is it possible?

[gokenin]

Hi I was just wondering has anyone just brought primes to Disney to shoot with I am heading down again in Novemeber and by then i hope to have my prime lens collection done and was wondering if anyone has ever just used fix length lens completely. The collection will be made up of the 21mm ltd , 28mm macro lens(may have something longer by then), 43mm ltd, and the 70mm (unless i can get the 77mm ltd).
again plenty of time between now and then to change my mind on what I will bring. but was just curious if anyone has done it or even thought about it?

 

[Groucho]

I haven't done it but I would certainly consider it... I did shoot over half my photos from WDW last year with my primes. I'd like to pick up a 77mm F1.8 Limited myself one of these days, and if I did that, I could use that, the 31mm F1.8 Limited, and the 50mm F1.4 in place of my 28-75mm F2.8, and have faster and sharper glass for that focal length. (Finding an 85mm F1.4 would be even better, but MAN, they're expensive on the second-hand market!)

For longer range... well, my 105mm macro is pretty heavy so I wouldn't want to use it all the time. Rumors are that Pentax should be selling a new 200mm prime soon (expect some new lens announcements on Friday!), that would make a nice telephoto prime. Too bad they aren't selling their 135mm F1.8 currently... maybe we'll get something in the 135-170mm range soon!

 

[Gdad]

I will often use just one fast prime at night but have also used a short tele like the 105mm during the day- sometimes I just like to travel light. And also my fisheye (technically a prime also) is always fun to carry- especiallf for those 'on ride' photos.

 

[DueyDooDah]

Yep. I just came back from DL and used only a 50mm 1.4. Overall, I'm pretty happy with what I got, although it was my first time using the lens and I could have done better if I had paid attention to some of my settings. (Palm to forehead, forcefully and repeatedly)

Here are a few of what I was able to capture. There was not much done to these (except for the last photo where I did some profound cropping) so they are pretty much out of the camera (WB and sharpening for most).

 

[boBQuincy]

Why, back in the olden days, when primes were all we had...

I used to take a 28, 50, and 200 since that was what I had. I got some good photos, the primes were much faster and sharper than the zooms of the time.

 

[Groucho]

I got some good photos, the primes were much faster and sharper than the zooms of the time.

Still true today............

 

[gokenin]

Still toying with the idea and was wondering what you thought of this lineup if i do decide to go only with primes (28mm f1.8 , 35mm f2 ,50mm f1.4 and 70mm f2.4 with a tamron 1.4 tc) only zoom would be the fisheye 10-17mm

 

[MICKEY88]

Still true today............

that's interesting, there is another site I hang out on which is primarily pro photographers, just over the weekend a newcomer was asking for advice on lenses, and the general consensus was, get a 28-70- 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8, the pros over there stated that lens technology has advanced so much in the past 10 years that the advantage of primes is very very minimal and not worth the inconvenience of constantly having to change lenses, and the increased risk of dust on your sensor,

unless you're printing extremely large prints poster, or billboard size..

speed was much more of an issue with film when you shot what you had in the camera as opposed to the ability today to bump your iso to 1600 or higher
,

 

[JR6ooo4]

I would be more inclined to use primes exclusively, only if I had two bodies or more.
For the same reason that I like the overlap of my 28-135 and the 70-300. Less lens changing in the field.

Mikeeee

 

[Master Mason]

I would agree with Groucho that the primes are sharper, but I would tend to lean Mickey88's way and say that the zooms are so close now that the hastle of continually changing lenses more than offsets any slight gain you would have in shooting primes.

To answer the OP's question, yes it can be done, no I would never think of doing it.

 

[Anewman]

I would agree with Groucho that the primes are sharper, but I would tend to lean Mickey88's way and say that the zooms are so close now that the hastle of continually changing lenses more than offsets any slight gain you would have in shooting primes.

To answer the OP's question, yes it can be done, no I would never think of doing it.

agree 100%

Yes Primes are faster, and a bit sharper. But the gap has narrowed when compared to zooms of yesteryear.

I have gone to Disneyland mid week and shot with nothing but a 50mm prime, but on crowded days it would be almost impossible to shoot without a zoom. IMO

 

[brack]

I take my 50mm every trip but have never used just it and probably will not.

