Prime Time

I have enjoyed an epiphany of sorts this summer, returning to the use of prime lenses in preference to the more ubiquitous zooms. In particular, I'm returning to manual lenses, not as a Luddite, but to stimulate the creative juices, and enjoy the moments behind the viewfinder. I haven't abandoned zoom lenses, nor auto-focus, but save them for things I must do, rather than what I do for inspiration (hopefully with benefits). I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on this topic.

 

It is legal (and often necessary) to use a zoom lens to get "closer" to the subject. A more thoughtful approach is to pick the subject, additional elements and the spot which gives the best composition and perspective, then crop in the viewfinder. The problem is that you tend to see everything with the same eye, the same point of view, and the same proportions. With primes, you pick the lens, and the lens picks the composition. You can change lenses, of course, but that simply resets the process.

 

The other aspect is manual focus, which takes at least three times as long as auto focus. With AF, however, a machine picks which part on which to focus, then focuses just well enough to get by. With a flower, for example, the camera picks a prominent petal, often to the rear, and ignores the stamens and pistols, which define "in-focus" much the same as a person's eyes in a portrait. True, you can touch up the focus manually, or turn AF off altogether, but that's not a very friendly process compared to good old screw threads.

 

Focus can, and should be selective. The lazy approach is to use the maximum aperture for low light and f/8 or f/11 for everything else. I cringe a bit at this confession. It's more fun to experiment, and with an electronic viewfinder, get a real-time preview that's actually useful, not just a darkened ground glass.

 

Finally, there is the issue of size. Modern zooms approach and sometimes exceed the image quality of prime lenses they replace, but they are uniformly large. I can fit a second zoom in a pocket with another on the camera, but pockets aren't the safest and easiest way to go. Many primes, too, are the size of small amphora, but there are others which are not. Over the course of four years, I've managed to fill out a set of Zeiss Loxia lenses. Four fit in a small belt pack (ThinkTank "Hubba Hubba Hiney") with the fifth on the camera. I swap places in the bag as needed. Each one is 62 mm in diameter, and takes a 52 mm filter. There are cheaper ways to go, but I like the uniformity in both footprint and rendering.

 

Putting these elements together produces an interesting 3-D effect for a Bonzai tree at the Chicago Botanic Garden. Another photo (1522369_3e94fc84e0cb94a039c4196d69123546.jpg) was made with a 21 mm lens, about 9" from the granite lantern in the same park.

 

Sony A7Riii + Loxia 85/2.4 @f/5.6, ISO 100

Edited August 15, 2018 by Ed_Ingold

I don't disagree with what you're saying. It's true, though, that a lot of us still use manual focus lenses for work we have to do for other people. And I'm not just talking about still objects in a room. There are several reasons for this, and some are better than others. ;-)

 

Rangefinder users of course have no choice - it's primes only, for the most part. There are the Tri-Elmars, but those can't be used as zooms on RF bodies. RF lenses are amazingly compact, given their image circle. Two, even three RF lenses take up less room than a standard f/2.8 zoom. They might also be cheaper, too, depending on your brand. Some might argue that a 28mm (or 24mm) plus a 50mm can easily replace a 28-70mm zoom, as 70mm isn't really that much longer than 50mm.

 

The discussions about lens sets are kind of fun. This is sometimes discussed on the Leica forum. So what will serve me better: 28-50-90, or 21-35-75? Some might say, 24-40-90. The 75mm makes sense in the second set, but is pointless in the first. Of course the correct answer is that it depends on your preferences. It's almost arbitrary - almost!

 

As for AF, it's thanks to mirrorless systems that you have concepts like eye-tracking focus, where you really are allowing the camera to select and hold the focus point. Not like before, when AF actually meant push-button focus. AF on film and digital SLRs wasn't always reliable, and even today it isn't. Put too much trust in it and you might be disappointed. But it's no bad thing to have the option.

 

We are very spoiled today. Sports photographers used to follow around tennis players with manual focus telephotos, some with apertures of f/2, which allow zero tolerance for error. (Actually, narrower apertures don't allow for any error either, but that's a separate issue). On top of that, they were sometimes pushing their film - colour film, mind you - to ISO 3200, two decades before digital cameras made people forget that a 'usable' ISO of 3200 was old news.

 

The Loxia has a nice look about it, BTW.

The next step is to go forth with only one prime lens on one camera. Only then will you know true freedom.

I do that too. It's good experience to let the lens choose the subject. Even when I have several lenses with me, I pick one and use it until I decide to pick another. That's a variation on the same theme. You don't have a zoom option with Leica (or old Hasselblads).

