Prime lenses

[jann1033]

know a prime is usually sharper but what are the cons? ie do you think you'd miss enough photos due it not being able to zoom to be a deterrent?

[jann1033]

wrong place

[handicap18]

Typically a prime is going to not only be sharper, but also faster. Your not going to find a zoom with f/1.8 or f/1.4.

I bought my 2 primes because for 1 of them the price for what you get was outstanding. 50mm f/1.8 for $120. Sharp and fast and a decent focal length. The other one I got for the true macro feature along with supurb optics and f/2.8 aperture. The price was also pretty good at $300 (used Tamron 90mm f/2.8D SP Macro).

Down the road a few years I will consider the 85mm f/1.8 if the kids get into the indoor activities that need help with lighting and I'm also thinking about getting a 24 or 28mm f/1.8 lens before the next Disney trip. Good wide/standard angle lens with very wide aperture for indoor shots. If I can find a used one for $200 or so, then I'm all over that lens (the Sigma version I'm talking about). Would also work well for indoor candids and family gatherings as the 50mm can be a tad to tight on a dSLR.

[boBQuincy]

Why would I buy a prime lens? Aperture, size, weight, cost... all these are likely to be 'better' on a prime as compared to a zoom that covers the same length. Image quality may be better also, although we might not notice much if any difference between primes and L glass.

Many years ago (I won't say how many) all I had were primes: a 28, 50, 100, and 200. They definitely produced sharper images than my first zoom lens and I don't recall missing too many photo opportunities because of the primes.

[Anewman]

For indoor/night sports sometimes 2.8(fastest zooms) is not enough.

If I could find a F/1.8 zoom I would be all over it.

Plus they are more affordable.

[jann1033]

Why would I buy a prime lens? Aperture, size, weight, cost... all these are likely to be 'better' on a prime as compared to a zoom that covers the same length. Image quality may be better also, although we might not notice much if any difference between primes and L glass.

Many years ago (I won't say how many) all I had were primes: a 28, 50, 100, and 200. They definitely produced sharper images than my first zoom lens and I don't recall missing too many photo opportunities because of the primes.

see this is where i am at now..i have 50 1.8 and 100 3.5 , 18-55 3.5-5.6,28-135 3.5-5.6, 100-300 5-6.3( which i don't really ever use as it's not very good)... ruled out the 70-300 ISf4-5.6 due to aperture size and the problems i am having with the 28-135 since i don't know if it's IS or what messing up ( wondering if the IS is just one more thing to break) and that leaves me with deciding between 200 f2.8 l ( thinking would be good for animals/ birds... not quite long enough but more at the feeder)due to speed , if i use a monopod, between that and the speed it might cancel out the IS benefit anyway but would i run into focus problems with the fixed length and moving targets...) and the70-200 f4 l...pretty close in cost, size, quality..so the main difference is a zoom or a 2.8. i think if i get the zoom i might eventually want the 70-200 2.8 for the aperture where as if i get the 200 2.8 that would do it till some spectacular new technology comes along
i hate making decisions

[majimikate]

Jann,

I have been fortunate enough to have shot with that f2.8L...it's a fabulous lens and if I had the money and the chance to buy it I would jump on it in a minute. I have not tried the f4, but if you can buy either, I'll always go with the faster lens...good luck!!

Chris

[Groucho]

By and large, a prime is going to be better than a zoom in every category... except that it doesn't zoom. But size, weight, sharpness, color, distortion, and especially speed are all going to be superior on a prime vs a zoom (except maybe when comparing a really great zoom with a really crummy prime.)

The extra sharpness of the prime means that cropping won't be as painful as it might be on a zoom lens - so as long as you can fit everything that you want in, you'll probably be OK.

For example, here's a 100% crop from my 50mm 1.4.

http://www.totalsham.com/pics/main.php/d/4169-3/2007WDW-204.jpg

Not the sharpest photo ever, but pretty darn good for a 100% crop, if you ask me! The downside is that I ended up with a fairly small image - but you can see that you can cut down pretty far and still keep some nice detail. Cutting off a few hundred pixels off the sides should be no big deal at all.

Of course, you'll also be more likely to have to change lenses - but at Disney, you can usually predict what you'll need. The 50mm is good enough for the majority of situations, you'll probably want something wider for indoor people photos and maybe on-ride photos (for rollercoasters, at least), and occasionally something longer if you're shooting a show or animals at AK or you want some far-off detail.

If I pick up a nice wide fast prime next, I'll probably start to leave my kit 18-55mm behind, nice lens though it is.

[MarkBarbieri]

a prime is going to be better than a zoom in every category... except that it doesn't zoom. But size, weight...

That's true when comparing individual lenses. However, when comparing a camera bag full of primes or one with zooms covering the same range, the size and weight advantage shifts dramatically back to the zooms.

[jann1033]

That's true when comparing individual lenses. However, when comparing a camera bag full of primes or one with zooms covering the same range, the size and weight advantage shifts dramatically back to the zooms.
good point :scratchin 1 2 lb lens vs 3 2 lb lenses

[Groucho]

Not necessarily true. Definitely not true if you talk about the pancake lenses that I mentioned in the other thread (which are barely bigger than a body cap), but even everyday primes are smaller - and if you want to be fair, compare them with with a fast zoom. Once a zoom starts getting fast (like 2.8), it can get very big in a hurry. And once you get into a fast prime, there simply is no comparison, since the zoom versions don't exist.

An example would be me carrying around lenses in my belt pouch. The pouch could (just) hold my 50-200mm with hood (which is a very small 50-200!), but I could jam at least two and a half if not three normal-sized primes in there.

Obviously a zoom is best for those who don't like changing lenses. But for image quality and speed, primes win all day long.

[Groucho]

Here's a further example - since Jann shoots with a Canon, I'll go by their lens chart - all the lenses listed below are Canon lenses.

Let's say that you were looking at a 70-200. The fastest is their F2.8 lens, which weighs 3.2 lbs (51.2 oz).

If you went with primes, you could get the 200mm F2.8 that's 1.6 lbs (25.6 oz), a 100mm F2.0 that's 1.0 lbs (16 oz), and a 50mm F1.8 that's 4.6 oz. That's a total of 46.2 oz.

Three lenses, two of which are faster, with a total weight of 5 oz less than the single zoom. The primes will also most likely have better image quality.

Cost-wise, there's not a huge difference, either. (Both setups have rebates so I'm going to ignore them and go with Adorama's before-rebate cost.) The 70-200mm is $1,140. The 50mm is $75, the 100mm is $390, and the 200mm is $660 - $1,125, $15 cheaper.

So. Three primes, giving you more coverage, (probably - I'm not familiar with these lenses) better image quality, faster speed, weighing less, and costing less. It should also be remembered that the camera will be much lighter on your neck with one of these primes than with a big 3.2 lb lens (exactly double the weight of the 200mm prime!)

