How Many Primes? How Frequent?

[ricardovaste]

Well, that title doesnt make much sense i guess :S. What I'm asking is how many

primes 'should' you have? excluding anything really long like 200 or 300 or 500

etc etc. Maybe including shorter macros that can 'double' in perpose.

 

Im talking digital here too. Thats important. I can maybe understand a 35mm

shooter having more primes with them, as they may not be able to crop the

photos easily etc etc. But in the digital age, it makes no sense to me (and to

many) having say a 28mm prime and then a 24mm one too. Now you can argue

that 'they serve different perposes' but if they are around the same weight and

size and allow roughly the same amount of light in, neither one is really going

to take a different picture when you apply yourself to the situation. But where

is the boundary? Do you add a prime every 10mm? 30mm? 50mm?

 

Im just talking about a general set up here too, no specific shooting, but to

be used in a variety of situations. You know what I mean; an 'every day' kind

of kit.

 

The other question is how many? My thinking is less lenses, more photos. If you

spend less time thinking about what a photo might look like with a different

lens, less time changing lenses all the time, things generally flow better

IMHO.

 

I've found myself selling quite a few lenses just now, well they are listed,

non are sold as of yet.

 

I can exclude my 300/2.8 Tokina AT-X PRO, 200HSG and 100/2.8 macro from the

discusion, as they serve quite specific perposes are used quite frequently for

different things.

 

I have a 28/2RS that I like as 'standard', but everything else around that

becomes a bit blurry in 'use'. So basically I've opted to sell the rest and see

if i really miss them, as they dont really get used... except the 50mm.

 

Your thoughts are more than welcome, please share them.

 

Many thanks,

 

Rich

 

p.s. FWIW the sale list includes a tamron 17/3.5, sig 20/1.8 (though im tempted

to keep this), 50/1.7, 50/1.4, takumar SMC 85/1.8

[fullmetalphotograper]

The 300/2.8 Tokina AT-X PRO is my only prime I use. I use the Nikon 24-70 mm f/4, tokina

28-70 mm f/2.8 and 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR. I do own other primes like the Nikon 85 mm f/2

and 180mm f/2.8, I just don't use them.

[malcolm_denton]

I've gone back to the days when I couldn't afford extra lenses,and now, despite owning various zoom lenses,currently take about 75/80 % of my Minolta SLR exposures using my 50mmf1.4 and 105mm macro.

 

I've never bought any other lenses for my Voigtlander R3M,so that's exclusively 40mm f1.4.

[douglas_ferling]

I'm digging my current hybrid system of the 20mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, Zeiss 85mm 1.4, and Zeiss 135mm 3.5 m42, being supplemented by the CZ 24-70 and the 70-210 f4. I may get the CZ 135mm 1.8 down the road, but my m42 is ok. I don't really need much else, except maybe more wide angle, and the full frame will take care of that should I opt for it. Ultimately, the 24-70 is appropriate for 75% of my type of shooting.

[ronald_moravec1]

Too many lenses slows you down and hinders creativity to me. I take a few with me based on what I think I will need. Sure I miss a few, but I get more extra than I miss.

 

I you are totally unsure, bring a fast prime and a zoom.

[peterblaise]

For me, it depends on two things:

 

1 - whether I like to crop in camera during capture, or later, or not at all, or if I'd rather "zoom with my feet".

 

2 - if I believe there's a difference between capture qualities that I value of primes versus zooms.

 

3 - if size matters - primes are often smaller, nice for making the camera smaller.

[ilkka]

For the Minolta Sony system, I have 24, 50, 100macro and 500 prime lenses. When the A900 comes out (I am on waiting list), I will probably get either a 300 or possibly both 200 and 400 prime lenses as well. To reduce the number of lenses, I like to have about 2x between focal lengths and do the rest of the "zooming" with feet and a bit by cropping. On top of that, I have five zoom lenses as well, from 17mm to 300mm.

[JohnMWright]

Modern zooms are so good that I only have primes for specific purposes as you mention (macro, fast telephotos).

 

When I shot film, I had a 24mm, 50mm, 100mm as standard lenses.

[m.l]

My prime setup, after selling some lenses,:

sigma 17/2.8 fisheye

minolta 28/2

minolta 50/1.4

sigma 70/2.8 macro

 

It's the 50mm ór the 70mm, so a total of three lenses when on the road.

[ricardovaste]

Hey thanks for the input everyone. Your opinions are very useful, as you all clearly have many years of experience compared to me. Your words reinforce the idea that you only really need two or three lenses with you.

 

I think I will try and stick with a 28/2, 100/2.8 combo and according to what I want to shoot i will throw in the 20/1.8 or the 200/2.8 (both of which i feel are great for "people" photography).

 

Many thanks for your advice.

[fmueller]

When manual focus Minolta used to be my main system I owned a plethora of prime lenses, but virtually never carried more than 2-3 with me at a time. It was nice to be able to choose though before I left the house, depending on what I expected to shoot, and what I felt like using on that particular day. Since I have entered the digital world, I very rarely use prime lenses except for a 100mm macro. Even my 50mm and 35mm mostly collect dust. I usually just carry one or two zoom lenses, and they give me the shots I want.