 

The set I'm using is 21, 25, 35, 50 and 85. On occasions I throw in a Leica Elmar 135/4, leaving the 35 behind. That range covers 95% of the landscapes and travel pictures I would shoot. The 25 is nearly ideal as a walk-about lens, when I'm in town and don't wish to be encumbered with a bag.

I am finding myself going down the same road with photography that I went down with archery.

From compound to recurve to longbow.

From digital SLR to film SLR to Rangefinder.

Simplification.

The point and shoot digital and IPad are probably the the simplest short term if you can resist marketing forces and ever changing “upgrades”.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Moving On

One of the neat things about digital I use more and more these days is “zoomcrop”.

Allows more one prime lens shooting.

I try to compose the the entire frame, and take advantage of what a particular lens or focal length offers. I cringe at the thought of throwing good pixels away, even though 42 MP is more than I will need except on rare occasions. Irrational? Probably. Challenging? Definitely.

 

I haven't tried a longbow. Shrinking with age, I'd have to hold it at an angle, or call it something else ;)

Always shoot off a steep hill.....;)

It would be interesting to discuss which prime lenses people use, and why.

14mm Panasonic, 27mm Fuji & 50mm Nikon, same reason for all: I bought em cheap and the zooms developed mold. Edited August 15, 2018 by Sanford

With posts like this one I am always left wondering why the issue of prime vs zoom seems to be treated as an either-or proposition when it comes to creativity? Why is it more creative to "have the [prime] lens pick the composition" instead of learning how to use the much less limiting zoom to achieve what you envision? Just because a zoom tends to make one lazy and doesn't force one to move when the inadequate primes do? If one does accept the challenge to actually move and zoom, then it will quickly become obvious that a zoom offers more creative possibilities but is also a lot harder to master when a set of primes that covers the same range of focal lengths. Creativity is not a matter of whether there's a zoom or a prime mounted to the camera, it's entirely up to the person holding it. Using a zoom lens to its full potential slows one down way more than any set of manual focus primes lenses ever can. It almost appears to me that the struggle to get the image imposed by using prime lenses is sold as creativity.

 

The argument that manual focusing is preferable over AF because it allows one to focus (pun intended) on the subject more and longer doesn't hold much water in my opinion - one is focused on the focusing, especially if one needs to use the magnified view to do it properly. And there isn't much difference to using AF anyway, where the same "focus on the focusing" has to take place.

 

21, 25, 35, 50 and 85 is not a set that would satisfied my needs when traveling or for landscape shooting. The Batis set - while not as elegant a solution with same diameter and fitler size as the compact Loxia set, comes a bit closer except for the glaring gap in the middle: 18, 25, 85, 135. I have tried a set of manual focus primes: 15, 21, 40, 90, 180 that covered a sufficiently large focal length range but had the disadvantage of forcing me into many lens changes as none of the 5 was suited as a main "walk around" lens.

 

Aside from having a slower aperture and some compromises with regard to absolute image quality, a two-lens set consisting of 12-24/4 (or 16-35/4) and 24-105/4 weighs only about half the combined weight of the Loxias (and is half the cost), doesn't take up much more space (but I do agree that individually they are much bigger than any of the primes mentioned), and offers even more focal length coverage. My personal preference for a "compact" travel kit would consist of 12-24, 24-105, 100-400; definitely need a larger bag than the set of Loxias (but are combined only about 1lb heavier).

 

It would be interesting to discuss which prime lenses people use, and why.

As of late, 20, 28, 35, 50, 90(macro), 150(macro), 300. All but the 28 in Nikon F-mount, and the 35 and 50 duplicated in E-mount. The 28 E-mount is my preferred wide-angle for street photography; the 35 and 50 are recent acquisitions mostly to close the gap between the 12-24 and the 70-200/4. I use either of the two focal lengths for general walk-around, depending on mood. I just traded my Nikon 85 for a Tamron 90 to turn the one-trick pony into something more useful (adding macro). The 150 is my go-to for portraits as well as macro when a larger working distance is required. Due to its small size, the 300/4E PF VR fits in the bag now when prior the longer and heavier 300/4 had to stay home. Great for candid portraits, wildlife and - a bit surprisingly - landscape. The 20 is a very recent acquisition, to round off the set of primes if I decide to forgo the zooms and travel with a set of primes only.

I am finding myself going down the same road with photography that I went down with archery.

From compound to recurve to longbow.

From digital SLR to film SLR to Rangefinder.

Simplification.

The point and shoot digital and IPad are probably the the simplest short term if you can resist marketing forces and ever changing “upgrades”.

