Prime lenses

[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 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.

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.