 

[handicap18]

I had an accident with my 18-135mm early one day at EPCOT and ended up using my 30mm f/1.4 lens for the rest of the day and into the EMH. Once or twice I used the 50mm f/1.8 to get a bit closer on a few shots, but for the most part I would say 90% of the photos I took at EPCOT on our last trip were with the 30mm f/1.4.

Overall, a little more than 1/3rd of the photos I took on the trip were with a prime lens (30mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.8 or 90mm f/2.8).

I probably would consider going with only primes. I would probably go with a 30mm f/1.4, an 85mm f/1.8 or 90mm f/2.8 and then probably a telephoto like a 135 f/2 or something close to that. It certainly would give you a different perspective, photographically speaking.

 

[Groucho]

that's interesting, there is another site I hang out on which is primarily pro photographers, just over the weekend a newcomer was asking for advice on lenses, and the general consensus was, get a 28-70- 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8, the pros over there stated that lens technology has advanced so much in the past 10 years that the advantage of primes is very very minimal and not worth the inconvenience of constantly having to change lenses, and the increased risk of dust on your sensor,

unless you're printing extremely large prints poster, or billboard size..

speed was much more of an issue with film when you shot what you had in the camera as opposed to the ability today to bump your iso to 1600 or higher
,

Phooey. Let those "pros" stick to their boring and unchallenging sports and bird photos. We're talking SpectroMagic and Haunted Mansion here!

The primes are smaller, lighter, sharper, and faster. When I put on my 50mm F1.4, that's two entire more stops than any zoom, no matter how big and heavy it is. (Which the exception of one or two exotic Olympus lenses.) You can't make up for that with ISO (especially compared to the K20D). You also get better, faster focusing because there's more light getting into the camera. You also get consistent performance, no vignetting, no barrel distortion, less CA and purple fringing, and no worry about softness at specific focal lengths. (OK, you may get a tiny amount of vignetting or barrel distortion, but pretty negligible vs a zoom.)

Let's face it. A lot of us here are talking about very specific challenges that we deal with when shooting at Disney parks. In these situations, low-light ability is absolute king. That means that (as the tag fairy put in my sidebar), "you need every advantage you can get". When the lights go out, you're better off cropping a photo taken at F1.4-F1.8 than having to deal with an F2.8 photo that had too slow a shutter speed (blur) and/or too high an ISO (unacceptable noise.) That the lens is smaller and lighter is the icing on the cake. My 50mm F1.4 vs my 28-75mm F2.8: 7.8 oz vs 18 oz!

Don't get me wrong - I like my 28-75mm F2.8 zoom a lot and use it a lot on an everyday basis and will probably be picking up a 70-200mm F2.8 this year (or maybe a 50-135mm, but probably the former.) But Disney parks are a special case.

I expect that most of my shooting in my upcoming trip will be with my 31mm F1.8 and my 50mm F1.4, since cropping is really not an issue for me any more. The fisheye will come out when I want those type of photos (or wider photos in general), the 105mm macro will come out for the Epcot F&G fest, and I'll use my quite-old 135mm F3.5 when doing long shooting. That leaves the 50-200mm for the Safari ride, just for the autofocus, and the 28-75mm, if I'm going to be outdoors for a bit and am looking for convenience.

I'd love a really wide fast prime to add in to the mix, something like a 14mm, but the 14mm lenses seem to max out at F2.8 and are very expensive. (Pentax's is about $560, Tamron's is $1,000, Nikon's is $1,400, and Canon's is $2,000.) Give me a 14mm F1.4 and I'll be a very happy guy. Though I'd rarely need really wide AND really fast at the same time.

 

[MICKEY88]

Phooey. Let those "pros" stick to their boring and unchallenging sports and bird photos. We're talking SpectroMagic and Haunted Mansion here!

The primes are smaller, lighter, sharper, and faster. When I put on my 50mm F1.4, that's two entire more stops than any zoom, no matter how big and heavy it is. (Which the exception of one or two exotic Olympus lenses.) You can't make up for that with ISO (especially compared to the K20D). You also get better, faster focusing because there's more light getting into the camera. You also get consistent performance, no vignetting, no barrel distortion, less CA and purple fringing, and no worry about softness at specific focal lengths. (OK, you may get a tiny amount of vignetting or barrel distortion, but pretty negligible vs a zoom.)