You could also forgo the 200mm entirely and pick up a 2x teleconverter for a good chunk less. The 2x will lose you two stops - which'll give you, in essence, a 200mm 2.8, just like the standalone lens. You will probably lose a little image quality, but if you want to save some bucks and/or carry less in your bag, it's a viable option.

Also, I swear that I didn't cherry-pick these lenses, I started the comparison not knowing how the numbers would turn out. I fully expected the primes to weigh a little more and probably cost a little more. I was impressed that the primes really did come out winners in all the comparisons.

Except convenience, of course.

[jann1033]

all good points also groucho. if my 100 mm wasn't 3.5 i might just try the 2x teleconverter..that is something i was wondering with the primes...since they seem to be 100 200 300 etc, is there not that much difference between the next one's focal length..ie don't see a 150( saw a 135) 175 etc...i need to go check that focal length demo to see how much I'll be missing with the 200 prime vs the 70-200

[Anewman]

all good points also groucho. if my 100 mm wasn't 3.5 i might just try the 2x teleconverter..that is something i was wondering with the primes...since they seem to be 100 200 300 etc, is there not that much difference between the next one's focal length..ie don't see a 150( saw a 135) 175 etc...i need to go check that focal length demo to see how much I'll be missing with the 200 prime vs the 70-200


With primes you dont need to miss anything, positioning becomes so much more important but with practice you wont miss anything.

I think it helps train ones eye and framing skills.

[Groucho]

Were I looking at a 70-200 zoom versus primes, I'd probably go with a max prime of maybe 150mm or slightly higher, and let cropping get me to the 200mm point. 200mm is quite a lot, really. You can always crop your photo, you can't add back the stuff on the edges.

In my comparison, I was just trying to make the point of having just as much zoom (and more width).

[jann1033]

Were I looking at a 70-200 zoom versus primes, I'd probably go with a max prime of maybe 150mm or slightly higher, and let cropping get me to the 200mm point. 200mm is quite a lot, really. You can always crop your photo, you can't add back the stuff on the edges.

In my comparison, I was just trying to make the point of having just as much zoom (and more width).

i started thinking of the 200 area as when i use my abysmal 100-300 lens it usually is not quite to the 300 so i figured , the 200 plus 1.4 teleconverter would take me right around where i used that one the most 200 to around 250 ish but looking at the focal length demos there is a good bit of zoom between 140( my 100+1.4 teleconverter) and 200, just not sure if it's a short enough distance to technically be able to just move around to get.

anyone know if there is a rule of thumb for that? ie 10mm if moving 1 ft forward or backward?

[Steve's Girl]

Has anyone used a Sigma prime lens?

I currently have the Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens which I really like. But, I often find that I could use something a bit wider. We are off to WDW next month and I am particularly thinking about the parades, ride photos, character meals, etc. I have been looking at the Sigma 28mm 1.8. I know Sigma also has a 30mm 1.4, but it is quite a bit more $. I really don't want to spend quite that much for a lens that may get limited use.

I've read a few reviews on the 28mm lens and it seems pretty decent for the $. Any opinions?

Thanks

[handicap18]

I'm in the same boat. Love my 50, but at times it is to long.

Some options I've researched in my search for a wider prime:
Nikon's 35mm f/2, great lens, reasonably priced around $300. Obviously not as wide as some others.

Sigma 20mm, 24mm and 28mm f/1.8. Price ranging from $280 to $360. I've tried the 24 and 28. The 28 is slower to focus, the 24 gets better reviews, though more than a few of the reviews I've read haven't been real positive. For a while I was leaning towards the 28 f/1.8, but got a bit turned off by some reviews.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4. This has gotten the best reviews I've come across so far in this category (though the Nikon 35 also has great reviews). Images I've seen have been great. Focus with the HSM is outstanding. Biggest issue I've read on this lens is a "front focus" issue. not sure exactly what that is, but the people who have had it have sent the lens back to Sigma and got it repaired with no issues.

Nikon also has a bunch of 24 & 28mm f/2.8 that can be had used for around $100-150, but I don't think they're fast enough for me. I really like the f/1.4 option.

As of right now I'm going with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I should have enough to order it in about 2 weeks. Though the price on Amazon just went up by $30. grrrrrr

There was a recent thread that had the 30mm in it. Someone, I think a newer member here, has one and really likes it.

Thats what I know. Which probably really isn't much more that what you know.

Good luck.

[Groucho]

I'm thinking that a lot of us are in the same boat. :)

I just missed someone selling a Sigma 24mm F1.8 recently... but the reviews I've found on the Sigma 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm F1.8 haven't been stellar. Of course, you expect more from a prime so they're probably still about as good as any zoom, but still...

The 30mm F1.4 seems a bit better but still certainly not perfect.

The "big three" OEMs have 35mm F2.0s that are supposedly all nice and relatively affordable... but not as wide as we might like.

I do have a manual-focus Sigma 28mm F2.8 "Mini-Wide II" lens that is decent, but with my 28-75mm F2.8 lens, it's tough to justify using that Sigma at all and it'll probably go up for sale before long.

[Steve's Girl]

Kyle - thanks for mentioning the Nikon 35mm f2 lens. I had not considered that one.

Upon further review, I think I have narrowed it down to the Sigma 30 1.4 or the Nikon 35 2. Both are a little more than I wanted to spend, but I can probably eek out a few more $.

I like the Nikon lens simply because it is a Nikon and has gotten very good reviews. I have been very happy with the Nikon lenses I currently own.

I like the Sigma because it is slightly wider and a full stop faster.

In practice, how much difference will that full stop make? I have some aperature charts in my collection of "stuff" that show pictures of the lens blades at different f stops, but they all start a f2. At f2, it looks pretty much wide open. At f1.4, do the blades really open up that much more? At least on paper, there is quite a difference between f2 and f2.8. Will I really notice a difference between 1.4 and 2?

Hmmm...what to do?

[Code]

I really don't want to spend quite that much for a lens that may get limited use.

I've read a few reviews on the 28mm lens and it seems pretty decent for the $. Any opinions?

I have the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and like it alot, but I'm no voice of experience as it is my first fast prime. I use a 4/3rds camera so the effective focal length is a bit longer than it would be for you (60mm equivalent for me). I don't have any fast zooms, and it ended up being my most used lens on our trip and probably continues to be at home.. that might even be the case if I did have a faster short zoom as I really like shooting indoors in natural light and I need the fast shutter speed to keep up with my nephew.

The 28 1.8 isn't a 4/3rds option but I did look at the 24 1.8.. the reviews turned me off a bit but also the hulking size, and the HSM on the 30mm was very appealing.

Focus with the HSM is outstanding. Biggest issue I've read on this lens is a "front focus" issue. not sure exactly what that is, but the people who have had it have sent the lens back to Sigma and got it repaired with no issues.

The HSM is very nice, I've been playing with continuous AF since posting on the "Pirates of the f1.8" thread and it works very well.

I had read about the front focus issue and meant to test mine, thanks for the reminder.

