Just Primes?

[tom_norman]

I just bought a 20d which is my first digital camera.

 

I still use a hasselblad and TLR but need a DSLR for trips etc when

the hasselblad is too much of a hassle. Reading various canon forums

it seems that a lot of non-pro photographers (like myself) opt to get

zoom lenses instead of primes for their use. I'm kind of surprised as

primes are generally smaller, cheaper, and seem to produce sharper

images compared to zooms that I've had in the past.

 

Coming from using MF and standard lenses I forsee myself just using

primes for my DSLR as well. I was just wondering if maybe I'm a

minority or if anyone else uses just primes in their DSLR setup?

[klix]

IMHO... depends largely on 2 things: 1) what you shoot and 2) quality of lenses.

 

1) to a sports shooter a zoom allows flexibility that you cannot have with a prime lens.

 

2) a lot of zooms now provide quality that are approaching/equal to/even surpassing some primes.

 

I use mostly zooms (constant f2.8 zooms, except for the D70 kit lens), because they fit my needs. The only primes I that have fit a particular need: 85/f1.4, 200mm micro, a 300mm and a 600mm -- and if I could afford it, the 200-400mm would replace the 300mm.

[andrew_hull]

Those must be some very expensive good zooms and some very crappy primes you are talking about. Also, you must not be talking about zooms with a wide range (20-200 types).

[terry_rory]

Primes and a fast zoom here (On a D70) I also intend to try the Nikon 45mm f/2.8 P (CPU) manual focus 'Tessar' pancake style lens and will be looking very carefully at the user reviews of the new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM once people get their hands on it.

 

Of course, with your Canon, you will have the option to use (via an adaptor) Contax/Carl Zeiss manual focus SLR lenses like the Planar 50mm f1.4 or Leica R series SLR lenses.

[mtwhite]

<p>I'll be getting a Rebel XT in a month, and I plan on using nothing

but primes for it as well. I am most definitely a non-pro. My line of

reasoning is that (1) I'm addicted to available-light shooting, (2)

I'm nowhere near being able to afford constant f2.8 zooms, and (3)

I'm not making a living on this, so I don't have to give a flying

f*** if I miss a shot due to having the wrong focal length on at the

time.

<p>I'm also surprised that more amateurs don't opt for primes.

Razor-sharp fast apertures at relatively low cost? What's not to

like?

[digitmstr]

Primes are better however things have changed a bit.

 

In the older days both 35mm and MF cameras would generally be sold with a "normal" prime lens on it (50 or 75/80mm). One would then add a med tele and a wide and build up from there. Throughout the years, Lens design and PJ work reuirements have created the demand for very high-quality zooms. Canon offers those in the "L" series which are pricey but, excellent in every respect (I have two such zooms and will soon add a third). But, while Canon's L zooms approach and in some cases even surpass their "normal" prime lenses performance they do not match the performance of their prime "L" lenses (such as the 135 f/2L, 200 f/2.8L, etc...). However, they all sport excellent built and dust/moisture seals, etc...a requirement for working pros.

 

ON the consumer side, 35mm cameras began to sell with zoom as their kit lens and the good ol' 50mm standard lens was gone, pretty much, from kits being sold. It also changed the way people shoot, especially those who were introduced to photography with a zoom lens, bypassing the prime "experience" alltogheter.

 

I know several people who have never shot with a prime lens! They are not in the minoriy nowadays as cameras have been selling with zooms as kit lens from quite sometime.

 

I think you will love the great line of Canon's prime lenses both in the "normal" line and the better "L" line. If you want the best for portraits look at the 85mm f/1.2L, 135 f/2L and the 50mm f/1.4. If you want to save some cash you buy the "normal" version of the 85 and 135 lens.

 

In my kit I have two (soon three) zooms and several primes. Most of the time I prefer to shoot with primes but, there are situations in which my 24-70 or 70-200 are the way to go. I am now adding a 16-35 zoom which will fullfil certain needs.

[wigwam jones]

Tom,

 

You said, "when the hasselblad is too much of a hassle."

 

Why do you think they call it a "Hasselblad?" OK, just kidding.

 

I think that the zoom/prime debate approaches religious wars in intensity at times, and the vitriole tends to outweigh the objectives. "Tastes Great!" "Less Filling!" And the battle commences...

