Whatever happened to fast normal primes?

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>The reason why consumers, not photographers would chose a zoom over a prime lens is because of the convenience and because they do not know any better. </em></p>

<p>That's a broad statement, on the order of "All the world's odd except me and thee, and sometimes I wonder about thee." I submit that the reason zoom lenses are more popular is because they zoom - you can hold the equivalent of many prime lenses on one hand and, more important, compose in the viewfinder. We disagree, in principle, on the meaning of "better".</p>

[steve_levine]

<p> The simple answer is that the zoom lens is something that the average user can't do without. And why should they? For their needs even the kit lenses are fine. The average user doesn't need or want to know how many elements a lens has, or what F5.6 even means. They just want nice pictures that they can print and email. All you are observing is progress, or evolution of the camera and market for them.</p>

<p> I was a late purchaser of a DSLR myself. I didn't make the plunge until the Nikon D50 came out a few years ago. I tried the kit lens, and decided it wasn't my cup of tea. (It really wasn't very sharp.)</p>

<p>The reason I bought the D50 in the 1st place was so I could use my vast collection of manual focus glass.<br>

I shoot primes exclusively, and I love my results. The crop factor automatically cuts off the soft edges of a wide open Nikkor. This makes it all "sweet spot".</p>

<p>So buy a nice DSLR, body only. And get yourself a couple AF (or MF ) primes and move on.</p>

<p> </p>

[phyliss_crowe]

<p><em>"Is this something the manufacturers have decided for us, and forded upon us - or is it something we (not me) demanded?" </em></p>

<p>It's neither.</p>

<p>If by "back in the day" you're referring to when you began your "almost 40 years of 35mm film SLR experience", then it's much simpler. They're just no longer required.</p>

<p>Two things about most photography and shooters 40 some years ago, particularly everyday shooters (1) affordable zoom lenses for the masses were in their infancy, expensive, and HUGE (you can knock one over Yankee Stadium's center field wall with one of those early zooms if you were so inclined); and (2) affordable color film and processing for the masses was also very new and expensive. Nearly everybody shot B&W film back then because it was cheap and plentiful. But it was slow.</p>

<p>Thus the mass produced "kit" lenses of 40 to 50 years ago that everybody could pretty much afford - primes - <strong>had </strong>to be both fast and sharp to take best advantage of the slow B&W films that were readily available. That's a major reason M42 screw mount lenses, especially Pentax Takumars, are still aggressively sought after today. That coupled with the fact that you can get a mount adapter to fit them on practically any brand interchangeable lens DSLR camera manufactured today and use them effectively via stopped down metering on most cameras. SDM is such a trip because it opens up a whole new huge world of photography possibilities!</p>

<p>Off the top of my head, I know three of the most sought-after M42 lenses are the Pentax 50mm f/1.4, the very rare 50mm f/1.2, and the 85mm f/1.8. I love the daylights out of my 50/1.4 and my 55/1.8. They'll go to my grave with me. I frequently use them on my Pentax K100D, and my 22 yo son adores the 50/1.4 on his K20D. Lusting after the 85mm now. There are many name brand and third party M42s out there that are still highly ranked and prized.</p>

<p>Most decent M42s are relatively inexpensive today, but -- they're no longer a secret.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

I'm too indecisive to ever be happy with a zoom lens. For years I used a film camera with a 50 mm lens and got used to its field of view. Now I'm grvitating towards something more like 35 to 40 mm. I've used a few zoom lenses (P&S digitals and film) but I keep zooming back and forth trying to decide what looks best and in the back of my mind wondering whether I'm getting pincushion or barrel distortion so my next (if ever) digital camera will have a single focal length lens. I'm just a zoom with my feet person.