In practice, how much difference will that full stop make? I have some aperature charts in my collection of "stuff" that show pictures of the lens blades at different f stops, but they all start a f2. At f2, it looks pretty much wide open. At f1.4, do the blades really open up that much more? At least on paper, there is quite a difference between f2 and f2.8. Will I really notice a difference between 1.4 and 2?

A full stop difference in any case is what it is... twice as much light reaching the sensor, meaning twice as fast shutter to get the same exposure. f1.4 is twice as much as f2, four times f2.8, eight times f4, etc etc... depending on the situation it may be the difference that even makes a shot possible, or it may just keep you away from high ISO. For night and ride shots at Disney I found it was sometimes the difference that made a handheld shot even possible, which is all the difference in the world. On the flip side of the coin, the very shallow DoF at 1.4 sometimes ruined the very shot the large aperture made possible. Give and take.

Oh and since you asked, f1.4 on the Sigma 30mm is with the iris fully open, the blades don't close at all with the shutter.

[Steve's Girl]

OK, now I have narrowed my choices down to these two lenses (at least for today :confused: )

Sigma 30mm 1.4

Tamron 28-75 2.8

The Tamron has been on my wish list for quite some time. But I don't think it will be fast enough for the night parades, etc. The Sigma is definitely faster and wide enough for parades, etc. But will it be too limiting for other uses? I'm trying to think beyond WDW and what lens would be the most practical for other uses, etc. I have decided against the Nikon 35mm f2 lens. While a great lens, I'm not sure there would be a huge difference from the 50mm 1.8 I already have. So, whattya think?

[Anewman]

OK, now I have narrowed my choices down to these two lenses (at least for today :confused: )

Sigma 30mm 1.4

Tamron 28-75 2.8

The Tamron has been on my wish list for quite some time. But I don't think it will be fast enough for the night parades, etc. The Sigma is definitely faster and wide enough for parades, etc. But will it be too limiting for other uses? I'm trying to think beyond WDW and what lens would be the most practical for other uses, etc. I have decided against the Nikon 35mm f2 lens. While a great lens, I'm not sure there would be a huge difference from the 50mm 1.8 I already have. So, whattya think?



I have the Canon version of the Tamron you are considering, it has become my walk around lens.

[handicap18]

Keep this in mind about the 30mm. Back in the day of film when Primes ruled the world, the 50mm lens was the standard walk around lens.

With the 1.5 crop, the 30mm has the field of view of a 45mm lens on film. I've use my 50mm on my dSLR for general purpose stuff, but have found it to be just a bit to long. This is another reason I'm going to get the 30mm. I've noticed I do take a lot of pics between the high 20's and mid 30's so the 30mm should fit in pretty nicely for general purpose stuff along with using it for night/low light shots while traveling.

[Groucho]

I have that Tamron lens as well (in a Pentax mount obviously, but the lens is identical otherwise) - I'm pretty happy with it.

I would definitely choose that over the 30mm F1.4. Partly because the 30mm gets somewhat funky reviews, but mostly because the Tamron makes a very good "main" lens, and gives you more speed for a variety of situations, while the 30mm is going to get you two more stops but only at the given focal length, and with apparently some somewhat strange sharpness issues.

[feistyblue]

I'm looking to buy a 50mm prime lens for my Canon Rebel and wondered if the f/1.8 was the recommended one or if there was something better? I've tried searching the board as I was recommended one on here in the past but the search just isn't working for me!

[DisneyFreak06]

I'm looking to buy a 50mm prime lens for my Canon Rebel and wondered if the f/1.8 was the recommended one or if there was something better? I've tried searching the board as I was recommended one on here in the past but the search just isn't working for me!

The search has not been working lately for me either. I have a Rebel XT and I remember reading quite a bit about the 50 mm 1.8, so that is what I bought last summer. I like it. (I'm not a professional by any means) That's the one that everyone recommends here.

[MarkBarbieri]

Canon makes a lot of 50mm lenses. The f/1.8 is the cheapest ($70). It's drawbacks are that it is moderately slow to focus, somewhat noisy, and doesn't have FTM (full time manual focus).

The f/2.5 macro is $230. It's not as good in low light, but it allows you to focus very close so you can take pictures of really small things.

The f/1.4 is $290. It gives you a bit more light than the f/1.8 and full time manual focus. It's a bit sharper, but you probably won't notice the difference.

The f/1.2 is $1,260. It gives you a bit more light than the f/1.4 but is not quite as sharp.

Unless you know that you really need FTM or the little bit of extra light, I would recommend the f/1.8. Save the $200 and use it for something that will have more impact. If you think you'll really use the lens a lot (some people consider their 50mm prime as their primary lens), the f/1.4 might be more attractive. For most people, I think the f/1.8 is the way to go.

[DueyDooDah]

I'll let you know what I think on Tuesday. My f/1.4 arrives on Monday.

[feistyblue]

Thanks for the replies everyone, I'm going to go with the 1.8 and see how I like it.

[Groucho]

The F1.4 will also have better bokeh (more aperture blades), better color, and reportedly the construction is much better - the F1.8 isn't exactly known for its build quality.

There are some side-by-side shots here (http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/).

[Master Mason]

Also if you change the "skin" of the board to california gold, then the search funtions should work for you....

[Miss Kelly]

I vote for 85mm f/1.8 lens. The bokeh on that lens is incredible! :goodvibes

[deletedpenguin]

I've used, though not owned, the 50mm 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2, and can honestly say spend the money and forget the 1.8, but save your money and get the 1.4. All around the 1.4 is the best of the three.

[MarkBarbieri]

I received the following question in a PM yesterday and thought that it could be answered better via a forum discussion than a simple PM reply. I also bet that more forum readers than just the sender could benefit from the answer.

...I am somewhat new to "real" photography. I just bought the Pentax K200D with the kit lens, a Pentax 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED lens and a Pentax 50mm F1.4 lens. I have learned quite a bit by just reading some of the threads but I need some advice on the 50mm. Is this the lens I want to use shooting fireworks? Will it give me good results shooting the night parades if I am in a good spot and use no flash? I guess mainly, with what conditions do I get the best use out of this lens? Thanks so much.


First, congratulations on getting a DSLR. I love using mine and always find myself learning new things with it.

Here are some general rules about when to use a zoom vs when to use a prime:

1) Obviously, a zoom is better when you need flexibility in how you compose your shot.

2) As a general rule, a prime will give you a better picture than a zoom at the same focal length (that is, when the zoom is zoomed to show the same amount of stuff as the prime). The picture quality difference usually isn't too big at f/11 or higher, but as you open your aperture wider, the difference becomes bigger.

In your case, you would want to use your prime when there isn't enough light to use your zoom OR when you want shallower depth-of-field (you want your subject in focus and the background blurry). At night or on dark rides, the 50mm prime will definitely be the best choice.