 

However, and in general:

 

*) Designers of high-quality primes have to make fewer concessions than designers of high-quality zooms. This can (and often does) lead to 'better' primes than zooms in terms of absolute resolution.

 

*) Zooms have advantages in terms of speed of use that can make them a more appropriate choice for some photographers under some conditions. There will always be personal preferences either way, but I believe it is fair to say that some fast-moving situations are more suited for a zoom than a prime.

 

*) High-quality primes and high-quality zooms alike may well surpass the ability of film or digital sensors to record the best that they can offer; in such cases, it really is down to personal preference and your own best judgement.

 

I am a new owner of a DSLR and so far, I am happy with my ancient M42 screw-mount primes. However, wanting to experiment with the various auto-everything modes on the camera, I have purchased a very inexpensive zoom of uncertain ancestry on that auction site. I will not expect it to produce images as good as my primes, but if the convenience factor is high for me in certain circumstances, I may invest in a more expensive (i.e., better) zoom.

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

[thomas_sullivan]

I come from 35mm film and medium format also, and usually used primes with them. Occasionally bought a zoom, but would usually grab a prime.

 

Two things changed my mind with exclusively building a prime lens kit for my Canon 20D. One, as above indicates, Canon's "L" zooms and at least their 28-105 3.5/4.5 (consumer) zoom are excellent pieces of glass. Throw in the fact that the 1.6 crop on the 20D uses mostly the center of the glass, things get even better.

 

The other thing is...............dust! You are now not just getting dust on your mirror, you are actually getting it on the CMOS chip if it should enter the lens mounting opening when you change lenses. An excellent reason for trying to not change lenses too often.

 

What I've done is to buy zooms and have at least one prime in each of the zooms range. This is mainly for low light reasons, but sometimes is used for the "prime is better than zoom" thinking.

 

I'll tell ya though.........a 17-40L f/4 canon is damn hard to beat.....and although I don't own it yet, the 70-200L f/4 sounds like another winner. I plan on getting (or already do own) a 20mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm in primes....maybe a 12 or 14 someday.....

[klix]

<i>Those must be some very expensive good zooms and some very crappy primes you are talking about. -- Anrdew</i>

<p<p>

I did say constant f2.8 zooms, and given a good sample, those types of zooms are exceedingly good, rivaling some primes. Not necessarily crappy primes... the modern zooms are just that good.

<p><p>

<i>Also, you must not be talking about zooms with a wide range (20-200 types). -- Andrew</i>

<p><p>

Well, let's see... I say Mercedes Benz vs. BMW... and then you say, well, you must not be talking about a Yugo... let's think about that one, shall we??

[dg1]

I've got a zoom for my 10D, but I don't use it anymore, I've gone back to my 28mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 II for the DSLR. Keeps it lighter, more compact. The zoom is a Sigma 18mm-50mm f/3.5-5.6 that I bought mainly for the wide angle, and it's really an ok lens, but now I use a KM-A2 for its longer reach as well as an equivalent wide angle and it is lighter and more compact than the 10D regardless of lens.

 

I'm by no means a pro, but I've had a couple "mentors".. friends who are long time professionals and I was encouraged to get a couple primes when I got the 10D. They encouraged me to eliminate as many equipment decisions as possible so as to concentrate on looking and shooting. Thus my film cameras were a TLR (which even eliminates the decision about vertical vs horizontal framing), a Canonet fixed lens RF, an olympus Stylus Epic. My digicams have zooms but generally stay at one focal length. There's a certain feeling of freedom in just going out with one camera and a prime.

 

And of course, I can't quite afford an L lens anyway, so I may as well wax poetic about the virtues of the primes ;)

[john_macpherson]

Want a bargain? The 100mm f2.8 macro Canon is a stunningly sharp lens and not expensive for what you get. Ok its not an L but the quality is outstanding.

[fivetonsflax]

I spent a lot of time when I first got my DSLR shooting with just a 28mm prime. Later I

added a 50mm. I enjoyed the discipline of learning to see at a particular angle of view.

Now I tote around a wide-to-slight-tele zoom lens, though there are days when I don't

want the weight and I reach for my 50mm lens.

 

I think it all boils down to personal preference.

