Purely prime?

[sven_felsby]

<p>For many years, I lugged my FM2 around with 20/3.5, 45/2.8 and 105/2.5 MF lenses. The 20mm was soft, the other two terrific lenses that I still use on my D300 along with the 18-200. But the zoom stays on most of the time. I miss fewer shots than in the old days, and contrary to common belief, the 18-200 is actually quite sharp - mine is, at least.<br />Bear in mind that the 5Mp you will get with the 18-200 will do fine for 8 x 10" prints. Keep the zoom for daily candid work on the D700. Use your primes for critical use.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>i find zoom lenses amatuerish, many disagree, but that is just what i think. i only use prime lenses as there are many advantages, and i cannot think of any disadvantages. i feel that zoom lenses promote poorer images, not just in the iq itself, but with thought and compostion. most new comers get zoom lenses and therefore don't learn to manual focus, and more importantly, don't get to learn what individual focal lengths look like. This in turn leads photographers to compose whilst zooming, rather than visualising an image, choosing a focal legth, then composing. i hear comments such as 'i have a 16-24 and a 28-50. I am trying to find a lens that will cover between 24 and 28'. Or similar to that...i find this laughable. the average photographer only need two or three prime lenses in my opinion and most people don't need autofocus either. it's just that they have never gone without these things, and I truly feel that a great percentage of people who learnt to manual focus and stuck with it for months at a time, may not even go back to autofocus.<br>

now of course pro sports and wildlife photogs may need a zoom and af, and other pro's may find these things useful.</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>zooms are getting pretty good these days. its all about convenience :)</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>it's onlyl convenient if you convince yourself that you actually need ten different focal lengths at any given time. H.C.Bresson seemed to do quite well with only one fixed lens.<br>

The other thing I dislike about zoom lenses is that they are resposible for the term "walkabout lens", which drives me insane when I hear that.</p>

[Brian]

<p>I think gear choice is, and should be, a personal choice, and you should use whatever is comfortable for your style and your pocket.<br>

I should be sad if people were put off getting a zoom lens by comments like "i find zoom lenses amatuerish..."(sic).<br>

In the end you will be rated as a photographer by your output, not by the lenses you use.</p>

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>Hi Bernard,</p>

<p>As a hobbyist I couldn't spend for both good zooms and primes, and I had applications (indoor sports) that could only be handled with primes, so I went that way. I really wish someone made a small, wide, DX prime like a 17mm f/2.8 or f/4 (no bigger than your 24/2.8 please), but otherwise I'm pretty happy with what I have.</p>

<p>Regarding weight, a bag of fast primes doesn't have to be heavier than the zooms. I carry a Zenitar 16/2.8, a Sigma 30/1.4, Nikkors 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and 180/2.8, and those are collectively and individually lighter than a 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 and cost me half as much. I don't have VR, but I have speed and the camera (D90) and lens combinations are light with the 180 being very much the giant lens in my bag.</p>

<p>I never notice the gap between 85 and 180. Are you buying the 135/2 for DC or because you want that particular focal length? </p>

<p>About dust, as anyone actually found that switching between primes causes more dust problems than using zooms? I see this stated often, but as a prime only shooter (more for the already mentioned economic and practical reasons than philosophical) I change lenses a lot and don't seem to have a lot of dust problems. On the other hand I'm not sure my sample is all that valid as I tend to shoot mostly at larger apertures where the dust is invisible anyway.</p>

<p>Anyway, sounds like you've got enough kit to have a lot of fun. Enjoy.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[lou korell]