[marc_bergman1]

<p>If you are concerned with distortion, vignetting, or CA in these zooms, these can be corrected with the included software.</p>

<p>I got the kit lens because it was handy and lightweight. I kept it because of its excellent quality. I can print out border-less 13"x19'" prints that are great quality. The lens has excellent sharpness from center to the edges.</p>

<p>It doesn't quite match my 70-200mm f/4 IS but then what lens does?</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>these are not dedicated APS-C lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is important because ?<br>

How could the 35mm f/2 or the others I mentioned in the 'cheap' category be any smaller or lighter?<br>

Sure, they'll be redesigned some day, and the prices will be redesigned at the same time. I can't imagine that they'll ever be made as APS-C only lenses--there's just no cogent design reason for doing so, and many good marketing reasons not to do so.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Some exceptions aside, slow heavy zooms are for the amateur who can't be bothered to change position to photograph. A few fast primes in the range of 24 or so to 85 or 105mm will do the job and generally with finer resolution, contrast and lack of distortion. And brighter VF imaging. Look at the weight and bulk of faster zooms and the DSLR bodies. Medium format territory. Put a small Leica M8 or M9 beside the DSLR and watch your jaw drop. Leicas and primes go together perfectly. A prime on a DSLR or SLR is still a great thing and the new Nikon 50mm f1.4 lens is a quality performer, in Leica quality range at much smaller price. Presumably the other top makes also have quality primes today. For the well-informed buyer, the choice is still there. Enjoy.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>I waited and waited on a DSLR because I had a gear bag full of AIS Nikkors to go along with my F2's and F4. When the D700 came along, I jumped on it because it allowed me to use my manual focus lenses without the DX crop and it did not cost me an arm <em>and a</em> leg; only a leg.</p>

<p>You did not specify what kind of film cameras you had, but if you have good manual focus lenses, including a fast "normal" prime why not find a full frame body, Nikon or Canon, and use them with it? Autofocus is way over-rated in my opinion. Our eyes and brain are better than a machine anyway, even if they are not as fast.</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Kits are a marketing and sales tool - and they are aimed at the beginner or those who upgrade from a P&S or similar. Especially the later will demand a zoom, simply because they are already used to it (and they are often disappointed that they can't get the same range in one lens for a DSLR).</p>

<p>Never purchased a kit - didn't like the 50mm focal length when those lenses came bundled with a film camera. Certainly had no need for a 18-55 when I got my first DSLR - had already a full stable of Nikon glass. Rather not pay for something I have no use for - and a 50mm squarely fell into that category during my film days. Despite knowing better, I purchased a 50/1.8, a 50/1.4 and a 55/2.8 - and sold them again. Have a 50/1.8 in the bag now - comes in handy once in a blue moon but since it is so inexpensive (and quite good) it would be a shame not to own it.</p>

<p>So why are there no kits with normal fast primes - simple: because there is no market for them.<br>

Just look how long it took Nikon to introduce the 35/1.8 AF-S; before its introduction, there was only the 35/2 for almost twice the price. Sigma cleverly jumped in with the hot-selling 30/1.4.</p>

<p>Nikon's marketing with the 35/1.8 worked though - I purchased one because the price felt right - and like the even cheaper 50/1.8, the lens continues to surprise me. I couldn't justify spending the money for the 35/2 or the 30/1.4 though - I just don't use the lens that often; primes have become lenses for special occasions/purposes for me.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>"Some exceptions aside,"</p>

<p>I take exception to your exception. When I shoot scenics there is always a cliff, a river, a lake, an ocean, a wall, a fence, or a bridge.</p>

<p>When I shoot sports there is always the stands, a fence, a curb, or a designated spectator area.</p>