 

Oh my, the guy uses long bows, film, and prime lenses. Next thing you know he'll tell us that he uses fountain pens and has a WORKING turntable. And just maybe a reel to reel tape deck on top of that. (We ought to get together :-) )

The fountain pens, Watermans, Ahabs, Pelikan, and a Namiki Falcon are in a cup, and there is a Technics SL1200 MK2 wired into my PC...... Edited August 15, 2018 by Moving On

If a situation would demand a frequent change of lenses, then zooms make a lot more sense. You don't even sacrifice image quality if these lenses are a step beyond entry level. It's a challenge to carry more than two in anything less than a backpack, especially if your kit includes a 70-200 (I find the f/4 version invaluable). In a working situation, like a wedding, I carry two bodies rather than stop and swap.

 

You can use prime lenses in much the same manner, picking a lens which covers the FOV in a certain situation. What I'm talking about is using a particular lens in a way unique to that focal length or other attribute. It is the reluctance to change lenses that helps encourage creativity.

 

With that in mind, why would one ever use a 50 mm lens? I suggest that it captures what your eye tends to perceive at first glance. Something catches your eye and evokes a sense place, for example. I find that a plain vanilla lens captures this vision naturally. You don't have to go out of your way to blow up something in the foreground or step back with a long lens to flatten the perspective (as in my two samples). A 35 mm lens (or 28) is a "normal" lens "mit weltanschauung."

 

I'm puzzled by Zeiss' decision to omit a 50 mm lens from the Batis lineup. Otherwise I might have gone that route (and bought a larger shoulder bag). What's next in the Loxia line? Some are lobbying for a 15 mm super-wide. Personally I think a 135 f/4 would be logical. That's why I keep my old Elmar 135 on a short leash, all brass and glass in a skinny package.

Oh my, the guy uses long bows, film, and prime lenses. Next thing you know he'll tell us that he uses fountain pens and has a WORKING turntable. And just maybe a reel to reel tape deck on top of that. (We ought to get together :) )

Someplace, I have a set of fountain pens dedicated to calligraphy. I have at least three reel-to-reel recorders, including a studio-sized Ampex, but none are wired to anything. Egad! I can record 20 concerts on a chip that costs less than one 10" reel of tape. My turntable needs a new belt, going on 20 years now.

I think, but do not know for sure, that my Rapidographs (link) and Leroy set (link) are all still functional.

 

Like so many things en-rosened by nostalgia, redoing is not so pleasant as the memory.

I have also started using the rear screen more effectively. It is articulated, and lets me shoot over my head or at ground level. I'm not averse to shooting on my elbows, but I need help getting to my feet again. I put grip-tape on a walking stick for use in that event. Bummer!

"I have also started using the rear screen more effectively. It is articulated, and lets me shoot over my head or at ground level. I'm not averse to shooting on my elbows, but I need help getting to my feet again. I put grip-tape on a walking stick for use in that event. Bummer! "Edward.

 

An adventure.....

 

Egad! I can record 20 concerts on a chip that costs less than one 10" reel of tape. My turntable needs a new belt, going on 20 years now.

 

So, what's more fun - looking at a tiny little chip or watching a 10 inch reel at 15 ips?

plain vanilla

There is nothing plain about vanilla. It's a delicious flavour, like chocolate or caramel.

I very much enjoy spinning those old vinyl LPs that I accumulated in the 70’s.

So much in those songs that weren’t top ten, listening between the lines.

Really very simple to wire through PC and I have around 250 albums and even more .45s.

You can enjoy the past and the present.

Keepin’ The Faith......

 

Keepin’ The Faith......

Watch it Dude - I'm told "vinyl" is very hip - next thing you know you'll have a glockenspiel, tats and piercings.

So, what's more fun - looking at a tiny little chip or watching a 10 inch reel at 15 ips?

It's not much fun watching the last thread of tape leave the feed reel while the music goes on. Forgive me, Mahler, but what's wrong with spaces between movements.

Watch it Dude - I'm told "vinyl" is very hip - next thing you know you'll have a glockenspiel, tats and piercings.

Funny you should mention that, this past weekend I came across this:

 

 

Now the guitar player Billy is talking about was Paul Burlison.

I went to school with his daughter and never knew this history until about 20 years later.

Paul was a member of our Local and lived about a mile up the road from me.

Paul didn’t get the Fuzz effect with knitting needles. He accidentally jolted the third tube loose in his amp before a performance.

Interesting story.

“They ain’t gonna like this at all”...

Getting back to the subject, there's nothing outdated about prime lenses. If we adhere to the fiction that mirrorless is all about being small and light, they seem to be appropriate. Best of all, two generations (or more) of legacy lenses can still be used on a modern camera.