Why use a prime?

[m5laser]

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

 

[MAC]

If you are always beyond 300 mm for the shot, then the 300mm will be sharper. If you need to frame at less than 300mm, then the $1800 sigma 120 -300 f2.8 is the lens to get for your soccer and football.

See JimD's pics, he shoots extensively with this lens in pj work..it works with the canon 1.4 extender too.

http://go-bucks.com/03images/football/09-13-03/index.htm

MAC

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

--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com

 

[John Chennavasin]

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.

There is often less flare from prime lenses since they contain fewer elements than zooms, and the front element is smaller and/or less exposed.

There's always the option of zooming in or out with your feet ;-). 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.

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

--
John Chennavasin
http://www.fobpro.com/

 

[DavidP #28649]

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.

There's always the option of zooming in or out with your feet ;-).

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[Rylee Isitt]

They are probably sharper, yes, but I just got a 100-400L and I can't imagine it being any sharper... I need to use USM in photoshop for my el cheapo 24-85mm, but definately not for the 100-400L.

I bet the "cheap" zooms are pretty soft compared to the "cheap" primes. My 24-85mm, though, is still very nice when USM is applied.

Personally, though, I find I use either 24 or 85 and nothing in between - still, it saves me from switching lenses.

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

--
All my work are belong to me

 

[Thomas Gardner]

I understand that for the most part, primes are sharper than
zooms…. Just looking for some input!

Primes, too me are a bit over rated.

I have primes and I have zooms and have found that they're a mixture when it comes to benefit.

In the wider angles, a high quality zoom will come close and can exceed many primes. But at the longer end, for the most part, primes are all there is. Hence the mixture. I have a Sigma 100-300, that kicks Canon 300mm f/4.0L, non-IS bu++. From there, you're pretty much signing you life away to get the big glass lenses.

Where the primes come into their own, is at the wider aperatures f/2.8 and wider. About the fastest zooms are f/2.8 but you can go all the way to f/1.0 is one case with primes.

Primes, up to about 35mm, are quasi and in some cases better but unless you're getting the best glass, you're going to be hard pressed to beat the printed image quality of a 16-35mm zoom against a 20mm prime. The 35mm prime will beat the 16-35mm zoom. I'll leave others to comment on the 17-40mm. At about 85mm the lense design is such that a prime can come close but the prime kicks zoom bu++.

Now there are those, that in their sick little minds, think zooming with your feet is a good thing. How's that possible, when you have to change your perspective as you increase/decrease the distance from the subject matter, is beyond me. So zooms are, too me, preferable to primes as they allow you to change the focal length of the lense without changing the perspective. This is a very important point. In critical tests, the primes from about 35mm up, beat zooms, most of the time but it's not always noticable to the untrained eye. So we're now into degrees and hair splitting.

Sooooooo, primes and zooms are a personal choice. I think our resident high fashion NYC photographer, Stephen Eastwood, uses a 50-350mm zoom. I don't think anybody here will argue the quality of his images

http://nyphotographics.com/juliaweekend/

Myself, I'm a zoom kinda guy but I have a bunch of high quality primes that I don't use. Go figure.

So in the end, it's a matter of budget and what's important to you that's the final decision.

Hope the above is found insightful enough to be considered helpful

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

 

[Thomas Gardner]

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.

You have to forgive them David. They don't understand that when you zoom with your feet, you also change the image perspective. I guess just like I can't see telephoto, they don't understand perspective

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

 

[Zidar162589]

Actually, good zooms are often just as sharp as primes. But with all those elements they lose contrast in backlit situations.

A zoom is very useful in some situations, but not all. I use a 70-200 f4L a lot, but I am just as likely to be carrying the 200 2.8.

Abu Mumia

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

• Apocalypse Now

 

[drip]

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

--
Brian
San Antonio, TX
Home of the 1999 & 2003 NBA Championships
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip

 

[dr_nikon]

I do not really like Zoom because of little waste my time to play with zoom before I shoot.

 

[sjstokes]

What is "USM in Photoshop"?

They are probably sharper, yes, but I just got a 100-400L and I
can't imagine it being any sharper... I need to use USM in
photoshop for my el cheapo 24-85mm, but definately not for the
100-400L.

 

[Zidar162589]

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

• Apocalypse Now

 

[Peter Phan]

I think sticking to a single focal length for a period of a period of time (an hour, a day, a week, whatever) challenges you to explore the possibilities of that focal length, understand it, and increase your skills with it. It's a good mental exercise.

When I was learning photography and trying to increase my photographic and compositional skills, I regularly shot only with a 50/1.4, at only one aperture. I challenged myself to do good photography with that "restriction". And I think it did me a lot of good.

