Can you convince me I should buy all primes?

As a 20d user, I don't know if I will ever find a good enough zoom lens to keep on my

camera. I have used the kit lens which I didn't like because it was slow and not high enough

aperture. I have tried the 17-85 which seems Ideal, but I did not like it enough to be happy

with it. I am getting rid of my sigma 24-70 2.8 which is too lengthy and heavy. I am aiming

at the 17-40, but now I am just thinking what are some good primes. Thanks for looking.

My 35mm f/1.4L is almost permanently mounted onto my Rebel XT. That or the much cheaper f/2 are good places to start.

I may not be able to convince you to buy all primes but here's a strong <a href="http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column20/">case against zooms</a>.

Good glass is generally BIG and HEAVY...

Buying only primes will fill your bag quickly and not cheap: The 14mm 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.2, 100mm macro, 135mm 2.0, 200mm 2.8 would be great if you don't mind zooming with your feet or switching lenses every 5 minutes... Using the right "L" lenses... 17-40, 24-70, 70-200 only a couple of fast primes (85, 300)would be my perfect choice for me but that all depends on your shooting style and budget!

If you use good primes, it is unlikely that you will find a zoom that beats them on image

quality.

 

The best zooms are, however, very very close. By the best I mean canon's L zooms, and

they are basically at least 95% of the quality of the good primes.

 

What you get with a zoom is a lot of convenience and, with a dslr, a lot less dust inducing

lense changing.

 

I started out all primes and moved to zooms over the last year or two. Now I carry my 17

-40/4L and 70-200/4L in place of the primes most of the time unless I have some specific

use for a certain prime. It just makes life a hell of a lot easier.

 

The two zooms above plus the 50/1.8 are an absolute killer combo. So is the 17-40 plus

the 85/1.8.

 

If you want to try some primes my recommendations would be:

 

24/2.8

 

50/1.8 or 50/1.4

 

85/1.8 or 100/2 or 100/2.8 Macro

 

200/2.8L

 

There are no affordable wide angle primes that will give you a real wide angle on a 20d,

hence my 17-40 plus 85 recommendation (27-64 and 135 on your 20d).

 

good luck,

Why should we convince you? You can decide whether or not to buy one; you can ask what we think of our prime lenses; you can ask what we think of our zoom lenses... but why should we care if you are not convinced?

 

Another thing: why go to extremes? You had all zoom lenses, and now you want to sell them and have all prime lenses? Wouldn't it be better to take small steps - buy a cheap prime and use it, and keep your other lenses. If you don't like it, you didn't risk very much money. For example, a 50mm f/1.8 is a cheap lens (but that's not to say it's a bad lens) and on your 20D it will behave like a short telephoto (good for portraits, for example). Why not start there? After all, SLRs used to come packaged with a 50/1.8 as a matter of course. They are a good lens to learn on even before you buy your first zoom!

thank everyone so far. Touhgt I should addI have wide covered with a sigma 10-20 because I

mostly shoot landscape, and I also have a 50 1.4 for lowlight. Carl thanks for saying you had

the 17-40 and the 85 i was thinking of that combination.

Sorry neil should have added that when i started. By saying convincing, I did just want to hear

about primes others use. I wanted to see if I can get a good combination of zoom and

primes.

I started out with 100% primes. I later picked up a couple of zooms, but you know what? I almost never used them (can't bring myself to sell them; perhaps a psychologist can explain that to me!). I've now got a wide zoom for the 5D - but I still prefer primes! I don't feel that I should say "buy only primes" to you though - it is not my place to do so. However, I do recommend trying some out. As mentioned in Jay's link, try putting your 50/1.4 on and take no other lenses when you go out. You'll feel "naked" at first, but this is well worth it as far as I'm concerned (I agree with Mike on this).

I have all sorts of expensive primes, but I often carry my 20D with just the lowly, much maligned 18-55 when hiking in rugged country. But here's the kicker: I also carry a lightweight tripod.

 

My rationale is that it's just less complication, and not changing lenses avoids exposing the sensor to the dust in these places. Shooting at f11 is almost always possible when using a tripod, and at f11, the 18-55 looks pretty good.

 

On the other hand, if I'm needing absolute image quality, or wide open apertures for some reason, I'll drag along the primes and better zooms. But as has been said many times before, the best lens is often a tripod.

very good point - at F8 - 11 even the kit lens good quality photos!

Primes have their distinct advantages while zooms have theirs. It's all about what fits YOU best.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I doubt carrying several primes will be "lighter" than having one 2.8 zoom on your camera.

You don't need to decide whether all primes or not now.

 

Shoot as you go and pick up good lenses that you need along the way.

 

Eric.

