desired.

--
David Jacobson

 

[rlindabury]

For those of you stuck on primes or zooms, here's an alternative for you.

http://marktucker.com/plungercam/index.html

LOL

The guy does great work by the way. Those arguing over lenses might learn a thing or two from his portfolio.
--
Bob Lindabury

 

[Thomas Gardner]

For those of you stuck on primes or zooms, here's an alternative
for you.

http://marktucker.com/plungercam/index.html

LOL

The guy does great work by the way. Those arguing over lenses
might learn a thing or two from his portfolio.

Yes. You can learn how to go backwards in time as if you were using a pinhole camera

If that's what you want to do, have at it. Thanks for the thought.

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me

 

[Mikael Nordenberg]

It's clear that you haven't understood the principle of focal length.
If you are taking a picture of a building 200 metres away, you will
have to do a lot more than just leaning forward a bit to get your
50mm to frame as a 70mm.

Mikael

The difference between 35mm and 70mm focal lengths on a 35mm camera
is about three feet. You can simply lean back and forth with a 50mm
and cover the same range.

 

[DavidP #28649]

I thought it was obvious.

Few have heard of him because he's just not artsy-fartsy enough. Just a "snap-shooter". Yada, yada, yada.

Few have heard of him (relative to say Ansel Adams) because he's
so "anti photography", at least according to some.

Oops! Okay, my comprehension needs work. So what's your point

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[Thomas Gardner]

I thought it was obvious.

Few have heard of him because he's just not artsy-fartsy enough.
Just a "snap-shooter". Yada, yada, yada.

Sorry David, I wasn't responding to your comment. I was trying to make light of my misunderstanding of what you wrote and that you weren't talking about AA but were referring to Cartier-Bresson.

I missed the parentheses.

Oooops!

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me

 

[DavidP #28649]

Or is that "turnabout is fair play"?

I thought you had figured out what I meant, but didn't understand my point.

Oh, well.

Few understood Henri, it seems, too.

Sorry David, I wasn't responding to your comment. I was trying to
make light of my misunderstanding of what you wrote and that you
weren't talking about AA but were referring to Cartier-Bresson.

I missed the parentheses.

Oooops!

--
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm

Extrapolation from few solid data points is best left to those with years of training and experience in such things.

 

[Thomas Gardner]

Few understood Henri, it seems, too.

One of our classes taught us about the :critical moment: and the significance of CB's contribution to both Art and PJ.

They never spoke about him not being "ArtsyFartsy" enough though, must have missed that lecture

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me

 

[Stuart Robins]

The guy does great work by the way. Those arguing over lenses
might learn a thing or two from his portfolio.

Agreed! Thanks for the link. His work is exceptional.

 

[Doug MacMillan]

Petteri (or anyone who'd like to respond),

I'm a big believer in good bokeh. I don't have any zooms, mainly because I remember when they came out. I was imprinted with the bulkiness and softness of the first generation zooms and never got around to buying any.

Are there zooms with nice bokeh? Since we are waxing poetic, I think a lens with a good bokeh makes a background go as nice and soft as a baby's butt.

Doug

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

Petteri (or anyone who'd like to respond),

I'm a big believer in good bokeh. I don't have any zooms, mainly
because I remember when they came out. I was imprinted with the
bulkiness and softness of the first generation zooms and never got
around to buying any.

Are there zooms with nice bokeh? Since we are waxing poetic, I
think a lens with a good bokeh makes a background go as nice and
soft as a baby's butt.

Most L and other pro-grade zooms do have quite nice bokeh. Some consumer-grade ones have acceptable bokeh too: I was quite surprised by the very cheap 90-300 in this respect:



IMO the bokeh is a good deal nicer than on the otherwise much better 28-105, for example (sorry, don't have a sample on-line now).

However, IMO few if any are as goood as good primes like the 50/1.4 or the 200/2.8L in this respect (to name two that I have).





That said, I don't have much personal experience with pro-grade zooms -- I've never owned one, although I have test-shot a few.

Petteri
--



Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

 

[KennyG]

Unfortunately, there's NOT always that option.

Never mind the fact that "zooming with your feet" to get the
framing you want may not result in the composition you want if
you're tied to one or two primes.

Try re-framing with a 500L. A 'few' steps back takes you into the next county. Its a great lens but I have to know exactly where I will be using it before taking it on a shoot. Can cramp your style somewhat.

I'm now waiting for the 3am knock on the door from the prime maffia.

--
Kenny

If you really want to know what I shoot with - look under my profile.

 

[Benjamin181034]

In health clubs in high dollar urban neighborhoods yuppies are
zooming with their feet for exercise. It's the latest fitness
craze. I've kept myself in shape for ever by zooming with my feet,
and now it is something Madonna and Britney Spears do in People
Magazine!

Abu Mumia

--
'He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond
the pale of any acceptable human conduct.'

• Apocalypse Now

 

[Guillaume in Paris]

you can also do without... I don't know if I'm normal, but trust me I'm picky about optical quality and I have NEVER sharpened a "full-size" pic in my whole life with my D60. The in-camera sharpening (somehow similar to what we call unsharp mask here) is set to defaults, and I find my pictures pretty nice as they come out of the camera. It may have to do with the lenses I use, and they're not Ls at all!

Of course when pics need to be reduced for the web or emails, I ALWAYS apply sharpening in photoshop because the reduction involves an averaging of the pixels together, and this means the image gets softer.

The lenses I own: the Sigma 15mm fisheye is known for being super sharp. My copy of the 28-135IS seems to be good, my new Sigma 15-30 is good too (except in the corners, I'll return it some day hehe), and both my 28 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 are super sharp, when they don't backfocus (it's another story). Most lenses perform moderately when wide open, but I often shoot wide open! and I don't see any sharpness problem...

Be careful with sharpening, or I'd say, excessive sharpening in Photoshop: don't overdo the process, "oversharpening" creates halos along every edge, and halos are awful on print. And god knows how big you can print with a 10D...
Experiment with settings, but never overdo it...

Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com
Sports & general event photography

 

[GreenArcher]

I own 3 primes(24 2.8,50 1.4, 100 2.8 macro), and one zoom (70-200 f4).

I use the primes for landscape, and indoor still photography because they are sharper and faster. My subject in these cases do not move and I have all the time to compose, experiment, etc... Would I use a zoom? Sure, if it can replace my three primes in sharpness and speed, + macro. The 24-70 is close but not.

For sports, or places that I do not have control over subject distance, and time is of the essence, then I use my 70-200 zoom. It is pretty sharp too!

I say 75% of my prints I do at 12x18, the rest are 8x12, and 4x6. So sharpness is very important. And no, I do not sell my pictures. So not getting a photograph is not as critical as the pro. Just a hobby.

Zooming in/out does not change the perpective if you stay in place. Those with zoom lenses, do you pick the perpective you want, go to that distance, then set the zoom? Or do you stand in place, and zoom in because it is more convenient, not so much because it is the perspective that you want? How often do you know what perpective you want? Do you check what focal-length you have the zoom set before you take the shot, so you'll know what perspective you are getting?

Do studio photography uses zoom more than primes? My guess is prime is better since you have control over the subject distance and oftentimes you know what perspective you want and can use the appropriate prime lens.

With 24,50,100, it is easier for me to visualize the perspective I get if I use a particular lens, if I keep the subject size the same in the viewfinder. Due to zooming, I tend to be lazy and stay in place and just zoom in, instead of exploring to find the 'best" perspective for the shot. Just me.

--
GreenArcher
(amateur hiker/landscape photographer)