<p>"Put a small Leica M8 or M9 beside the DSLR"</p>

<p>The M8 or the M9 weighs .2lbs more than my DSLR.</p>

<p> </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>If you want a 50mm prime, nothings stopping you buying one. If Canon/Nikon etc choose not to bundle such a lens with a body as a "kit", I don't see how that's a problem.</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>Get a GF-1 and the 20 1.7 kit from Adorama. I have a pile of Contax primes that I use with my Canon bodies, or I would have been tempted to go with something like this.</p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>Uh... these are not dedicated APS-C lenses...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which work perfectly on full frame as well as APS-C. Most Nikon primes are also mainly full frame and work on APS-C lenses. Most would not consider this a problem since Canon, Nikon, and Sony offer full frame cameras. If Pentax ever releases a full frame camera approximately 1/2 of there prime sellection and most of there zoom sellection would not be compatable. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>For example, check out the size, weight and cost of the Pentax DA 14mm and the Canon EF 14mm L to see the difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No one before or after you has made size a big issue. In any case even some of the canon and Nikon full frame primes are very light. <br>

Since the Pentax 14mm is only APS-C lens, if Pentax ever offers a full frame camera the widest Pentax prime lens you could use is the 31mm F1.8 which is not really wide. </p>

<p>However you are comparing a full frame lens with a wider view to a APS-C lens with a narrower field of view. If you correct for that the Pentax 14mm is more like a 21mm full frame lens. Canon does offer a 20mm lens which weighs about the same,has the same aperture of 2.8 and costs less then the Pentax 14mm. For equal frame coverage (the same effective focal length) there is no significant weight or cost advantage.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only EF-S prime Canon makes is the 60mm macro, which is -- in a way -- a relatively slow speciality lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The EF-S is a good macro lens which is also a very good outside of the marco range. If also has a very fast USM focus motor. All Pentax Macro lens are F2.8. The Canon EF-S 60mm is also a F2.8 lens. I don't see how you can call is a slow specialty lens. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Virtually no manufacturer makes equivalent 20mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 100mm lenses (Pentax is a notable exeption for some focal lengths).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now back to your original claim. Pentax offers 15 pime lenses, 8 are not compatable will film or any full frame digitals (if Pentax ever makes one). 10 have a maximum aperture of 2.8 or smaller. </p>

<p>Nikon has 28 prime lenses. 26 are full frame compatable. 7 have a maximum aperture greater than 2.0. </p>

<p>Canon has 37 Pime lenses 36 are full frame compatable and cover a focal range greater than the focal range offered by Pentax. 10 have a maximum aperturegreater than 2.0.</p>

<p>So it is simply not true that Pentax has a better Prime selection than any other Camera Manufacture which was why I replied to your message. Pentax has a more limited prime sellection with fewer large aperture lenses to sellect from than Canon or Nikon. Even Sony has a wider sellection of lenses although it is mostly zooms. In fact when I went from film to digital I also switch from Pentax to Canon due to big sellection of lenes (prime and zoom). </p>

<p> </p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>Prime lenses are still sharper than zooms in my opinion. The reason why consumers, not photographers would chose a zoom over a prime lens is because of the convenience and because they do not know any better.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Possibly an opinion fully formed a while ago, in the days before aspheric elements and ED glass and computer design wizardry. Check out the spec on some good,high price but not stratospheric priced zooms and their MTF charts.. Costly sure, but doable for anyone who wants it all in a single package and save equivalent of all those single FL lenses. Oly ED 35-100 mm F 2.0 cited here as a for instance.<br>

http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/dslr_ZUIKO_DIGITAL_ED_35-100mm_1_2_0_Details.htm </p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>It seems odd to me that if the kit zooms are as good as you say, and if everybody (but me) wants one, why does it look like they have so little value in the marketplace?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gary, if you look at the quality used zooms on <a href="http://www.keh.com">www.keh.com</a> (a good used dealer), like the Canon 70-200 F2.8 you will find that the used price for a good condition lens not much less than the new price. Todays zooms are much better than the zooms made 20 years ago. I have 4 Canon L zoom and only one (the 24-105) has any obvious barrel distortion. However that is mostly at 24mm and mostly is gone at 40mm. Colors and sharpness all are very good.</p>