I have a good selection of prime lenses that I use as needed, but, not being a great fan of either low-light work or shallow DoF, I find that the good high-ISO capability of the 20D enables me to live quite comfortably for most purposes with the f/4 zooms, although I would like a 1.6-factor camera body that had some capability for HP focusing at f/4 rather than f/2.8, (and normal precision at f/8 rather than f/5.6). I find that the 17~40 is an excellent lens in itself, but on 1.6-factor bodies there are no Canon lenses that partner it naturally at either the short or long end (a 35~135/4LIS would be nice!), and, again on 1.6-factor, its zoom range is rather limited by current standards. My current walk-around kit is based on the 10~22 and 24~105, and works outstandingly well. The slight gap in coverage is not material. Since you already have the Sigma 10~20, the 24~105 looks like a natural choice for you, and you could exchange the Sigma for the Canon 10~22 if you felt the need.

 

As far as primes are concerned, I would only buy one of the old AFD lenses (24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, CM50/2.5) nowadays if I really could see no alternative - I have the 50/2.5, but that was bought in 1990. I have the TS24, which is a special-purpose lens and does its job very well. The 50/1.8II has decent optics in a bargain-basement mount, whereas the 50/1.4, which I have, has good optics (at least from f/2) in a seriously fragile mechanism. From personal experience I can unreservedly recommend the EF-S 60/2.8, 85/1.8, 100/2.8USM, and the truly outstanding 135/2.

There are many arguments for and against. Both have there place.

 

I do tend to prefer primes, but zooms are very handy for casual shooting and situations where you do need to change focal length fast, these cases are not as frequent as people think though.

 

Problems with zooms, more expensive, slower, bigger heavier, possibly not as sharp but not always, makes you reluctant to change lenses and lazy about experimenting with perspective and visulisation.

 

I find justification for primes easier at the long end, due to weight and size (and cost), ie 200mm f2.8L vs 70-200mm f2.8L.

 

This may also apply in the normal range. As the wide and ultra wide end the differences seem to be less.

 

Even with digital I find a normal f4'ish zoom too slow, f2.8's are available but for the normal range this is not fast.

 

If you have enough money get both. If you are a casual shooter get zooms, if you thoughtfully compose your images consider primes.

Sounds like weight is a concern too. How about a mixture?

How about the Canon 20-35 F3.5-4.5 USM, Canon 50mm F1.8, Canon 70-200 F4LUSM.

<p>Someone wrote: "I may not be able to convince you to buy all primes but here's a

strong case against zooms."</p>

 

<p>Well, a case anyway.</p>

 

<p>Why limit your thinking to zooms <i>or</i> primes? For me, each type of lens has its

place.</p>

 

<p>In general (but not necessarily always) a prime may provide a small but possibly

significant extra bit of image quality, and sometimes the larger aperture is useful. I tend to

use a prime for certain types of landscape shots, for photos of people indoors, and for a

few other things.</p>

 

<p>On the other hand, many zooms are very sharp - particularly if you understand their

strengths and weaknesses. In addition, there are times when you have to move quickly to

capture a shot and with a zoom in place you are more likely to have the right focal length

for the image... before the image goes away. Also, some conditions do not favor frequent

lens changes - for example in windy or dusty or salty outdoor environments.</p>

 

<p>I could go on, but I think that for most photographers shooting a wide variety of

subjects under a variety of conditions it pays to build a collection of lenses that includes

both types.</p>

 

<p>For me, the 17-40 works well in many situations.</p>

My 4 favorite shots (of those taken by me) were shot at:

50mm at F1.4

28mm at F1.8

100mm at F2.0

135mm at F12 or so, handheld at 1/25 second leaning against a wall with a Canon A-1!

Hard to see how any of those shots could have been improved using a zoom! Every now and then I think I need to buy one of the fast L series zooms, but I'm pretty sure my next lens will be the EOS 135mmF2L.

17-40 F/4 ($680) is not as sharp as the 50mm F/1.8 ($80). I have both on a 20D. 20mm F/2.8 is $420, but I don't know from personal experience how sharp it is.

 

Y.D.T.M.

My bag of lenses:

 

Zooms: 17-85 IS, 70-300 DO IS (and soon, 10-22)

 

Primes: 28 1.8, 58 1.8, 85 1.8

 

I wouldn't think of 'dumping' my zooms for the primes, or vice versa. They all come in handy at one point or another, as I shoot a wide variety of stuff, in all kinds of lighting situations.

 

One thing to note: I paid extra to get the DO version of the 70-300, since I put a premium on 'small/light' and I judged the quality of image from the DO lens to be good enough for my purposes on a crop-factor 8 MP body. Your criteria may vary, but I will say that with the three zooms listed, I can stuff them and the 20D into a Lowepro Toploader Zoom bag, hang it on my waist, and walk around with that all day, no problem.

 

I like the primes for indoor shots with and without flash, since the fast lenses extend my flash and/or ISO range.

Since nobody has mentioned this important point, I will. I use both L zooms and primes. The L zooms are wonderful lenses, but you cannot beat a prime lens when shooting into the sun - they just have far fewer pieces of glass in them.

 

This means less flare. Of course there are exceptions, but I've had enough zoom shots ruined by flare to motivate me to buy and use several good prime lenses.

 

A secondary benefit of primes is their speed. F1.4 is a lot faster than even f2.8.