One odd exception is with fireworks. Despite happening at night, fireworks are really quite bright. Most fireworks pictures are taken around f/11, so you won't get a significant advantage by using the prime and you'll lose the ability to zoom. The key to getting the best fireworks pictures isn't choosing a prime or a zoom; the key is keeping the camera stable. Ideally, that means using a tripod and a remote cable release. When that isn't possible, try to find something to sit your camera on or brace it against. You will probably be taking pictures will exposures between 1/2 to 8 seconds when shooting fireworks and it is a real challenge to keep the camera steady that long without a tripod.

This is going to sound weird, but flash isn't nearly as useful as most people think at night. It often means getting a mediocre picture instead of none at all, but it rarely leads to getting a good picture at night. It is much better to use a higher ISO and a wider aperture (lower f-number) than it is to resort to using a flash. The problem is that the power of the flash falls off quickly with distance. So someone 10 feet in front of you will get a lot of light from the flash; something 20 feet from you will get only 1/4 as much light; and something 40 feet from you gets only 1/16 as much light. If you increase the power of the flash to help things farther away, it gives too much light on the close subjects. Shooting good pictures with flash is a challenge.

[Pea-n-Me]

Great thread, Mark. I just got my first prime and am playing around with it. I had fun with it yesterday in the bowels of a battleship.

I've been wondering if it's best kept to use in low/lower light conditions as opposed to day/bright light conditions? Any thoughts you have about that are appreciated.

[Pooh_Girl]

Great thread, Mark. I just got my first prime and am playing around with it. I had fun with it yesterday in the bowels of a battleship.

I've been wondering if it's best kept to use in low/lower light conditions as opposed to day/bright light conditions? Any thoughts you have about that are appreciated.

I know I'm no expert or even close to Mark, but I'd like to take a stab at this one. What I have found out is that the prime lens REALLY shows off in the low/lower light situations, but it's not useless either in the daylight. The thing to keep in mind with the daylight is though, it won't change the quality of the picture too much, but it does give you more options to do with the photograph. For instance, everyone has seen those shots where the subject is crystal clear, but everything around it is blurry. This really brings the focus to the subject as well as giving you a really interesting shot. THAT'S where the prime comes in handy. It is REALLY great at doing that! Here are a couple examples. Not GREAT pictures, but some of my early ones where I was experimenting with the prime lens. Hope this helps!! :thumbsup2

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd267/Disney_Pooh_Girl/IMGP0367.jpg

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd267/Disney_Pooh_Girl/IMGP0366-1.jpg

[Pea-n-Me]

I know I'm no expert or even close to Mark, but I'd like to take a stab at this one. What I have found out is that the prime lens REALLY shows off in the low/lower light situations, but it's not useless either in the daylight. The thing to keep in mind with the daylight is though, it won't change the quality of the picture too much, but it does give you more options to do with the photograph. For instance, everyone has seen those shots where the subject is crystal clear, but everything around it is blurry. This really brings the focus to the subject as well as giving you a really interesting shot. THAT'S where the prime comes in handy. It is REALLY great at doing that! Here are a couple examples. Not GREAT pictures, but some of my early ones where I was experimenting with the prime lens. Hope this helps!! :thumbsup2
Thank you. I love the look of shallow depth of field and that's one of the reasons I got the lens. It hasn't disappointed in that way. I'm just finding that, in bright sun with a wide open aperture, pictures tend to be overexposed, so I've had to make other adjustments in order to try to get the shot I want. I'm still feeling my way around with it...

[Pea-n-Me]

But funny, I think Mark inadvertantly answered my question on a 15 month old thread which was just bumped up.

Incidentally, if you've ever wondered why your camera has an obsurdly fast maximum shutter speed (1/2000, 1/4000, or even 1/8000), it's generally not used because you need to eliminate motion blur on bullets whizzing past you. It's because you sometimes need that to make everything else fit on the scales I posted. On a bright sunny day, you may have so much light that you use ISO 100 on your camera. You may be taking a portrait on want really shallow DOF, so you use f/2.8. That might force you to use a 1/4000s shutter speed just to keep from overexposing. Another alternative is to put a neutral density filter (like sunglasses for your camera) on your lens.
This is what I wanted to know. I probably need to invest in a filter at some point. And I'm a lot better at understanding ISO and aperture than I am shutter speed, which I find still confuse me a bit. I'm going to print out that table in the other thread and keep it in my bag as a reference - thanks. (Am also going to include it in TLC thread. I can't believe I missed that before!)

[bamata2]

That is exactly the kind of advice I was looking for, Mark. I can't wait to get to WDW and try out my new toys. I'll let you know how it went.

[DisneydaveCT]

Mark,

I cannot recall seeing the word "prime" to describe a lens. Can you clarify the meaning?

Many thanks,

[ukcatfan]

Mark,

I cannot recall seeing the word "prime" to describe a lens. Can you clarify the meaning?

Many thanks,

A prime lens is a fixed focal length (no zoom) and will generally have a wider aperture than a zoom lens. That is what makes them better for low light.

[DisneydaveCT]

A prime lens is a fixed focal length (no zoom) and will generally have a wider aperture than a zoom lens. That is what makes them better for low light.

LOL...After 35 years of being a photography hobbyist including two film SLR's with respective lenses I am still learning. Thanks for today's lesson.

[handicap18]

Thank you. I love the look of shallow depth of field and that's one of the reasons I got the lens. It hasn't disappointed in that way. I'm just finding that, in bright sun with a wide open aperture, pictures tend to be overexposed, so I've had to make other adjustments in order to try to get the shot I want. I'm still feeling my way around with it...

I've been using my 30mm f/1.4 a lot recently. Its a good focal length on a crop sensor. I've used it for my youngest DS's birthday party (indoors with a flash), natural light candids of the kids around the house and also for candids of the kids outside.

I've found I get a sharper image and slightly better color's out of this prime than my 18-135mm zoom.

Don't be afraid to use a prime lens in situations other than lowlight. I use my 50mm f/1.8 as a portrait lens. That lens at f/5.6 is sharp as a tack.

50mm prime:
http://handicap18.smugmug.com/photos/312623563_vas6G-L.jpg

30mm prime:
http://handicap18.smugmug.com/photos/357888079_qKLR5-L.jpg

30mm prime with flash (diffuser attached):
http://handicap18.smugmug.com/photos/354417246_N3The-L.jpg

One of my fall time favorites:
50mm prime portrait shots:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e234/handicap18/Special%20Events/Christmas%202006/DSC_4212b.jpg

[wenrob]

Kyle, can you come take my Christmas card pics for me? Please?

I so want a prime lens or two but *sigh* must feed and cloth those pesky kids. Maybe Santa will be good to me this year.

[gokenin]

Again I tend to be the oddball around here:lmao: I have gotten to the point where I almost only use a prime lens. You may have to move more with having only one focal length but I think the quality of the picture is worth the hassle.

[Groucho]

Don't forget about the older primes...

Most DSLRs can get adapters to use old manual-focus screw-mount (M42) lenses, the lenses are fairly plentiful and many are very high quality - some compared favorably or superior to modern Canon "L" lenses, for example. The build quality will usually shame most modern lenses and the feel of the manual focus ring is wonderful, far better than nearly any autofocus lens because of the AF gearing.