[peterblaise]

Hi again Richard,

 

Revisiting my prime bin, I see my camera kit pouch - I wear a self-modified fanny pack about my waist (nothing hanging from my shoulders or neck, all weight carried directly on my hips and legs) with accessory soft lens cases attached, looks like this:

 

[]==========[lens][camera+lens][lens]==========[]= (buckle)

 

I see I start out with the traditional 3 lens kit:

 

- wide angle: 28mm (f/2.8)

 

- normal: 50mm (f/2)

 

- telephoto: 135mm (f/2.8)

 

Though I migrated from manual to auto exposure cameras, and then from manual to auto focus cameras, this basic 3-lens setup has been the range for me for my first 30+ years of photography (same pouch for the last 4 systems over 20 years, by the way).

 

Until, as Frank mentions, modern zooms, and Minolta and Tamron were leaders in this trend - the satisfactory zoom, and especially the super zoom. Okay, Vivitar heavy metal zooms also spoiled me for primes. So, here's my evolved preference where I mix zooms and primes as needed and available and affordable:

 

Manual focus:

 

- Vivitar 17mm f/3.5 prime

 

- Vivitar 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8 Close Focusing zoom on the camera

 

- . . . + 2x close focusing teleconverter on demand

 

- Vivitar 500mm f/8 Mirror prime

 

Auto Focus:

 

- Tokina/Hoya AF 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom

 

- Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Close Focusing zoom on the camera

 

- Vivitar 500mm f/8 Mirror prime (same lens as in manual focus kit, awaiting on Minolta/Sony Alpha 500mm f/8 AF)

 

Notes:

 

Wide angle: I find wide angle to step nicely in 1/2x focal length relationships, which is 1/2x crop wise, or 2x doubling the angles of view, that is, 50mm normal compared to 24mm wide angle. I actually prefer my 24mm AF and MF lenses to 28mm, though, on deeper consideration, the 20mm provides a sports-finder effect and cropability / rotatability (that is, leveling after the fact) while leaving an effective final print as if from a 24mm capture.

 

Telephoto: Yet that wide angle 2x relationship to normal is inadequate, telephoto wise, for me. For steps between telephoto lenses, I prefer 4x focal length, or 1/4x crop wise. That is, 50mm normal compared to 200mm is so much more effective for me than comparing 50mm to 100mm. The next step for me would be to 400mm, which my 500mm Mirror does nicely. I'd then go to 800mm, but a 2x teleconverter on the 500mm does okay, and 1,000mm f/16 hand held with ISO 1,600 (film - digital capture with anti shake migrates the 1/focal-length second shutter speed rule by up to 4 steps/stops) collects some useful information. However, I know the optical qualities by then are severely limited. But, hey, it's CHEAP! YGWYPF ;-) I've got a great sequence captured through the 300mm zoom end plus two 2x teleconverters - 1,200mm f/25! It can be done. A tripod helped.

 

Close Focusing: For me, close focusing ability is more important than many other factors. I want to be able to capture anything I see, and a lens that can't close focus falls out of favor rather quickly for me. It either becomes a studio lens with an extension tube, or I trade it in on a lens that can close focus. I understand about diopters, but I have scant little patience for required accessories that delay my capture responsiveness to a found scene.

 

That is one reason zooms are so popular - they are quickly and painlessly adaptable to capture the greatest variety of found scenes with minimum delay, and now, minimum comparative loss in optical qualities for the intended final presentation (print or screen). Nothing else even comes close, so to speak.

[ricardovaste]

Thanks for sharing both 'sides' of the story peter. Interesting to hear from the traditional to the contemporary approach. FWIW I would like to stick with the "traditional" way, so i think a 20/1.8, 28/2 and 85/(something) works well.

 

I CANNOT agree more abuot close focusing ability. That really is important to me too. I just hated the 35-70/4 for this reason. Being stuck in a tight situation, not being able to move back, but still having the subject to close to focus is just darn annoying.

 

I'm thinking of having a 'twin' type kit. 20/1.8, 28/2, 200/2.8 for general use; street, casual snaps, everything really BUT wildlife. Then having a 20/1.8, 100/2.8 macro, 300/2.8 kit for wildlife. The former could easily fit in a lowepro slingshot should i finally get one. And the latter will easily fit in our lowepro trekkor, where i could probably sneak in 28 too, as it wouldnt make any difference to weight/portability.

[jamesdak]

Hmmm, what is the best solution. In my final Minolta days this was my setup:

Minolta: 24/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.7, 85/1.4, 100/2.8 macro D, 300/4.0 and the APO II teleconvertor. Then a Sigma 400/5.6 rounded out my prime setup.

 

I went all Canon about a year ago and am still sorting things out. Right now I have the following primes:

Contax Zeiss: 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/2.8, 100/2.0 and 135/2.8 (in transit)

Leica R: 90/2.8, 135/2.8, and 180/3.4(in transit)

Pentax m42: 50/1.4 and 135/3.5

Olympus OM: 24/2.8

Vivitar Series 1: 90/2.5 macro

Canon 400/5.6 and 1.4x teleconvertor.

 

And I just sent a Minolta made RF 800/8.0 mirror that was fitted with a Leica R mount by Minolta. This lens was not as sharp as my Canon 400/1.4x combo mounted on the 30D. So no since in keeping it.

 

I do have some overlap but the lenses give a distinctive "flavor" to the image and one lens may be better suited than another for certain circumstances.

 

Bodies are great but it's the glass that makes the image.