A single prime lens for walkaround?

<p>Mike Johnson has written many things over the years which I often disagree with including what has been quoted in this thread.</p>

<p>These days learning to photograph with a zoom lens and a digital camera is a great and fast way to learn how to photograph.</p>

<p>IMO, walking around with a single lens "glued" to ones camera body is using luddite mentatlity. Back in the day the only reason I had one 50 f/1.4 mounted to my Nikon F was because that's all I could afford. My photographic world blossomed when I could afford a 28, 24, and 105 mm lens. If one wants to do that - fine but don't try to sell the concept like it'a snake oil.</p>

<p>The one prime lens for X years approach is just a crock, IMO. Totally passe. Yes using a single prime lens forces you to consider photographing differently but by and large your photographs all start looking the same.<br>

Now it's certainly possible for the beginner to choose the wrong zoom if they are trying to stick to a single zoom but I think that's a different issue.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Yes using a single prime lens forces you to consider photographing differently but by and large your photographs all start looking the same."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily. For example, most of <a href="http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=henri%20cartier-bresson&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi">these photos</a> were taken with a single prime lens, and a lot of people think these pics are pretty OK.</p>

<p>Of course, such proficiency demands more from the photographer and less from the camera, but then that's what is meant by "learning to see."</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I really like the zeiss 25mm 2.8 on my d700, great sharpness with little distortion and close focus make this lens very versatile for a prime.</p>

<p>Back to the original question: any type of composition or photo will require its own unique focal length/subject distance/DoF combination. The concept of a walk-around lens is ludicrous in that respect... but it's often the best we can do.</p>

<p>The advantages of primes are clearly the size of the lens and big aperture, while the advantage of a zoom would be in versatility.</p>

<p>This whole prime vs. zoom topic is pretty irrelevant. Sure, some people armed with a zoom will make them more versatile. It can also could make them lazy. Same with primes, some just use a couple or even one and it helps them see as mentioned. On the other hand, it could make their photos quite dull and he/she might just give up all together ...</p>

<p>It all depends on the photographer...whether prime or zoom, visualizing is vital.</p>

<p>I could be walking around with just about any lens. An 85mm, a 50mm, a 35mm, 135mm, etc. I am usually looking for specific types/styles of shots when I do this. Zooms (the ones that are any good) are a pain to carry around for a long time and while they give more options in terms of angle of view, they have issues of their own. That doesn't mean I might not go walking around with a zoom. Sure, I do that too. Which gets me back to the first sentence of my post.</p>

<p>For just walking around I might tend to shoot wider than longer so for the 1.6 crop camera I might tend more towards something in the 35mm range but you are right, there's gonna be times when you want a little wider or a little longer.</p>

<p>50 mm f1.8. Cheap, light, great optics.</p>

<p>I usually bring a 24mm, a 35mm, or a 50mm whenever walking around with just one lens. I rarely use the 85mm as it's too long for the things I photograph.</p>

<p>John Morris,</p>

<p>How did my cat, Kirby, get in your kitchen?</p>

<p>Bob</p>

This got a little lost in my previous post:

 

I'd really miss close focussing if I got a prime with a MFD over 40 cm's (16") or a max mag of less than 0.25.

 

Keep your wishes in that area in mind when choosing.

 

The same goes for aperture and bokeh wishes.

 

The same could be said for wide or long, but that's what started this whole party...

 

(for some the 50/2.5 macro is great, for others an F1.2 lens and for others again anything longer then 24mm feels

cramped...)

 

And I didn't even mention qualities like: size, weight, sharpness, color, handling or price.

 

[i think a negative selection / minimal requirement approach might help.]

<p>I no longer own one in an EOS mount, but if I was determined to stick to a prime as a general "walk-around" lens on an APS-C camera, it would be the 35 f/1.4. Maybe something a bit wider, and just as fast, but the 35 offers a good compromise for a single pick, as it captures about the same field of view as a 50 mm lens on a FF camera, and that covers lots of potential shot territory. For my all around main shooting lens, I would make f/1.4 a priority unless it came with IS, and even then, the faster the better (for me).</p>

<p>I have the 50 f/1.4 in EOS mount, and I love the lens, but it's just too long on a crop camera for me to consider as a "walk around" lens. That goes for the "nifty-fifty", "cheap-fifty", or whatever other names the 50 f/1.8 is answering to today. It's still a 50, and on a crop camera, it limits all of your shooting to a mid-telephoto perspective. It really has zero in common with the finder view that has made the 50 mm lens the "normal" lens on 35 mm film, and FF digital cameras. You will live in a mid-tele world, and never appreciate anything even approaching a normal, much less a wide view of daily life. Unless of course, that's exactly what you want!</p>

