Whatever happened to fast normal primes?

[phyliss_crowe]

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

[phyliss_crowe]

<p>And last, just got this one today.</p><div></div>

[phyliss_crowe]

<p>Really lovin' the 135. It's so tiny! Only 2 inches long with the hood retracted and 3 inches with it extended! </p>

[phyliss_crowe]

<p>Correction: Make that just under 2 1/2 inches long hood retracted. And has 8 blades. Not bad for $42, huh, Gary?</p>

[runswithsizzers]

<p>Thanks again to all for your insights.</p>

<p>What started me on a quest for a normal prime lens was an urge to simplify, to get back to basics. Looking back at my slides taken over the past 40 years, I got this notion that some of my best shots were taken when I had only one body and a normal lens. </p>

<p>I got this notion that it would be a kind of a discipline, or lesson, or challenge, or whatever, to limit myself to the one lens which sees the world most like the human eye does - devotion to good subject would be required - no depending on tricks of perspective to make the shot. Shoe-leather-zooming requires a greater involvement with the subject, I figured - when I walk around, and back and forth, I take more time to look at the possibilities, to SEE the subject. True, there would be a few shots I would miss because I couldn't get close enough to - or far enough away from the subject, but in general, a zoom lens seemed like a temptation to short-cut the process, take a quick shot and move on.</p>

<p> And while switching from film to digital seemed like the perfect time to try my experiment.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, back in the real world, I got the Pentax K-x yesterday with the kit zoom, and I have to admit I'm liking it much better than I expected.</p>

<p>True, I hate the dim viewfinder - but the camera-plus-zoom is way lighter than I thought it would be. And I certainly can't fault the zoom for sharpness. There was no lens shade in the box (dammit), but even without it, no significant problems with flair or loss of contrast from backlight. So far, I'm impressed! But then I haven't done any low light stuff yet, either.</p>

<p>Nor have I yet mounted any of my old K-mount lenses on the K-x. I'm really looking forward to trying the 50mm f/1.4 to see how it works as a walk-about in low light.</p>

<p>-gw</p>

 

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Here's a few standard lens combos under our roof:</p>

<p>Top frame is a film Pentax MZ-5N with Pentax 50mm f1.4 (shot with 5D, with Canon 50mm f1.4, I believe)<br>

Mid frame is Canon 30D with Canon 35mm f2.0, close to full frame 50mm (shot with 5D, with Canon 24-70)<br>

Bott frame is Canon 5D with Canon 50mm f2.0 (shot with 30D, with the Canon 35mm f2.0)</p><div></div>

[User_2000406]

<blockquote>

<p>What started me on a quest for a normal prime lens was an urge to simplify, to get back to basics. Looking back at my slides taken over the past 40 years, I got this notion that some of my best shots were taken when I had only one body and a normal lens.<br>

I got this notion that it would be a kind of a discipline, or lesson, or challenge, or whatever, to limit myself to the one lens which sees the world most like the human eye does - devotion to good subject would be required - no depending on tricks of perspective to make the shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I got my first SLR - a Nikon FE - I could not afford a zoom lens so I bought only a 50mm f/1.8. Yes, using that lens forced discipline on me, but I missed a *lot* of shots I wanted because foot zooming tends to not work well for most landscape photography and that's largely what I was doing at that time. </p>

<p>It was a huge relief to get a 28mm f/2.8 and a 70-210 f/4.5-5.6 zoom, although both were cheap and I became disillusioned by the slow speed, low contrast, and flare of the zoom. At least I could now capture the feeling of a wide landscape, or zoom in on a distant feature and isolate it. I felt like I had been released from a straitjacket, and more so when I eventually went to a 28-105mm zoom as my main lens for a time.</p>

<p>A few years later I tried taking along a bag of primes - 6 lenses - for a 35mm camera as a substitute for zooms. The idea was that this would enable me to go all the way from 20mm to 200mm, with enough intermediate focal lengths to handle situations where foot zooming was not practical and with "better" image quality than zooms would provide. This monstrous bag was kept in my vehicle (not my shoulders) on various excursions. It worked reasonably well as I was taking photos of generally static subjects and I was using film so there was no worry over dust on the sensor.</p>

<p>However, I finally realized that I was trying to improve image quality with better lenses on a small piece of film. In other words, I was still compromising image quality. Wouldn't it be better to choose a different compromise and use zoom lenses on a medium-format SLR, with a much larger film size and about the same total bulk and weight? With digital one has a similar trade-off to consider between crop frame vs. full-frame cameras.</p>

<p>There are various examples of the possible trade-offs to consider, depending on the circumstances and one's priorities. Sometimes one may be forced by practicality to choose an outfit of minimal bulk and weight. Some kinds of photography lend themselves to foot zooming and may favor fast primes if one is using slow film. Other times, using primes may cause missed shots or leave one with very poor framing. One can go on and one with the examples.</p>

<p>There is no single right choice in these areas, and many of us can not afford to buy all the different gear configurations that would be optimal for the various situations where we expect to do photography. In the end all we can do is weigh the various choices and pick the compromise that works best for us as individuals.</p>

 

[ruben_bittermann]

<p>Cheap zooms today being part of the digital kit seem to be much better than cheap zooms in the past.<br>

Nevertheless there are new digis being sold with a fast prime nowadays, and there are cameras more prompt to be used with old manual focus lenses than others. You will find that there is a tremendous amount of adapters in general and for Canon digis in particular.<br>

Another option are the micro 4/3 cameras where you can use not only old SLR lenses but even old exchangeable rangefinder lenses. Here the Panasonic G-1 is queen, soon to be replaced by a G-2</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>I believe the idea of one or two "kit" lenses sold together with the body as a kit is to make the buyers feel like they are buying a complete set and they are not worrying about how much they are going to pay more later, and how useless these kit lenses will be. Many customers who bought the "complete" kits stay with it and really settled with it. Others will soon have to spend more and more and more to update and upgrade. They always have an urge to go longer longer, shorter shorter, faster faster. And that is exactly what the manufacturers want</p>

<p>The story is the same with the popup flash. It is there to make the kit "complete". Long time ago, zoom lenses were not as popular as today and many customers were comfortable to say "well, I dont need a zoom". That was prety much similar to saying "well, we dont need a computer at home"</p>

<p>We change. Today, everybody must have a cell phone (with a camera in it), a digital TV, a desktop and a laptop computers, we must have internet connection (or else you cant be with photo.net), not only in each home but also everywhere on the road, or up in the sky. Even a beginner would think that they must have a zoom lens, hence the zoom lens goes in the kit</p>

<p>I do have a suggestion though. Since IS (and VR) is so important. You must insist on buying a prime normal lens with IS (or VR) built-in ...</p>