Let's face it. A lot of us here are talking about very specific challenges that we deal with when shooting at Disney parks. In these situations, low-light ability is absolute king. That means that (as the tag fairy put in my sidebar), "you need every advantage you can get". When the lights go out, you're better off cropping a photo taken at F1.4-F1.8 than having to deal with an F2.8 photo that had too slow a shutter speed (blur) and/or too high an ISO (unacceptable noise.) That the lens is smaller and lighter is the icing on the cake. My 50mm F1.4 vs my 28-75mm F2.8: 7.8 oz vs 18 oz!

Don't get me wrong - I like my 28-75mm F2.8 zoom a lot and use it a lot on an everyday basis and will probably be picking up a 70-200mm F2.8 this year (or maybe a 50-135mm, but probably the former.) But Disney parks are a special case.

I expect that most of my shooting in my upcoming trip will be with my 31mm F1.8 and my 50mm F1.4, since cropping is really not an issue for me any more. The fisheye will come out when I want those type of photos (or wider photos in general), the 105mm macro will come out for the Epcot F&G fest, and I'll use my quite-old 135mm F3.5 when doing long shooting. That leaves the 50-200mm for the Safari ride, just for the autofocus, and the 28-75mm, if I'm going to be outdoors for a bit and am looking for convenience.

I'd love a really wide fast prime to add in to the mix, something like a 14mm, but the 14mm lenses seem to max out at F2.8 and are very expensive. (Pentax's is about $560, Tamron's is $1,000, Nikon's is $1,400, and Canon's is $2,000.) Give me a 14mm F1.4 and I'll be a very happy guy. Though I'd rarely need really wide AND really fast at the same time.

that might be your choice, but Irespectfully disagree I used to dothe parks with 2 cameras and 2 lenses, and 400 iso film

my lenses were a 35-105 and a 100-300 my shots were sharp as could be, and I could get an entire float with my 35-105 and a second later be shooting a headshot of a character on the float with my 100-300, there's no way you'll pull that off with primes..

from everything I've seen personally and read or heard from lots of pros, the issues you're speaking of, are very minimal or non existant with newer lenses and cameras, noise is minimized with a proper or slightly overexposed shot, just as with film..

if you are having all those problems with zooms, either they are old, or that testimony alone would convince me to never buy pentax..

 

[Groucho]

that might be your choice, but Irespectfully disagree I used to dothe parks with 2 cameras and 2 lenses, and 400 iso film

my lenses were a 35-105 and a 100-300 my shots were sharp as could be, and I could get an entire float with my 35-105 and a second later be shooting a headshot of a character on the float with my 100-300, there's no way you'll pull that off with primes..

from everything I've seen personally and read or heard from lots of pros, the issues you're speaking of, are very minimal or non existant with newer lenses and cameras, noise is minimized with a proper or slightly overexposed shot, just as with film..

if you are having all those problems with zooms, either they are old, or that testimony alone would convince me to never buy pentax..

Oh please. You ignored all my points and threw in a cheap shot at Pentax. (Obviously you're not familiar with Pentax lenses if you're inferring that somehow Minolta/Sony are churning out superior lenses. I just today read DPReview's two new Sony lens reviews, for a couple quick examples. And note that my only F2.8 zoom is a Tamron, not a Pentax. As for ISO noise... well, there's only one DSLR that I'm aware of with clearly superior high-ISO performance, and that's the D3. OK, are we done with cheap shots now?)

Zooms generally have more issues with vignetting, CA, PF, barrel distortion, edge sharpness, and so on than primes. This is true of all zooms - compromises must be made. Try reading some different lens reviews at Photozone or other places and you'll see that this is a universal issue. Even the finest four-figure-price-tag lenses have some of these issues to one degree or another, more so than most of the primes. Example: Canon's 70-200mm F4 is possibly their finest zoom, yet compared to their 200mm F2.8 prime, the zoom at 200mm has more pincushioning, vignetting, CAs, etc. The 70-200mm F2.8 is better than the F4 zoom in terms of barrel distortion but worse in terms of resolution and CA. The F4 zoom actually does beat the 200mm prime in resolution, but that's about it. And the prime is over 10 years old!