These days, I don't shoot the 50/1.4 nearly as much anymore. The perspective on digital is tighter than I prefer. I'd love to someday have the Canon 35/1.5L, but it's too expensive for me right now. I do have the Canon 35/2, but it doesn't have USM and I really miss USM because the 35/2 has this whiny, waspy autofocus motor. I'm spoiled by USM :-(

Oh, and I just love shooting at really fast apertures! I love f/1.4, f/1.8, etc. You can't get that in a zoom. Shooting at maximum aperture, with shallow depth of field, also challenges your compositional skills, too.

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

 

[dyslexia125512]

It's funny; the same reason you cite as a reason not to use primes (that "zooming with your feet" changes perspective) is the same reason I like them. I'm not anti-zoom, but I sort of enjoy the fact that primes have a perspective all their own. Obviously, there are times when a zoom is the only way to go, but in non-action shots (ie. I have all the time in the world to compose), I personally prefer to use primes.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess

--
-- dyslexia

http://implausible.net/galleries.html

 

[Rylee Isitt]

It's a filter in photoshop (industry standard imaging software) that creates an illusion of more sharpness by increasing the contrast of your image along edges of things. It won't correct misfocus, but it will exxaggerate edges on a well focused but perhaps soft shot to make the details pop out as they should.

They are probably sharper, yes, but I just got a 100-400L and I
can't imagine it being any sharper... I need to use USM in
photoshop for my el cheapo 24-85mm, but definately not for the
100-400L.

--
All my work are belong to me

 

[Thomas Gardner]

It's funny; the same reason you cite as a reason not to use primes
(that "zooming with your feet" changes perspective) is the same
reason I like them. I'm not anti-zoom, but I sort of enjoy the fact
that primes have a perspective all their own. Obviously, there are
times when a zoom is the only way to go, but in non-action shots
(ie. I have all the time in the world to compose), I personally
prefer to use primes.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess

Absolutely. You have to try different lenses to find out what works for you. It may be a combination of lenses between zooms and primes.

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

 

[andrea buso]

Prime lenses are sharper then zoom and they have less distortion, these are the first two reasons that came in my mind.

one

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

 

[Peter Wagner]

What is "USM in Photoshop"?

Hi SJ,

Your question deserves a more thorough answer than previous poster gave. The Canon digital SLR cameras (and especially the 10D) don't do much processing of the image inside the camera. Non-SLR digitals apply a lot of digital sharpening (and other "touching up" operations) before the image is even written to the memory card. This makes the image look great right out of the camera.

The problem is that this automatic touch-up work actually throws away image information that cannot be later recovered. Also, the touch-up is really an artistic thing... and we all know that computers are TERRIBLE at making artistic decisions. The algorithms that sharpen the image inside the camera don't understand what the real goal is or what the real scene looked like; they just go about applying the sharpening no matter what.

So.... the Digital SLRs do very little processing inside the camera. That means that the images you get off your 10D are a little bit fuzzy and the colors are very vivid. 10D owners then pull the images into Photoshop software on their Windows or Macintosh computer to manually retouch the pictures. The human photographer can conrol just how much sharpening (and other adjustments) to make with a few slider controls on the screen. One of the very most important adjustments controls the sharpness of the image and is called "unsharp mask"; that is usually called "USM" for short.

The 10D's lack of in-camera automatic sharpening often comes as a big (and bad) surprise to new 10D owners. Pictures sometimes seem bland right out of the camera. The trick, of course, is to use Photoshop (or similar program) to adjust the iamge after it is taken. This is a FAR superrior approach than the in-camera automatic adjustments.

 

[Peter Wagner]

Zoom lenses have improved GREATLY over the past 20 years. The 24-70L, for example, is only somewhat smaller aperature to primes in that range and no more expensive than buying a 24, 50, and 80mm prime. The primes will still give you a little better quality and a little better speed, but at the inconvenience of having to swap lenses.

The real reason for primes--and especially Canon L primes--is the big glass... the 300L and 400L both at f/2.8 as well as the 400L, 500L, and 600L at f/4. There is no zoom that will touch these lenses for their combined image quality, focal length, and aperature. Also, these lenses are fantastic even with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter. The 400L f/2.8 with the 2x teleconverter gives you 800 f/5.6 with good image quality.

I have the 100-400L zoom and the 1.4x II teleconverter. I've taken a bunch of shots with and without the teleconverter; most of the time the teleconverter is no better than blowing up the regular image digitally by a factor of 1.4x. With the prime lenses, the 1.4x II would give me nearly identical quality but 1.4x bigger. For me, I'm thinking of the 300L 2.8 and the 2x teleconverter; it will give me the aperature of the 100-400L but at 600mm focal length.

 

[Francesco]

dyslexia...

would you stretch that over and say that "prime-people" are more similar to painters (who take time and lots of patience to get one of their pictures done) while "zoom-ers" are more similar to reporters, who just care about grabbing the instant?

I would agree to this point of view actually. This is why somehow I believe that shooting with a prime gives you a larger "aura" of professionality and makes you a better artist.
Never mind... I am just blabbing, LOL

fg