<p>Generalizing the use of any particular kind of gear is not productive. Every photographer has their own preference for a working kit. While many in the past utilized only a single prime lens for a majority of their work, the options today are vastly improved. By improved, I mean plentiful and varied. Selection of equipment is 100% personal. For every thread there are numerous choices articulated and it is up to you to determine what to try and what to use for your image goals.<br /><em>"I find zoom lenses amatuerish" "the average photographer only need two or three prime lenses in my opinion and most people don't need autofocus either. it's just that they have never gone without these things, and I truly feel that a great percentage of people who learnt to manual focus and stuck with it for months at a time, may not even go back to autofocus."</em><br /><em>"now of course pro sports and wildlife photogs may need a zoom and af, and other pro's may find these things useful."<br /></em>These statements contradict each other. Pros need whatever they feel will get their jobs done effectively. Some prefer primes and some prefer zooms but I am certain a working pro will have both available if needed.<br />Autofocus is a modern technology. Saying you don't need it is like saying you don't need digital when there is film or you don't need coated lenses when there is plain glass, or for that matter, why use an SLR? You could carry an 8x10 camera to a photoshoot and manually load and shoot one frame at a time! Now that's really all you need, right?<br />I'd go back and do a little more pondering before stating such narrow opinions. The world of photography is evolving faster than we can all keep up. The beautiful thing is you do have choices. For the amateur the choice is based less on need than the professional. I daresay, it would be a funny thing to carry a 4x5 and a wooden tripod to a wedding and try to shoot the whole thing with that. Don't need zooms, don't need autofocus, but when do you tell people to stop what they are doing to "look at the birdie"?<br />There's my $.02 :)<br />Lou</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>i find zoom lenses amatuerish, many disagree, but that is just what i think.<br>

the average photographer only need two or three prime lenses in my opinion and most people don't need autofocus either<br>

<br /> now of course pro sports and wildlife photogs may need a zoom and af, and other pro's may find these things useful.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>trying to make sense of these comments... so, zooms are for amateurs, except for pros who may find them useful? is that what you were trying to say? because,if so, that's beyond oxymoronic.</p>

<p>look, it's one thing to have a personal preference, another to project your likes/dislikes onto photography (or anything else ) in general and make a misleading, misinformed assumption--especially a doozy like that.</p>

<p>if the point was that relying on zooms when one is just starting out can lead to poor technique and lazy habits in terms of composition, then just say that. but try shooting an event with a MF prime and you will miss a lot more shots than with an AF zoom. just saying...</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>You know, I don't think it makes much difference. When I started my wedding business I did so with MF and did the bulk of my work with primes. I could have done it with zooms for all my customers cared. I put a wide on one body and a normal lens on another body and got by fine. I did sports for a paper and used zooms because my juxtaposition with football teams, for instance constantly changed and things move too fast to change lenses. Even at that I carried two bodies, usually because I need shorter zooms on occasion. That's a practical consideration. I am happy to shoot with either primes or zooms. With either, I will try to make the best picture I can. It's the picture and what it is used for that makes the determination. In my former business I just tried to make whatever I owned work for the situation I was in, whether that be weddings, sports, pr, a party or a portait. I have no preferences. When I want to dig a hole their is more than one tool that will work. When I want to shoot a picture there is more than one tool that will work. What I care about is whether the tool I use is adequate to the task at hand. The best is the enemy of the good and I don't care to spend time arguing about whether 100 or 101 angels can dance on the head of a pin. </p>

[kam_kozalak]

<p>An interesting discussion. I was a primes guy. I only had two lenses initially, 35 and 85, and was happy. I then added 24, 200, 50, 135 for better coverage. Now, for the first time, I have added a zoom, the 70-300 for its AF and VR to shoot birds in flight. Now, this is more convenient (the sharpness is about same with the primes). But the lens is not as unobstrusive as the little primes. Those, to me, are the two main issues that stick out.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>The 17-35/2.8 and 70-200mm are just too good and too convenient for me to replace them with prime lenses. *** FOR ME*** prime lenses with a DSLR are for special needs -- f1.4, macro and super-tele's (400, 500, 600).</p>

<p>The only tme when I go out with ONLY prime lenses is when I shoot street photography with a film RF camera.</p>

 

[Brad_]

>>> i think primes are romantic and flatter our aesthetic sensibilities as photographers. we can see ourselves as

modern-day Henri Cartier-Bressons, stubbornly clinging to old-school values in an increasingly modernized world.