The key point, though, is that I (and anyone with a similar prime lens, no matter the mount) am getting two more stops with an F1.4 lens than an F2.8 zoom.

You might be able to get a few good Spectro shots with F2.8. Maybe. If the parade is moving slowly or near some lights. But good luck getting any on-ride shots - like PotC, HM, Peter Pan, etc. Even shots of relatively dim interiors (like the Mission Space postshow game area) will be a challenge with a zoom. The point is - Disney parks offer several situations where 1600 ISO + F2.8 are just not enough, and most DSLRs with a zoom will either max out there or produce quite noise 3200 ISO shots. Not at issue with a fast prime.

Then there's the issue of deliberate small DoF shots (and that primes usually have nicer bokeh)... or that a zoom at F2.8 is at its softest aperture while a fast prime at F2.8 is already stopped down and usually producing extremely high resolution.

Then there's macros... good luck finding a zoom that'll do 1:2, much less 1:1.

Etc, etc, etc.

The only real problem I have with zooms is that you're stuck at F2.8. At a Disney park, there are many times where I would rather have the extra 1.5-2 stops that you get with a fast prime. You can crop later; you can't make the camera capture more light later.

If you would rather have a zoom, that's fine. If you think F2.8 is good enough, that's fine. But obviously many disagree, based on the popularity around here of fast 50s and lenses like the Sigma 30mm F1.4.

For telephoto shooting, I'd probably go with a zoom since you usually don't gain much speed - 200mm primes faster than F2.8 are pretty rare, so I'll probably skip the 200mm F2.8 and go for an F2.8 70-200 zoom. (I already have a 70-210mm F2.8-4.0 zoom which can be used at F2.8 on my DSLR at 210mm but AF would be nice for such a lens.)

 

[gokenin]

ok guys i didnt mean this to turn into the inevitable arguement over primes vs. zooms I was just curious as to if anyone has done it recently and if anyone besides me was thinking of doing it. I still think that I will bring a prime or two down with me as they are small and dont add alot of weight to my bag and plan on maybe using only a prime on a certain day to see how it will force me to change my shooting style. But just wanted to throw my two cents in before this thread degrades to camera and lens bashing thanks for the opinions.

 

[MICKEY88]

Oh please. You ignored all my points and threw in a cheap shot at Pentax. (Obviously you're not familiar with Pentax lenses if you're inferring that somehow Minolta/Sony are churning out superior lenses. I just today read DPReview's two new Sony lens reviews, for a couple quick examples. And note that my only F2.8 zoom is a Tamron, not a Pentax. As for ISO noise... well, there's only one DSLR that I'm aware of with clearly superior high-ISO performance, and that's the D3. OK, are we done with cheap shots now?)

Zooms generally have more issues with vignetting, CA, PF, barrel distortion, edge sharpness, and so on than primes. This is true of all zooms - compromises must be made. Try reading some different lens reviews at Photozone or other places and you'll see that this is a universal issue. Even the finest four-figure-price-tag lenses have some of these issues to one degree or another, more so than most of the primes. Example: Canon's 70-200mm F4 is possibly their finest zoom, yet compared to their 200mm F2.8 prime, the zoom at 200mm has more pincushioning, vignetting, CAs, etc. The 70-200mm F2.8 is better than the F4 zoom in terms of barrel distortion but worse in terms of resolution and CA. The F4 zoom actually does beat the 200mm prime in resolution, but that's about it. And the prime is over 10 years old!

The key point, though, is that I (and anyone with a similar prime lens, no matter the mount) am getting two more stops with an F1.4 lens than an F2.8 zoom.

You might be able to get a few good Spectro shots with F2.8. Maybe. If the parade is moving slowly or near some lights. But good luck getting any on-ride shots - like PotC, HM, Peter Pan, etc. Even shots of relatively dim interiors (like the Mission Space postshow game area) will be a challenge with a zoom. The point is - Disney parks offer several situations where 1600 ISO + F2.8 are just not enough, and most DSLRs with a zoom will either max out there or produce quite noise 3200 ISO shots. Not at issue with a fast prime.