Unfortunately, Nikons are the least adaptable, you can use M42 lenses but you lose the ability to focus all the way to infinity...

But, if you're willing to focus manually and do a little bargain-hunting, you can pick up a pretty neat collection for not much money at all.

[Pea-n-Me]

Guys, is it my imagination, or does a prime deliver better color somehow?

[Groucho]

It certainly can and many do...

[oogieboogieman]

Guys, is it my imagination, or does a prime deliver better color somehow?

It's not your imagination, I saw a difference the moment I put the 50mm f/2 on my Olympus 410. I even noticed a difference between the 40-150 & my 70-300 using the same focal lengths. Must be something in the glass.

[wdwwishes]

I'm still debating a new lens, thought I had narrowed it to 2 but now I'm wondering if I should add a prime lens. I'm just concerned that I'd miss that zoom feature and always be changing from the prime back to the zoom. I'd like some opinions on prime lenses. I take a lot of photos of my kids, vacations and general playing around.

[boBQuincy]

Compared with zoom lenses, primes are generally: faster; lighter; sharper; less expensive. And the big one, primes are also less convenient.
Many of us have the 50mm f/1.8 for it's wide aperture and low cost.

[jann1033]

i've been using my 50mm a lot lately really liking it, had a 100mm ( focus broke so now i would have to manual focus) and really liked using that one to. however, imo it's nice to have an all around zoom lens you can leave on most of the time in case you can't change it( ie dirt, can't carry a lot what ever) and the primes are more difficult in that type of situation. but if i were going to buy a prime I'd probably get the 100mm macro canon since that length i really liked plus the macro is what i had in the broken one

[seashoreCM]

A good fast prime for low light situations and a zoom for all around use.

Particularly if your zoom lens slows down as you zoom in, your prime may be of better enough quality to let you crop the picture in your computer and get almost the same quality as if you zoomed, plus keep the low light low ISO performance of the shot as you really took it.

Digital camera hints: http://www.cockam.com/digicam.htm

[wdwwishes]

Digital camera hints: http://www.cockam.com/digicam.htm

Thanks for the link. It looks pretty good.

[Swoop1]

For my new Rebel XSi I picked up the 50mm Canon Lens and this Sigma lens, Sigma 18mm - 200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS (http://www.adorama.com/SG18200SEOS.html)

[bdtracey]

I'm kind of in the same boat. Right now I have my kit lens (18-55mm) and I got a 50mm f1.8 for Christmas. I'm in between "wants" and "needs" right now. Alright, lets face it...I don't really "need" anything else but I think I need something with more zoom. I was thinking about a cheap 75-300mm but don't like the idea of losing the wide end. For the price it's not a bad buy though. What I really want though is Canon's 24-70 f2.8 L. I've been looking at it for a while but yesterday DW, DS and I had some professional pictures taken and guess what lens they were using? I think I may have sold DW on it...until she see's the price! If I really had it my way I'd be buying the 24-70 AND the 70-300 f.28 L but that's not going to happen.

I do like the looks of that 18-200mm Sigma but something with a little faster would be nice. I suppose that's where the $$$ come in.

[Master Mason]

I'm kind of in the same boat. Right now I have my kit lens (18-55mm) and I got a 50mm f1.8 for Christmas. I'm in between "wants" and "needs" right now. Alright, lets face it...I don't really "need" anything else but I think I need something with more zoom. I was thinking about a cheap 75-300mm but don't like the idea of losing the wide end. For the price it's not a bad buy though. What I really want though is Canon's 24-70 f2.8 L. I've been looking at it for a while but yesterday DW, DS and I had some professional pictures taken and guess what lens they were using? I think I may have sold DW on it...until she see's the price! If I really had it my way I'd be buying the 24-70 AND the 70-300 f.28 L but that's not going to happen.

I do like the looks of that 18-200mm Sigma but something with a little faster would be nice. I suppose that's where the $$$ come in.

It is actually a 70-200 f/2.8L

If that is the range your looking for you might look at the sigmas, they are about half the price.

[mabas9395]

I can not say enough good things about the 85mm f/1.8. It is a sweet, sweet lens. Does not have the "L" label or price, but I have the 70-200 f/2.8 L and the 85mm is sharper and nicer at the same focal length and aperture. Which you are going to find to be true most of the time, a "good" prime will beat a "great" zoom in terms of image quality and the zoom beats the prime in terms of versatility (and like everything there are exceptions so YMMV).

[gokenin]

For those of us who use prime lens what would be the widest prime that you would take with you. I have a 21,24,28,30,43 the fastest is the 43 at F1.9 and the slowest is the 21 at F3.2 the others are all F2.8 at the fastest. which would you take and why? starting to think about my kit for my trip in november

[Cory_D]

I would say it depends on what you plan on shooting. I'm bringing down a 50mm and 85mm prime on my next trip. On full frame, the 50 will cover dark rides nicely, and the 85 will be good for close ups, like on Hall of Presidents, or dark rides where you need the extra reach to get a certain AA. My walkaround lens is a 24-70 f/2.8 though, which is almost like a prime in terms of speed. So, I would bring probably the 24 and the 43. Hope this helps!

[Ms. Shuttergirl]

Hi everyone,

My family and I are travelling from Australia soon for 3 weeks tripping around the US with the last 5 days being spent at Disneyland. I really want to enjoy the photography side of things, but don't want to schlepp a ridiculous amount of gear around with me either, I have to find a happy medium.

I am thinking I will take my 70-200 zoom but need to pick a prime to take.

My fave is my 50mm but I feel it's not going to be multi purpose enough. I don't want to have to back up too much to fit everything in. Would I be better investing in something else? I refuse to take my 24-70, it is such a heavy lens (but if you tell me I must take it I'll consider it:rotfl2:)(although I don't love this lens as much as the 50mm)

Okay so what lens should I take to give me the most versitility?

Thanks in advance...

[KAT4DISNEY]

Personally I prefer wider lenses at Disney so I think the 24-70 would be very nice on your camera and the most versatile. Are you going to be visiting any national parks? If you are you might like that lens there as well. I wouldn't bring the 70-200 into the parks as I'd generally find it too long for the situation but I imagine you want it for other places.

Do you have a prime that is wider than the 50? Maybe you want to bring two - the combo might still be lighter than the 24-70. I would at least want a 24 or 28mm and the 50mm, BUT.....your zoom would really be almost perfect on it's own.;)

[Cory_D]

Hey, fellow 5D II owner! That 70-200 is going to rock on your trip. I would probably bring the 50, as most would agree that it is THE lens for dark ride, and with the 5D's ISO capabilities, you'll probably be shooting dark rides. When I go to WDW next week, I'm bringing all my lenses, but If I needed to only bring two, the 24-70 and 50 would probably be my choices. Hope I could help, and have a great trip!