 

Ding ding ding! Give that man a cigar!

 

Like Eric, I shoot a lot of events and wouldn't be caught dead without a zoom. The tiny difference a prime offers

over zoom with respect to the overall strength of an image is mice-nuts. In fact, when event shooting, being able to better frame (with a zoom) is far more important.

 

Compelling photographs are not about ultimate lens sharpness.

[wmwhee]

<p>I have a zoom lens on my d70. The rest of my lenses, which I use on film cameras, are prime lenses. One of my cameras has a fixed lens. While I have enjoyed using the zoom lens on my d70 camera, I prefer the compact size, light weight, speed, and optical performance of prime lenses. I am strictly amateur. If I were a working photographer, I would not have a second thought about using a zoom lens. </p>

[rj]

<p>"Compelling photographs are not about ultimate lens sharpness."</p>

<p>This is totally the truth, however the idea that people who shoot with primes are doing it because its fashionable (btw, is it fashionable nowadays or are zooms more fashionable? because if I had to pick, I'd say big zooms are more fashionable) and want to be the next HCB is ridiculous. Many prime lenses offer real advantages over zooms such as generally faster apertures, smaller size, less weight, closer focusing and visually thinking in terms of single focal lengths.</p>

[bokeh man1]

<p>Bernard, use what you have and when you find there is a hole in your collection buy what you need to fill it, but don't buy anything because it seems like it is missing on paper. Personally I started with primes 30 years ago, progressed to zooms when autofocus came about, but found many picture weren't possible due to the lack of maximum aperture available with primes. Even with a pro zoom the aperture is never wider than f/2.8. Now I'm back to just 4 primes (15mm 2.8 fish, 24mm f2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 105mm f/1.8) but normally only ever take one out at a time. One other thing, people are talking about dirt on the sensor and having a zoom so you never have to change lenses. Well me personally I bought an SLR so I can change lenses. If you get a lens that covers all focal lengths it's going to be a piece of garbage with a maximum aperture of f/4 or smaller. No professional zoom lens covers the entire range so a pro still needs to change lenses. So you've got a choice, risk needing to clean the sensor every so often or use a garbage lens.<br>

Lastly using primes is "childsplay" as there's less to think about. Here's a picture my six-year-old took today using a prime.</p><div></div>

[matthew_roberts1]

<p>Nice and sharp - look how nice her eyes are!</p>

[charles_hess2]

<p>It certainly winds up being whatever works for the individual photographer is the best lens lineup they could own. With street photography as my passion, I am quite content using just the 35/2 and 85/1.4 on my D700. The mid-range zooms gather dust, but my 80-200/2.8 remains active when I have a specific need for the focal length. Having used...and still use...a Leica M6 and Contax G2, primes have been a way of life for me, so the need for zooms never really transferred to my digital work. Whatever works for you is the best for you. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>While you can always argue that a zoom allows you to react quicker and get more varied compositions easily, the fact still remains that they're limited to f/2.8 (and with very few exceptions a somewhat blurry f/2.8) which is just unacceptable for available light work indoors. On a full frame camera (for which almost all primes were designed) primes generally give a substantial edge in image quality at f/2.8, less flare/ghosting (with a few exceptions), better clarity & sharpness (at wide apertures this does count), a better hand-holding experience (smaller size and weight) and are typically less intimidating to subjects, therefore you can work easier to get record natural expressions and actual events instead of made-up/posed stuff. I often shoot events myself (as well as candid portraits), and find the 24-70/2.8 "in a way nice" but often too slow to stop movement therefore I often have to use primes, and even prefer to in many situations, even when working in the range of my zoom. What you need to do with primes is simply know/anticipate what is going to happen next and plan your shots a moment before, switch lens accordingly, instead of just shooting whatever moves. Being able to anticipate what is going to happen is part of the competence of a photographer, if you don't have this ability (acquired through experience) you're not qualified to shoot. In any case (IMO) it's rarely necessary to be able to record everything at an event and far more important that your best images are true classics instead of merely just good shots. Otherwise where's the art?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>There's a lot of nonsense about what pros do and don't do on this thread, obviously not coming from pros.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>i find zoom lenses amatuerish</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is backwards. I shoot sports, PJ, and a little fashion alongside other pros and have never seen anyone using a prime. I do see some amateurs with primes at the events.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>No professional zoom lens covers the entire range so a pro still needs to change lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is so wrong, amazing...most pros that I know and shoow with that need a wider range shoot with a 24-70 on one body and a 70-200 on the other body. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In any case (IMO) it's rarely necessary to be able to record everything at an event</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A picture editor, even a web client, will want everything recorded because it's their choice, not the photographer's. Sure, amateurs can show up and not worry about what they get or don't get. But "rarely necessary" is only from that strictly amateur viewpoint.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Jeff, do you have a mandate from all the professional photographers in the world to speak for them? It sure sounds in many of your posts you that you do.</p>