Then there's the issue of deliberate small DoF shots (and that primes usually have nicer bokeh)... or that a zoom at F2.8 is at its softest aperture while a fast prime at F2.8 is already stopped down and usually producing extremely high resolution.

Then there's macros... good luck finding a zoom that'll do 1:2, much less 1:1.

Etc, etc, etc.

The only real problem I have with zooms is that you're stuck at F2.8. At a Disney park, there are many times where I would rather have the extra 1.5-2 stops that you get with a fast prime. You can crop later; you can't make the camera capture more light later.

If you would rather have a zoom, that's fine. If you think F2.8 is good enough, that's fine. But obviously many disagree, based on the popularity around here of fast 50s and lenses like the Sigma 30mm F1.4.

For telephoto shooting, I'd probably go with a zoom since you usually don't gain much speed - 200mm primes faster than F2.8 are pretty rare, so I'll probably skip the 200mm F2.8 and go for an F2.8 70-200 zoom. (I already have a 70-210mm F2.8-4.0 zoom which can be used at F2.8 on my DSLR at 210mm but AF would be nice for such a lens.)

I didn't ignore anything, as I stated before, yes those issues exist, will the average person printing nothing larger than an 8x10 notice them...NO.. so I don't see the point of telling someone they need primes to get good pictures, most people will find zooms more than acceptable, if you want to argue the point that you need primes so you can get the absolute best picture, then why not go medium format...

it wasn't a cheap shot, it was a simple statement of personal belief,, if those issues are indeed that bad then I would not want to use pentax...

don't take it personally, I never said pentax was bad, just that I wouldn't buy it IF, key word being IF, the problems are as bad as you want us to believe..

if it makes you feel better to bash Minolta/Sony, feel free to do so, it won't bother me in the least, I don't buy my gear to please others, I buy what I know works, for years Minolta was the leader in development, they dropped the ball with digital, now that Sony bought them out, factory, design team etc, they are investing heavily, because they see the dollars waiting to be grabbed..

every make has little issues, key being LITTLE...

Pentax/Canon/Nikon/Sony, all good stuff

have you seen these problems on normal prints or are you basing it on info that is based on older zooms...


I prefer to go by what I here from people working in the field under real shooting conditions., rather than lab tests


as for the popularity of the niifty 50, sure it's popular here,, everytime a new person comes looking for advice on lens purchases, some people recommend that as a must have.. the number of people recommending it started out small and has grown with the addition of the newer people , is it a must have, NO,, you will see a lot more 2.8 zooms in the hands of pros , than you will see 50 mms,

and while I agree Disney does have some challenging lighting situations, it is far from being unique

 

[Master Mason]

as for the popularity of the niifty 50, sure it's popular here,, everytime a new person comes looking for advice on lens purchases, some people recommend that as a must have.. the number of people recommending it started out small and has grown with the addition of the newer people , is it a must have, NO,, you will see a lot more 2.8 zooms in the hands of pros , than you will see 50 mms,

I think the reason the 50mm is so popular as a recomendation for a low light lens is the cost. for a hundred bucks you can get a lens that works pretty good in low light. Most of the folks that are asking have just purchased their first dSLR, they just dropped a large amount of money and to then recommend they go out and drop another 500 to 1000 or more on a f/2.8 zoom just doesn't seam fitting at least to me. They may evenutally get there, but not right out of the gate.

I personally haven't put my 50 on my camera since I got the fast zooms. If I can't get the picture at f/2.8 and 3200 ISO, I figure it simply wasn't meant to be at that time.

 

[jann1033]

ok guys i didnt mean this to turn into the inevitable arguement over primes vs. zooms I was just curious as to if anyone has done it recently and if anyone besides me was thinking of doing it. I still think that I will bring a prime or two down with me as they are small and dont add alot of weight to my bag and plan on maybe using only a prime on a certain day to see how it will force me to change my shooting style. But just wanted to throw my two cents in before this thread degrades to camera and lens bashing thanks for the opinions.

ahhh, hindsight, ain't it grand