[gokenin]

well two day almost 50 views and only one comment so I can guess that either there are no others opinions or there are no other prime lens users. guess everyone uses zoom lens these days for ease of use:confused3

[zackiedawg]

I'd say if you're using a crop body camera, you may be best served to bring two of the primes - one wider (like that 24mm 2.8...not really wide but a good solid standard reach) and the fastest one you've got (the 43mm F1.9) for low light rides and such. The 24mm 2.8 can be an anytime lens, a good standard prime focal on a crop body, while the 43mm can serve for closeups on dark rides and night scenes. Personally, I bring a 50mm F1.7 and a 30mm F1.4 along to cover wider and longer range primes, with both being pretty fast for good dark ability handheld.

[KAT4DISNEY]

Well, I like to shoot wide and with my zooms am frequently at the 16-18mm range so I'd go with the widest possible on a prime. If you want to zoom then you can walk, but sometimes it's tough to back up anymore! I also have 30mm, 50mm and 135mm primes and have used the 50 1.4 and the 135mm more than the 30 simply b/c I do also use the wider zoom. From my collection if I were only taking two primes I'd do the 30 1.4 and the 135.

From your list I'd take the fast 43mm and then whatever your favorite is of the widest. If you like the 21mm that's what I'd chose b/c you'd have a fast lens with the 43 and I'd prefer the wider angle over the 2.8 of the other lenses.

[Ms. Shuttergirl]

Thanks for jumping in with your thoughts. So the 50mm is good for the dark rides???? Oh dear, I just know I am going to end up carrying extra lenses :lmao:

Kat4disney, I was thinking about buying a 28mm for the trip and bringing that instead of the 50mm, but now I'm concerned it won't work as well on the dark rides.

Decisions decisions

[handicap18]

Thanks for jumping in with your thoughts. So the 50mm is good for the dark rides???? Oh dear, I just know I am going to end up carrying extra lenses :lmao:

Kat4disney, I was thinking about buying a 28mm for the trip and bringing that instead of the 50mm, but now I'm concerned it won't work as well on the dark rides.

Decisions decisions

On the dark rides you are not allowed to use the flash so you need a lens with a wide aperture and a camera that has a very usable high ISO in order to get a shutter speed that will stop the motion of the ride and collect enough light to show the scene.

A 28mm prime on the rides might be a bit to wide, but everyone has different shooting styles. So long as it has a wide aperture you'll be good.

[Gdad]

I use mostly primes on various bodies-

20mm f2.8 AF
28mm f1.4 AF
35mm f1.8 AF-S
40mm f/1.4 Nokton
50mm f1.2 AI-S
50mm f1.4 HSM
105mm f2.8 AI-S Micro
180mm f2.8 AF
300mm f4 AF-S

The 28/1.4 is my favorite go-to lens followed by the 50/1.4. I don't usually carry the 20mm unless it's for a specific purpose.

[dmccarty]

I take all my camera equipment to WDW. What I take to the park depends on what I think will happen. I seldom take every lens or the SB800 flash I have to the park but sometimes I do.

I have a holster camera bag that is small and easy to carry. It protects the camera and attached lens. If I have a small prime like a 24/2.8 on the camera I could carry a 50mm. But I don't do that often. Just pick one and go. Though next trip I am going to look for a slightly larger holster bag. Already have five camera bags, might as well make it an even dozen. :confused3:)

In your case I would take the 24 and the 43. You seem to have quite a bit of overlap in the wide angle lenses. Not going to be much difference in a 21,24,28 or 30 so pick the fastest. I have a 24mm/2.8 and it is very useful of taking photos ON the rides if you want to get photos of people in your group.

Have fun,
Dan

[Ms. Shuttergirl]

If I go with the 28mm, will I get distortion in the images, esp if my kids are in the shots, which they will be alot of the time???

[Master Mason]

since the 5D is a full Frame camera, the 50mm is considered a normal lens, there is no crop factor to figure in.

I use the 24-70 as my standard lens on my 40D. I'm not understanding how you would think that it is heavy, but have no issues with the 70-200.

So, if I were you, I would skip the 28 and bring the 3 you already have.

[Gdad]

I say go for the 28mm. The 28mm f/1.4 is my go-to lens on my Nikon D700 which is also full frame. (Only because Nikon does not make a 24/1.4 like Canon does. :rolleyes:) I like shots of the kids that put them in their environment- fast wide lenses do it for me.

Here are a few shots including some Disney ones: http://www.flickr.com/photos/capturelifeinaction/sets/72157617297154844/

[KarenAylwood]

I find it interesting that you aren't planning on taking your 24-70!! I'm looking at buying my first L lens (well, saving up for it) and wanted one that was really versatile. I'm looking at the 24-70 or the 24-105 (seems like a popular debate from looking online). I haven't decided yet- but is it just the weight that bothers you? I know the 24-105 is over half a pound lighter.

I'm planning on bringing my 30mm f/1.4 with me when I go in September. I thought I remembered reading that 50mm was a little too much for dark rides and the 30mm worked better. I wouldn't know since I haven't taken it myself yet, but I thought I remembered reading that- I think it was on POTC- someone said they had much better luck getting entire scenes with the 30mm.

[Chikabowa]

My suggestion was the 24-70 and the 70-200 for your trip since that would give you just about everything you need on the full frame. But if you don't want to take the 24-70, then I would do the 50mm - since that is the closest focal length that matches the human eye. On the full frame, that should be really enough and with the low-light capabilities (I'm assuming you have the f1.4 or the f1.2L?), you will be totally fine. Especially with the expanded ISO range of the 5dm2.

[Ms. Shuttergirl]

I say go for the 28mm. The 28mm f/1.4 is my go-to lens on my Nikon D700 which is also full frame. (Only because Nikon does not make a 24/1.4 like Canon does. :rolleyes:) I like shots of the kids that put them in their environment- fast wide lenses do it for me.

Here are a few shots including some Disney ones: http://www.flickr.com/photos/capturelifeinaction/sets/72157617297154844/

Had a look at your pics, great shots. My fave is the Disney boardwalk park bench shot, love it. I agree that the 28mm should give me lots of environment with the kids in also.

[Ms. Shuttergirl]

since the 5D is a full Frame camera, the 50mm is considered a normal lens, there is no crop factor to figure in.

I use the 24-70 as my standard lens on my 40D. I'm not understanding how you would think that it is heavy, but have no issues with the 70-200.

So, if I were you, I would skip the 28 and bring the 3 you already have.

Master Mason, it is more the combo of the weight of the 2 lens in the same camera bag, kwim? The 50mm and the 28mm would definitely be a lighter combined weight so it may be the way to go for me.

[Master Mason]

Master Mason, it is more the combo of the weight of the 2 lens in the same camera bag, kwim? The 50mm and the 28mm would definitely be a lighter combined weight so it may be the way to go for me.


You can't take pictures with your camera in your bag :)

But really it depends on how you like to shoot. I have spent a lot of time in Disneyland, and have very very few shots taken with the 70-200, infact I think Fantasmic and while sitting in the balcony for Aladdin were the only two places I used it extensively. But I know others that love to be very zoomed in.