I'm migrating from primes to zooms. I tooled up with primes over the last year, and really enjoyed the quality. The sharpness of the 135L and the 85 1.8 are just amazing. But I found myself missing shots and compromising on compositions because I could foot zoom easier than change lens. I found I missed being able to dial-a-zoom for the following reason: If you combine dial-a-zoom with foot-zoom, you can really control the 3-dimensional juxtaposition of elements in a very fluid way... Lets say I am liking the way a tree branch in the foreground frames around a house beyond, for example, but I want to lift the branch a bit in the composition, so I walk forward which raises the branch in the foreground relative to the house beyond, but now I start to loose the sides of the house because I walked forward, so now I also zoom back out a bit... and as I zoom out, I start to see a white picket fence coming in from the sides, so I think I'd like to trade some of the branch-lifting I accomplished by walking forward for some more fence-encroachment from the sides.. so now I step backwards just a bit to drop the branch slightly but also bring the fence in from the sides, and I finish up by zooming in tighter a bit to compensate for the last step back... and I finally strike a balance between ideal position and ideal focal length.. This iterative, recursive compositional process is impractical with primes. Now, I don�t think this is how most people think of zooms, but if you just stand in one spot and zoom in and out to fill the frame thoughtlessly, you are wasting the finesse available with a zoom... The full benefit is realized if you combine foot zoom with dial-a-zoom and achieve the perfect perspective and the perfect focal length to have the 3 dimensional elements arranged just so on your 2 dimensional picture.

 

Now, with regard to resolution and sharpness issues, zooms often have an advantage here too, because you can do most of your cropping in camera, and obviously you are way ahead of the game compared to cropping in the computer. For example, in a real situation, one might have the opportunity to go from say an 85 prime to a 135 prime to frame a portrait just so, but one may chose not to bother changing primes so as not to interrupt the flow, and instead plan to do the crop on the computer... but just the difference of one lens step, 85 to 135, is approximately 100% difference in surface area... so if you do it with a crop in the PC, that's a 50% throw away of pixels, and a 1.4x enlargement of CoC, etc. etc. thereby completely destroying any sharpness/resolution advantage the prime may have had over a zoom that would have accomplished the same crop in camera. Yes, if you are doing careful tripod work in a studio, for product shots for example, you can take the time needed to get the right prime and the right camera position to optimize quality, and thereby reap the benefit of primes. But I have found that in the field, with a DSLR, the whole point of these cameras is hand hold-ability and fluidity, and in the real world, I'm finding zooms will get me better compositions, and better trade-offs between compositional elements (by combining dial-a-zoom with foot zoom), and even better sharpness/resolution because of better in camera cropping.

 

 

(The reason I'm holding onto my primes is low light, and extreem bokeh, when I need it.)

Honestly. . . I started with primes to save money. . .then started buying zooms.

 

Now. . .I have both. They both have their places :)

I think Roy has the big point. The previously mentions "strong" arguement against zooms is pedagological and not photographic in nature. Using a fixed focal length lens forces the viewer to learn how a lens works with control of the interrelationship of elements (the analytic geometry relating elements to the viewpoint). While learning on a zoom one tends to just use the zoom to get the framing and moves on. The power of a zoom is that I can pick the viewpoint where the end of a branch covers the distracting glare of low angled sunlight off a window and still get the desired framing. Sadly though, this often occurs between focal lengths like 70.236 mm and 82.364 mm. Hence a 50 mm or 85 mm fixed focal length lens forces the viewer to have the glare or crop (throwing out resolution) if they want a certain framing.

 

What working with a fixed focal length does is simplify the visualization process by removing a variable. This in turn, makes learning to previsualize photographs easier. This is a pedagologically sound thing to favor. But photographically, giving up the best composition (i.e., at 79.367 mm) which entails both framing and alignment of elements in the image to use a pedagologically sound tool (i.e., a learning tool like a fixed focal length lens at F/11) is silly.

 

This is not to say fixed focal length lenses do not have value. Shooting at F/2 or lower can enhance selective focus (another compositional tool) and this is highly unlikely to ever be possible with a reasonably priced (<$1000 US) zoom lens outside of very close subjects with very distant backgrounds (this is not uncommon with macros). Another benefit is fixed focal length lenses tend to be less expensive for the same speed and quality at a given focal length.

 

On the other hand, a weather sealed zoom on a weather sealed body can get you shots that would be impossible with fixed focal length lenses (40 MPH winds getting your mirror wet so you cannot see to compose at all or gear dying from wet electronics).

 

In short, fixed focal length lenses are valuable learning tools. Fixed focal length lenses also have real value in shooting extremes where zooms cannot compete (fast glass for low light, selective focus, higher optical quality for less money).

 

One is not better than the other, they simply have different strong suits. The terrible zoom quality of the 1960's is gone thanks to modern computing power (theoretical lens design and the ability to optimize performance across the zoom range [my computer could do a calculation in a week or a month what a supercomputer from 1970 would still be attempting to finish calculating if it started in 1970]).

 

Instead of asking if sliced white bread is better than a freshly baked baguette of sourdough, instead ask what you want to use the bread for.

 

some thoughts,

 

Sean