<p>Let's see, we don't even have to change the first name of the photographer or go to another web site - and find this interesting online interview of the wedding photographer Jeff Ascough:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Tz2P</p>

<p>" basically take four lenses with me when shooting. 50 1.2L, 24 1.4LII, 85 f1.2LII, 35 f1,4L. The 24 and 50 are my main lenses."<br>

"I supply the finished album. The clients can choose which pictures they don't want to go into it, but the design etc is mine. They simply see the images online, and let me know if they are happy with everything going in or do they want to take some out. Those images then make up the album."</p>

<p>To be frank, I would not want a job where I don't have a good deal of influence on what the (published) output (given to the client) is. I'd basically feel like a secretary/errand boy and nothing more. No thanks, even writing journal papers is more fun than that.</p>

<p>In what wedding/concert photography/family photography/portraiture I've done for couples, individuals and bands (generally not for money obviously), most of the time the use of primes has been a necessity due due to the low light levels (indoors) and the kind of quality I require of my photography; a small part only has been shot with zooms. Just in a recent wedding the exposures were at f/2, 1/60s, ISO 3200 when I shot close-ups of guests reactions in the church. How exactly do you shoot that with a zoom, with people subjects potentially moving about? In all cases so far the people I've shot for have preferred that I edit the shots to a relatively small number which they can then have in digital format and/or in print. I find it hard to believe that this situation would change drastically due to money being involved. If it actually did/does, thanks I'll prefer my day job. It's much better to retain integrity and control than sacrifice that to get paid. Thankfully there are fields where creative workers actually retain much of the control to the very end.</p>

 

[jc_k]

<p>"50 1.2L, 24 1.4LII, 85 f1.2LII, 35 f1,4L."</p>

<p>Most of the time reviews show that it's not optimal to shoot at max aperture, so assuming we stop by 1 level, u're already at f/2, which is only 1-stop faster than the f/2.8 of the Nikon pro zooms (24-70 etc), which are known to be highly usable even wide open at f/2.8.</p>

<p>Unless the wedding is being held inside a nightclub, I can't think of situations in which f/2.8 leads to ruination while f/2 yields spectacular results.</p>

<p>Of course one can continue arguing "available light," but I think the tipping point that ISO and shuttle speed cannot fix is beyond the lighting of most weddings.</p>

<p>And when you have 4 prime lenses during a wedding, do you carry your 4 bodies around, or having to constantly switch bodies and/or lenses? By the time I go grab the other 5D, I would've missed all the candid shots.</p>

<p>So what's more important : shots that "retain integrity" by having the subjects stand still and optically perfect edge-to-edge, or shots that "sacrifice" 5% optical quality but managing to capture the entire event end-to-end ?</p>