Disneyland is a different animal than even WDW, it is very compact.

[wenrob]

You can't take pictures with your camera in your bag :)

But really it depends on how you like to shoot. I have spent a lot of time in Disneyland, and have very very few shots taken with the 70-200, infact I think Fantasmic and while sitting in the balcony for Aladdin were the only two places I used it extensively. But I know others that love to be very zoomed in.

Disneyland is a different animal than even WDW, it is very compact.
I agree, I can't see a real need for the 70-200 in Disneyland. If it were me I'd take the 50mm and 24-70 and choose a day to use the 70-200 specifically and just bring the 50 along that day.

[Ms. Shuttergirl]

I take your point about not needing the 70-200 as much at Disneyland. I was really more thinking of our overall US trip, which includes the Grand Canyon, San Fran, New York and Vegas. I felt it would be useful for the whole trip, rather than just specifically for DL.

I think the 28mm and the 50mm will be more flexible for my needs in DL.

I know i seem like I am agonising over this decision a bit much :lmao: it's just that I am a photgrapher in my everyday life and at the moment I am exhausted. So I am torn about this holiday. Part of me is sick of lugging a big camera and lens around, and can't bare the thought of dragging everything all over the US. Sometimes I think I want to take a point and shoot, free myself up and just have fun.

But then of course the photographer in me rears it's head and knows I would never be happy with a point and shoot and that this trip is a great opportunity to enjoy the amazing photographic opportunities that will arise, and hopefully I will have time to be a little creative too.

So you see i am really looking for some sort of compromise regarding equipment. I want to have enough technology with me to satisfy my need to create lovely images, but I don't want to be weighed down resenting that technology the whole time.

I do have an old 70-300 kit lens that I got with my first DSLR, maybe I could take that instead, much lighter than the 70-200 (I could make that work I guess). Then just take the 28mm and the 50mm. What do you think????

[Master Mason]

I think if your used to the wide appeture, and you don't bring your lenses you will be kicking yourself in the butt..

Bring them and then only carry what you want for that particular day.

[Groucho]

I would bring your widest "good" lens (which is probably the 21) and space them out from there... when I am in a situation where I may take a bunch of photos and will be using primary M42 lenses (where 28mm is my widest Sigma and 35mm is the widest Takumar), I usually bring along the 10-17mm fisheye, too; at 17mm, that will usually take care of the wide angle shots without too much distortion.

[CaptainCook]

I'm trying to limit myself to ONE lens on my upcoming trip, and it's going to be a prime. This trip is more about the kids than the photography (and there is good and bad in that!)...

Anyway, I'm bringing my 20mm on my crop sensor. I have found it to be a great walk-around lens that has nicely fit the bill in situations where my 50mm just doesn't capture enough of the scene.

[MarkBarbieri]

What do you have more of and what do you shoot with more?

I've generally always been a zoom shooter, but this year I've started to accumulate primes. I now have almost twice as many primes as zooms. I still use my zooms more often because with most of my shooting the convenience and flexibility outweigh the quality and aperture improvements of the primes.

For zooms, I go from 17-40 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4, and 70-200 f/2.8. For primes, I have a 15mm fisheye f/2.8, 24mm t/s f/3.5, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.2, 100mm f/2.8, 135 f/2, and 300 f/2.8. The 135mm was a gift that just arrived today.

I usually put on the primes when I have a need that cannot be met with the zooms (wider fov, tilt/shift, macro, low light, shallower DOF, or longer focal length). If I planned to shoot at f/4, I would almost certainly use the 70-200 rather than the 85, 100, or 135. The 70-200 is still may favorite lens to shoot with.

[sdshutterbug]

I lust after the 135 f/2! On FF that creates the most delicious bokeh! I personally own 2 zooms (Canon 10-22 and Tamron 18-270) and 2 primes (Sigma 30 f/1.4 and Canon 100 f/2). I use the Tamron when I'm outside and I know I'll need lots of different focal lengths on the fly. The Canon zoom is my newest lens but what I like about it is that it goes from dramatically wide to "kinda wide," so if I want to take a picture of friends I can zoom it in a bit to remove distortion instead of having to change lenses or make people really small in the frame. Indoors or anytime I want shallow DOF though, I go for the primes. IMO they are a better bang for your buck than fast apertured lenses, despite the "inconvenience." You get more speed, plus they are smaller and lighter (and cheaper!). Sometimes I like having a zoom, but sometimes having a prime is fun since you really have to think about composition. Of course with my Canon 10-22, I use at 10mm most of the time, so it sort of acts like a prime.

I wrote an article a couple months back on my photography blog called "In Praise of Primes" - http://www.sassyshutterbug.com/2010/01/in-praise-of-primes.html

[annnewjerz]

What do I have more of? Primes. My only zoom right now is a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR.

What do I use the most? A single prime, my Sigma 30 f/1.4.

Do I prefer primes? I don't know, probably not. I like that they're light and I like that they are faster than zooms, but what really sells me on a lens (whether it's a zoom or a prime) is the color/contrast it produces SOOC. I am in love with the SOOC shots from my Sigma 30, not so much with my 70-200.

[Gianna'sPapa]

I only have one prime M 50 f1.4, the rest are all zooms, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 28-70f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 100-300 f4. Because of the type of shooting I do (sports), I mostly need zooms with low light capability. I would like to get a few primes because lately I have been doing some portraits.

[photo_chick]

If I had to go one way or the other it would be with my primes. But they both have their place.

[Daisy14'sDH]

I'm nowhere near the skill level as most on this board, but I've got a love thing going on for my primes now. Its tough for me to take them off because the sharpness is so much better than my zooms. I guess when I get a premium zoom that may change. I keep switching from my 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.7 and 200mm f4. I just got a 28-200 so I'll ditch my kit lenses (18--55 and 50-200) as soon as I get something wider, but I want a good lens now maybe the 12-24 f4... but that will be a tough one to sneak past DW!

[Cory_D]

I have 3 zooms(17-40L, 24-70L, and 70-200 f/4L) and 2 primes(50mm f/1.4 and Sigma 15mm fisheye). I used to have a 28 and 85mm prime, but they weren't getting much use, so they were sold to get the fisheye. On my WDW trips, the most used lens is a tie between the 17-40 and the 24-70. When I go in a few weeks, I have a feeling that the fisheye will basically live on my 5D.

[Code]

3 zooms: 10-20mm, 17-50mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8
4 primes: 8mm fisheye, 30mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8 Macro

I use my 17-50 the most for sure.. macro and fisheye are specialty, and 30 & 50 mostly get used indoors, or when I'm going for razor sharp or bokehlicious.

[zackiedawg]

Currently, I've got 3 zooms (10-24, 18-250, 200-500) and 3 primes (30 F1.4, 50 F1.7, 90 F2.8), so I'm break even!