[ted_sorensen1]

I use zooms AND primes. I basically have a double lens set... one for fast operation and one for when I don't need to work quickly.

The "work quickly set" consists of a three autofocus zooms (one of them with IS).

 

The other set is a full range of primes... but only two of them are Canon EF mount autofocus. The others are Pentax Super Takumars, Nikkors and Vivitar Series 1 lenses pretty much covering all of the focal lengths. With those of course I am using adapters of course - and they must me stop-down metered as well as manual focused so I find they are not practical for some applications where conditions (or my subject) are moving/changing quickly.

 

Because all of the the manual focus primes were bought very cheaply, my total investment for the double set of lenses is not very high. Of course I paid much more per lens for the zooms because that is where cheap lenses won't provide adequate performance (in fact I am looing to upgrade one of mine right now). But you don't need many zooms to cover all of your needs anyway.

[ron_goodenow]

Tom raised a great issue. Like a couple of posters I have a 'double system' for most focal lengths, my dslr zoom and an odd set of primes and telephotos left over from 30 years of slr shooting. There is absolutely no question that today's digital zooms (mine came as a kit lens with my Evolt) offer great quality. However, I find that slapping a 28 or 50mm lens on the camera offers some of the kind of challenges which, I think, can make one a better photographer and put some fun back in the shoot. Here in New England we have had a terrible May (just one day over 70F and only a couple of days with sun). It's been dark and gloomy, but a lot of fun for we prime owners with wide apertures and a desire to not push noise envelopes (which some of have to think about on occasion). And, I must say that the glass on my primes is very, very good and one gets some sense of freedom because of their very small size.

 

It all takes me back to the old days: one needs to think much more about composition and settings, and using primes is a great way to learn more about camera capabilities. It reminds me of why slr's are still 'student' cameras of choice among many instructors.

 

The only real disadvantage, aside from a few pointed out in this thread, is the difficulty of cheaply obtaining a prime that will give one true wide angle capability....but maybe on a photographic outing there will be that flea market or tag sale that saves the day! NOTE: has anyone else noticed that primes are zooming in price on eBay?

 

Of course, this is all highly subjective and probably pretty irrelevant to hard core pros, but it is a topic that deserves far more discussion and ideas for folks on a budget, a closet full of lenses or a romantic twist about photography..

[ted_sorensen1]

Re: "...NOTE: has anyone else noticed that primes are zooming in price on eBay? ..."

 

I noticed that wide angle prime prices have increased. Did you notice an increase in other focal lengths also? I didn't really notice that.

 

On the other hand, I also noticed that the types that can be adapted to DSLRs (the ones I'm interested in) like m42 screw mount and Nikon mount have held prices a little better than the ones that can't (at least without optical adapters) like Canon or Minolta manual focus for example.

[ted_sorensen1]

... and there are few bargains in used Canon EF-mount autofocus pimes on eBay. Is that what you were referring to? It stands to reason as they are in now way obsolete... but of course some (and especially the wide angle ones - and the 85/1.8 as well) go for very very near the new price, which is of course too high.

[ron_goodenow]

In response to Ted, I have only been watching Olympus M's, of which there are precious few, and Pentax K's. The Takumars and fast original Pentax lenses seem to be on the increase. I've noted that in the UK prices seem a bit lower.

 

Incidentally, a question, perhaps silly and certainly uninformed!. What happens if one puts an slr fisheye on a dslr?

[Jochen_S]

I shoot both. My zooms are consumer bottlebottoms from old filmdays. I'm missing some impression of sharpness there. My primes seem to be a bit better.

 

Any reasonable 35mm primes shooter used to carry multiple bodys to avoid lens changes for speed and convenience only. DSLR shooters especially should do it the same way to avoid these damn dustspots on the sensor too.

[wigwam jones]

"Incidentally, a question, perhaps silly and certainly uninformed!. What happens if one puts an slr fisheye on a dslr?"

 

Not a silly question! People are being misled by a careless use of phrase (focal length multiplication factor) that has caught on.

 

You get the same result as you would if you took the photo with a traditional 35mm camera and then cropped it severly into the center from each side in.