<p>Since Zooms have been the most popular choice for the last 20 years many manufactures are putting a lot of effort in the design and many of the old big problems with zooms have been greatly minimized or even elliminated. With the recent addition of automatic software corrections for many lens problems, the quality gap between zooms and primes is not as big as it was a couple of years ago. That said you can still find some bad zooms just as you can still find some bad primes. You just have to look harder to find them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So if my math is right, going from ISO 100 to 1600 I'll gain 4 stops, right? And going from f/1.4 to 5.6 I'll loose 3.5 stops, right? Net gain, about 1/2 stop? (Help me out here, I may be getting rusty on the fundamentals.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your math is almost right. 100 to 1600 is 4 stop. F1.4 to F5.6 is 4 stops. So there is no gain. However there are F2.8 zooms available (some quite good with aconstant F2.8 aperture). So if you get a 2.8 zoom you will have a net gain of 2 stops. Canon IS lenses are often listed at providing "up to 4 stopsof improvemnt" (some older ones are not quite that good). So if you very steady hands you IS can make a very big difference. In my case I have to stay at 1/focal length rule or a little higher (my hands are sometimes quite shaky). But with my IS lenses I can still get an IS improvement of 2 stops. With that said some IS systems from other vendors may not be good enough for a reliable 2 stops. improvment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now the standard kit lens that comes with DSLRs has become something like a 18-55mm zoom with a maximum aperture of f/3.5-5.6. Five freaking point six! You gotta be kidding me! Almost every review of these kit zooms mentions their considerable limitations - slow, heavy, cheaply made, suffering from a little barrel distortion here, and a few chromatic aberrations there - and not particularly sharp.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keep in mind many reviews are made by people just pixel peeping on a computer screen. Its much easier now to zoom in on an image to find the problems. 20 years ago how many people were taking slides and making 20X30" prints to find the optical problems? So small problems seen today can often be better than what was common 20 years ago.</p>

<p>Also keep in mind that 20 years ago $100 was worth a lot more than it is today due to inflation. What was the price of gas 20 years ago? Even Canons 50mm 1.8 kit prime which was only $90 a few years ago is now going for about $110. Over the years this lens has gone form a metal lens mount to one that has a plastic lens mount with all plastic snape together construction. The optics are about the same but cost to make it are a lot less that what is was when it first appreared on the market, and yet it costs more.</p>

[papasan]

<p>Back in the days of film, i had quite a few number of prime lens ranging from 20mm to 300mm and only one zoom 80-200mm. In those days zooms were a big compromise over prime, they were bulky, heavy and you had to pay a lot of money for a zoom which would come close to the quality of a prime. Two things happened since then imho, first the quality of the zoom lens got better and better. True primes are still better for the same range and speed, but the difference is much less now, and the price got closer to the cost of prime lenses. Nowadays if you want prime lens from say 24 to 105 mm you would probably buy three lens (24, 50, and 105) to cover the range which would cost you more than one 24-105 zoom. And as a bonus, the zoom will cover all the focal lengths in between your three primes. </p>

<p>As for the other part of your question, there are some excellent fast normal prime lens out there and they are relatively cheap. But you need to consider that a "normal" lens on a cropped sensor would be around 30 mm not 50 mm. </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Things change in 40 years. Back then folk's kits were slr with 50mm F2 or F1.8 and a never-ready case and they dreamed of a 135mm telephoto. If one shot color print film it was asa 80; TEN times as slow as todays common iso 800 stuff at Walmart. That is abit more than 3 fstops; ie an F2 lens them only requires a F5.6; say F6.3 lens to be gather light with todays iso 800 films.</p>

<p>A sensor today is even faster that iso 800; thus with a F4 to F5.6 zoom today for color prints one has a 1 or 2 stop advantage to 40 years ago and a F2 lens and Kodacolor at asa 80.</p>