Overall, I shoot far more with my zooms than my primes - probably 90% of my shooting is with the zooms. But that's for two primary reasons - my 18-250 is an all-purpose walkaround lens for vacations and travel that is on the camera most of the time when I'm not necessarily out 'on a shoot' but still like to have the camera just in case. It's the easiest lens to choose when you have to choose just one, because of the range. And the other is that I do a ton of wildlife and birding photography, so the big Tammy 200-500 is the go to for that work. Birding probably equals roughly 2,000 shots a month. The Tamron 10-24 gets decent use too for UWA playing.

The primes are specialties for me - three distinctly different focal lengths, all fast, good for low light, and one specifically a macro. I love them, but because they are so specifically focused on a particular need, I don't get as much routine use out of them as the zooms, which can satisfy multiple needs and random whims.

[Spinning]

I only have 2 lenses. 18-200 and 85 1.8
I always have my 18-200 on my camera. But my next lens will be the 50 1.4 prime...

[MassJester]

A cool question.

When I started with film photography, zooms had the reputation of being optically inferior to the point where the difference in image quality was obvious. Perhaps that is much less true now.

The 24-105 L is my "go to" lens. I have some fast and wide primes that get fair amount of work, but the versatility of the zooms regularly calls me back -- particularly when the day's shots are less planned.

Of course, I may simply be suffering from a lack of skill that impedes me from getting as much out of a prime.

[NLD]

For my FX body I currently have only three primes: 28mm, 50mm, 85mm.

For my DX body I've just got 18-105 kit lens and then the 35mm DX prime.

I really, really, really like primes. Generally speaking they're faster and lighter, and there's something freeing about putting one on the camer and then just finding or making shots work with what you have. All the primes are certainly sharper than the kit zoom. (Though I guess the difference between a pro zoom and a prime is smaller or nonexistent... I've just never had a pro zoom.)

That being said, the next purchase will be a FX zoom. I miss the flexibility, and it's just needed when chasing a kindergartner who hates having her picture taken and will NOT pause for the camera. (Sigh.)

Just not sure which FX zoom to get. I kind of want a walk-around one, something not too heavy, which means variable aperture... but for just a walkaround I think I'd be okay with that. The problem is which one?

Hmmmmm. Decisions...

[gokenin]

22 primes and 9 zoom lens use primes more than I do the zooms. I use the zooms when I am feeling lazy and want to be able to cover a wide range of focal lengths without carrying primes.

[spinetnglr]

I have 2 zooms that I use frequently, a Nikon 17-55 f2.8 and a Nikon 70-300 f4-5.6. I have one other zoom which is the 18-55 kit lens that came with the D40 and it pretty much stays on the D40. Prime lenses I have a Nikon 10.5mm f2.8 fisheye, Nikon 35mm f1.8 and a Nikon 50mm f1.4. I have been trying to use the primes more but most often use the two zooms. I would have to say I shoot about equally with both. Even though the 70-300mm is a bit slow and I tend not to use it unless I have tons of light I love using it.

[Gdad]

Right now my kit is four Primes (28/1.4, 50/1.4, 50/1.8 Pancake, 105/2.8 Macro) and two Zooms (14-24/2.8 and 70-200/2.8) and I am pretty happy with it.

I do think that primes help the creatively challenged like myself sometimes though. I say this because many of my personal favorite photos are what they are only because a prime was on the camera at the time and I framed my subject the only way I could with what I had.

[WDWFigment]

Right now my kit is four Primes (28/1.4, 50/1.4, 50/1.8 Pancake, 105/2.8 Macro) and two Zooms (14-24/2.8 and 70-200/2.8) and I am pretty happy with it.

I do think that primes help the creatively challenged like myself sometimes though. I say this because many of my personal favorite photos are what they are only because a prime was on the camera at the time and I framed my subject the only way I could with what I had.

:rolleyes:

My bag currently consists of two zooms (11-16mm and 18-200mm) and two primes (30mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8). I use the 11-16mm @ 11mm 90% of the time, so for all intents and purposes, it's a prime. So that makes it 3-1. The 18-200 is probably the least used lens in my bag, but if I had to choose only one lens, that might be it (probably the 11-16, though).

Still, I don't think I prefer one over the other. I'd really like a 70-200 f/2.8, and I cannot see any one lens within that focal range satisfying me. Moreover, I'm not super-concerned with the sharpness and speed of a prime over a zoom (I rarely go more wide open than f/2.2, so what's the difference between that and f/2.8?). I don't buy into the argument that primes force creativity. If anything it seems that I have a shot in my head and the prime ends up pissing me off because it either prevents me from getting that exact shot or forces me into some awkward position to get it. They might force a bit more deliberation, but I think you've either got a creative composition in mind, or you don't. Then again, I'm reluctant to give credit to some damned inanimate object for an idea that I think I had, so maybe I just have a bit of an "adversarial" relationship with my lenses. :confused3

[Gdad]

I don't buy into the argument that primes force creativity. If anything it seems that I have a shot in my head and the prime ends up pissing me off because it either prevents me from getting that exact shot or forces me into some awkward position to get it. They might force a bit more deliberation, but I think you've either got a creative composition in mind, or you don't. Then again, I'm reluctant to give credit to some damned inanimate object for an idea that I think I had, so maybe I just have a bit of an "adversarial" relationship with my lenses. :confused3

:rolleyes:

I guess I just don't approach going out to shoot pictures with too much in the way of preconceived shots I want to grab. Most of my inspiration comes from just looking through the viewfinder and seeing an opportunity. 90% of the time I tend to run around places with just one lens- because if I have two all I seem to see are shots that would work for the one not attached to the camera. If I have just one I focus my thinking around the tool at hand. And if that one happens to be a prime then all the better.

I happened to be standing in Jackson Square with a 180mm prime when this guy started playing the harmonica- if I could have zoomed out I probably would have...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3619/3627780182_098322f4b8_b.jpg

I happened to be standing here in line with a 28mm prime- if I could have zoomed farther out or taken two steps back I probably would have...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2435/3545308240_c658944260_b.jpg

I happened to be walking by here with a 16mm fisheye- if I could have zoomed in on the monorail I probably would have...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3299/3455787734_8ff037749c_b.jpg

Everybody at Pixelmania was taking wide angle pictures of the tree at sunset- this time I was probably just too lazy to change my lens....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2586/4154873818_6f8f72cc5e_b.jpg

[WDWFigment]

I see your point (I worded that poorly--I didn't mean preconception so much as "photographic vision"), but I have a hard time buying that you're not creative or that those shots are a product of being forced into/pushed towards certain compositions because of the primes. Who is to say you wouldn't have come up with something equally awesome if you had taken the "alternate" shot.

To me, the deciding factor is the photographer, not the lens. You're awesome and you have good equipment. Give your equipment to a lesser photographer, and you will get lesser shots. Give you lesser equipment, and while the shots may be of lesser quality (if even that), they will drop by less of an amount than those of the lesser photographer with better equipment. Put another way, photographer>equipment. The mind (mind's eye, whatever) frames and creates the shot, not the camera.