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.

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 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?