<p>Once upon a time, primes were so much better than zooms, that most all of us owned a full range of primes. Thats not the case any more. Some folks still prefer primes for a raft of reasons, and that's OK, but I can't do it. I find it limiting, rather than liberating. My standard "walk around" is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. If I had to choose one prime, it would either be the 35, or something a bit wider, like the fast 24 mm lens.... I would really have to be married to the prime-only concept to save my coins for either one though. If using a prime as a standard lens might end up a passing phase, try the Canon 28 f/1.8, or one of the third party fast-wide lenses. None are really cheap, and they all have their issues, but if that's what you want to do, get the best you can afford that will give you the view you expect.</p>

<p>70mm on a DX frame.</p>

<p>Next purchase is a Sigma 70 mil 2.8 Macro. I dont know why but it seems to be in line with what my eye sees</p>

<p>Currently enjoying a 35mm 1.8</p>

<p>Keep in mind that there were conditions in the OP - the question was not "are zooms or primes better" or "what do you prefer for street photography?" or "what works well for macro?" or any of the other issues brought up here. As soon as the answer limits the scope of use it is not responding to the original question, which referred to:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"cityscapes, interiors, people, tours, landscapes(near and far), walks in the woods, etc, etc."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is hard to imagine a broader range of subject types - just about anything that one might shoot is included here or could be by extension.</p>

<p>With one prime.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>

<p >I'm with Dan. I have several zooms and primes but will never choose to go out with a single prime lens if I am to tackle many shooting situations. Two primes or one zoom is a bare minimum for me.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Happy shooting,</p>

<p >Yakim.</p>

</p>

<p>AS the OP, I sort of hate to open up a new can of worms, but what might make a good 2-prime lens combo in the 1mm-99mm range? Maybe a 28mm and 50mm lens(on crop body)? I'm not an extremely wide/angle shooter. I may not know "how I see things", but real wide is not it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I may not know "how I see things", but real wide is not it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

You already answered part of your question. take your zoom and see what focal length you seem to like most. I would think something wide and something long would be idea. I often go with 28 + 85 but on full frame. I could see the same 2 lenses working just fine on APS-C. </p>

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>If you want me to think about two Primes, then let me take two cameras, a lens in a coat pockets is a waste . . . <br /><br />Then my two lenses would be: 35L & 85/1.8 plus my 30D and 5D. This is a very powerful "walkaround” Two Prime Lens Kit. <br /><br />I just mentioned the less expensive version (with the 35/2), here: <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00Wajo">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Wajo</a><br /><br />WW</p>

 

<p>When I go shooting with two primes - which I normally only do for indoor available light photography - I take the 24/1.4 and 85/1.8, shooting on a 5D. They're great lenses and I don't think I miss many shots for lack of a zoom. The 35/1.4 would probably work very well also. On crop frame the closest set would be something like 24/1.4 and 50/1.4. If you don't need the low-light capability the EF-S 60/2.8 macro or Tamron 60/2 macro would be worth a look as well.</p>

<p>28mm -35mm on a 1.6 crop.. 50mm on FF Back in the olden days when people learned actually photography and weren't "camera enthusiasts" and wow'd by "look what this gadget can do" ... the 50mm was the standard walkaround lens.<br>

"Walkaround" makes perfect sense.</p>

<p>Cost, speed, quality, convenience can all factor into any lens. If you are willing to try manual focus lenses you may not need to limit your self to just one.<br>

<br /> These lenses are relatively small and can be placed in a coat pocket. I purchased two used MF Zeiss (50 1.4 and 135 2.8) lenses for about the price of a new Canon EF 85 1.8 USM. I use all three lenses and enjoy working with each of them.<br /> <br /> This is an example of the Zeiss 50 1.4 hand held at dusk in Chicago.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://stover98074.smugmug.com/Other/Sharing/IMG6243/876061498_v5Yfr-M.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>How did my cat, Kirby, get in your kitchen?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Guess I left the door open. All the orange cats I've ever met love baking. And Zeiss lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>2 lenses, both fast... allowing for low light photos too.<br>

first lens: wideangle 24mm on full-frame<br>

second lens: medium telephoto, 85mm on full-frame<br>

that would make it 15mm on 1.6crop, 18mm on 1.3crop<br>

and 53mm on 1.6crop, 65mm on 1.3crop<br>

......... so realistically 20mm f/2.8 [if there was one] and 50mm f/1.4,<br>

but f/2.8 is not that fast and i don't know a 20mm f/2.8 lens, so then perhaps 24mm f/2.8 but then 50mm f1.4 is kind of close, so<br>

24mm and 85mm f/1.8 on 1.6 crop sensor. variety for [what should be, but on 1.6 crop isn't so much] wideangle, and then 85mm for telephoto type of lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"A single prime lens is not really the best tool for the tasks you describe."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes, just imagine how far better would HCB turn out to be if he had a tamron 18-250....</p>

 

<p>I would go for my Sigma 30mm F1.4.<br>

Why?</p>

<ul>

<li>Great for low light</li>

<li>Good enough for tight spots (50mm equal on fullframe)</li>

<li>Long enough for people or smaller groups</li>

<li>low distortion</li>

<li>fast and silent autofocus (HSM)</li>

<li>great IQ</li>

</ul>