[rj]

<p>JC K, your argument is confusing me a bit. Why would a photographer who has primes not be able to capture the entire event? When you take away a stop or two because of the lens is not "optimal" at the fastest apertures, what exactly do you mean? Is it optically optimal, as in there is a degradation of the image with the faster aperture? If that is the case, why would a prime user really care about optimal aperture as opposed to the zoom user who has already decided that some optical sacrificing is okay. Don't zoom lenses perform better, in general, at a stop or two below their fastest apertures? Don't you think that two extra stops of shutter speed would help greatly during a wedding?</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I found that in doing photography for money on my own that I opted for the equipment that gave me the most repeatable and reliable results. One of the first things I learned in doing weddings, although I used primes for most work, and zooms for the reception and dressing, was to use flash effectively. It was very important to be able to use fill flash so that it was hard to tell in the print that it was used. I relied upon it to bail me out when the light got really bad. I did shoot many ceremonies without flash and, at best, 800 film, and sometimes a tripod and a 70-200 2.8 zoom. For all else I got very good at computing fill flash to mitigate high contrast on bright days, to shoot receptions in dark rooms and I did one wedding entirely in candlelight. It was almost totally dark. There was not even enough light to focus. No fast lens could have saved the day. I shot the wedding with a Bronica and a Vivitar 283 set at f16 and the flash set at full power. F16 gave enough depth of field to mitigate focusing errors and the full flash compensated for the small aperture. I used a meter. The wedding was B&W and every picture came out. There is more than one way to compensate for low light other than a fast prime with very little depth of field. That wedding was actually shot with a 75mm 2.8 Bronica PE prime. I also was a newspaper photographer at the time and my colleagues all used zooms. For me, this is not art it is business, it's not about perfection, it's about customer satisfaction and about efficient post processing. Customers satisfaction depends as much on fast delivery as it does on image satisfation. As I said earlier a lens is just a tool, a means to an end, to produce a photo. I think a good photographer can use both and more importantly be able to use any one of a given number of methods and tools to acheive a final result. I never felt that my work was art and it probably was not. It was about business. I did, however, make some nice images while catering to my customers.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Well almost. Basically I only use prime lenses, and you have a real nice kit similar to mine. But I have always used one zoom in my kit to meet my current needs. Late 70s it used to be a 50-135 Nikkor that I used a pretty long time, then 1980s when I was shooting a lot of sports I used a 100-300 Nikkor and 65-300 Tamron on two bodies, those are all long gone, hah, and what condition they were in, that Tamron was beat to death, what a warhorse for $200.<em> </em>Now I just have left my old trusty 28-80 Tamron SP which I use on my D200 in manual focus along with my primes on another d200, or sometimes two primes. So I guess it really depends on what your daily needs are. I worked MANY professional assignments and it all came down to whatever it takes to get the job done.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>One of the best photographers I know of, David Blakeman (who is still just a college student, albeit one earning a very pretty penny by regularly shooting weddings these days), shoots his weddings with mostly prime lenses. His EXIF data indicates that he uses about three to four lenses for the most part in conjunction with his 5D Mark II: The 24L, 50L and 135L are his main lens choices so far as I can tell, with the 35L and 85L coming up on occasion, along with a tilt-shift now and again. In looking back through many of his images, I spotted just a couple instances of a zoom lens, and that was dated over a year ago. You can see his work at http://www.davidblakeman.com/blog/.</p>

<p>He must have done at least a dozen weddings so far this year, probably more. Everyone seems thrilled with his work, and they should be, given what my admittedly amateur eye can discern. So far as I can tell, I can't see that anyone's posted a comment asking why he's not using a zoom lens for his shots. Primes aren't just about working with available light, but rather they're also about manipulating and working with depth of field. If a person's shooting style depends on a limited depth of field for some shots, a prime's going to do the job better than a zoom in most cases, or at least make it easier to accomplish various effects. </p>