 

Very important - people keep referring to a 'focal length multiplier' when they talk about using 35mm lenses on DSLRs. I didn't think much about it until I got a DSLR, then I realized that my 50mm is still a 50mm - just with the edges cut away severely. It is NOT a 75mm (1.5 focal length multipier). If it were, it would be one seriously fast 75mm (f1.4) and would have shallow DOF like crazy - which it does not. The field of view would change - a long lens compresses the background more than a shorter lens, all else being equal. It has the same DOF as it did on a 35mm. It has the same image magnification in the viewfinder as it did on a 35mm. What changes is what is PRINTED (or displayed in an image viewing program). This makes it BEHAVE as if it were a 75mm lens - but in all other respects it is NOT one.

 

I should have figured this out earlier - 'duh' on me - if I put one of my MF lenses on a 35mm camera with an adapter, it does not change focal length or f-stop. But if I put a 2x multiplier on one of my lenses, it DOES change focal length, and it changes f-stop from what is indicated on the lens as well. If there are no optics in the path, the focal length does NOT change when going to a DSLR!

 

So to recap - your fisheye will look just like it did. Just imagine a 4x6 print with 1 inch cut off each of the four sides and that's what it would look like.

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

[40mm]

I don't get the "zooms vs. primes" thing at all. What's to stop you having both? I use zooms when I need them, primes when I don't. It's got next to nothing to do with optics and everything to do with simplicity and portability. If travelling light, I might just take a fixed 28mm (about 42mm on the DSLR). When shooting sports, say, out come the zooms.

 

Where this breaks down (for the amateur, at least) is that lens makers seem to believe that most photographers don't want fixed length lenses at wide angles. The only way (there's no opt) to get affordable wide-angles seems to be with zooms at the moment.

 

I just got an old 28mm Pentax-A f/2.8 to use with the *istDS. Lovely little lens, really nice handling. I've done a bunch of tests (admittedly not to optical lab standards) against the much heavier and bulkier Tamron 17-35mm @ 28mm. Can't tell any significant difference in the images.

 

This is yet another of those instances where someone asks for lens advice without giving anyone a clue what they're going to be shooting, how much they can personally stand to carry about, what their main interest tends to be, what's they're style. All much more imortant than MTF charts and subtle color shifts when deciding on lenses, IMHO.

[will_perlis]

"Any reasonable 35mm primes shooter used to carry multiple bodys to avoid lens changes for speed and convenience only. DSLR shooters especially should do it the same way to avoid these damn dustspots on the sensor too."

 

Right. At only about 3.4 pounds or 1.5 kilograms each for the bodies, a Canon Mk2 shooter should carry at least two ready for use at all times.

[mag_miksch]

If you use a camera with a bayered chip lens quality doesnt matter that much

[bengt_rehn]

Mr Wigwam Jones: You are right about that a 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens even on a small sensor DSLR, but I got the impression that you think a 75mm lens got a different field of view on a 35mm SLR than a 50mm lens on a DSLR with 1,5x multiplier!. If so, you are not correct. A long lense does not compress the background more than a shorter lens! This (quite common) missunderstanding depends on a visual effect when the picture is enlarged and croped. We interpret a larger scale as the object is closer to us and more croping takes away other objects in the picture to relate to. All this gives a false impression of "background compression", but it really is not.

[roger krueger]

<i>If you use a camera with a bayered chip lens quality doesnt matter that much</i>

<br><br>

Hogwash.

<br><br>

If a lens can't deliver 100% MTF at 40 lp/mm across the entire frame it can be beat even on

a bayered chip. Bayer pattern interpretation doesn't reduce the luminance resolution--

which is what matters. Chrominance resolution is far less noticeable.

<br><br>

There's a reason full-frame folks are going raving nuts over the Contax 21mm--it beats

even Canon's wide primes pretty thoroughly, and really smacks their wide zooms.

[dg1]

Isn't the so called background compression really a function of how near or far one stands from the subject? It's not the lens' focal length but the distance the lens is from the subject that matters.

 

For instance, the distortions of a wide-angle lens are not created by the lens, but rather by the fact that such lens might require you to have the camera close to the subject. If a 50mm on my 10D requires me to stand in the same spot relative to my subject as does an 80mm lens on my full frame 35mm film camera (if I had one...) then the foreground background "compression" will be the same for the same framing. I believe the effective DOF will be the same for the same reasons, but I'm not sure about that.