<p>Many of the common P&S film cameras (non-slr) got zooms in the mid 1980's to 1990's. Thus from a marketing prospective a low end dslr's buyer *WANTS* a zoom.</p>

<p>A fixed focal length lens on a consumer digital is like a fixed speed AC hand drill; it will sell to folks lost in some time warp who think they are in the 1960's and want space food sticks; tie dye shirts; LP records; 20 cent gasoline; no seatbelts in cars; want leaded gasoline.</p>

<p>A fixed 50mm F2 or 35mm F2 is a great lens on a dslr; it is just not marketable in a kit; it goes over like a turd in a punchbowl. Not having a zoom is even an issue with a 120 buck digital P&S; non zooms are viewed as backward; confining; so 1960's.</p>

<p>Folks who want a fixed fast lens can just buy one; bundling one in a kit is pure bad marketing; a coffin nail.</p>

<p>One might as well bundle in a klunky never ready case too to add to the old fart factorness; or bundle in a 135mm fixed lens. It could be a retro bundle for time travelers; all that cool 1960's stuff.</p>

<p>RETRO BUNDLE: Ie modern dslr; 50mm F2 or F1.8 lens; 135mm telephoto, Never ready goober case; some weird coupons; some slow no name memory cards as icing; a rickty token tripod; all the 1960's crap as one Bundle!</p>

[plasma181]

<p>I do most of my shooting with film. However I just bought a used D70, and I put a manual focus f\1.8 50mm Series E manual focus lens on it. I haven't done much shooting with it yet, but it seems to work very well. </p>

[steven_p]

<p><em>"Back in the day, every film SLR kit came with a "normal" lens. It was about 50 mm long and had a maximum aperture of about f/1.8, give or take half an f-stop. This was a rule, with almost no exceptions."</em></p>

<p>I tried that direction more than once and concluded that they were just trying to pawn the most worthless focal length onto the newbie.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>"RETRO BUNDLE: Ie modern dslr; 50mm F2 or F1.8 lens; 135mm telephoto, Never ready goober case; some weird coupons; some slow no name memory cards as icing; a rickty token tripod; all the 1960's crap as one Bundle!" (Kelly)</p>

<p>2010 BUNDLE: Le modern DSLR, 2 or 3 times as heavy in many cases; small aperture (f2.8 to f5.6?) fat zoom; dull viewfinder images; lack of selective focus as enabled by fast wide and normal fixed focal length lenses (50mm f0.95 aspherical, etc.), no tripod (gee man, I don't have time for that and I'm zooming anyway from my car seat); bachache problems; imploded stomaches when standing on the crowded subway car. </p>

[ejchem101]

<p>Haha, Arthur I love it, I have to agree... it's not just the cameras that have changed but people's physiques as well that have caused much of the change. </p>

<p>I would assume times are much more rushed, many amateurs do not want to take the time to learn the craft of photography. That is why cameras no longer start with manual anything... which is still how I believe people should learn photography. </p>

<p>Todays beginners and set the camera on auto, or portrait mode, and be completely happy with the results. Beginners 40 years ago had to understand concepts of exposure, shutter speed, aperture.</p>

<p>A normal beginning photographer in my opinion has much different challenges, one of those being... "what are all of these numbers on my 5 inch lcd screen... I dont care lets just hurry and take the photo".</p>

[papasan]

<p>What i do miss from the old days is the split focusing screen that did allow sharp and accurate manual focusing. Today if you want to use manual focusing, (in portrait, or macro for instance) you pretty much have to guess whether your focus is sharp or not. </p>

[phyliss_crowe]

<p>Tried out my 55-200 kit zoom today, first time using it, and I'm just a totally rank amateur. </p><div></div>

[phyliss_crowe]

<p>What you can do with an old manual lens on a DSLR</p><div></div>

[phyliss_crowe]

<p>And lastly, my sweet PK 55mm f/2 that was the kit lens for the Pentax K2, which is how I got mine free.</p>