3 primes or one zoom?

kshapero · 11-10-2010, 07:17 PM

14-35-55 or 16-50? You decide.
or any other combo of 3 primes or one zoom?

hcc · 11-10-2010, 07:27 PM

You cannot compare just like that. Everyone is different and everyone has different needs.

If you want to travel light, one zoom lens is the best choice.

For image quality, the prime lenses are the best option.

If you want a small camera+lens system to fit into your jacket, you should consider the DA40mm pancake lens.

vicentesagredo · 11-10-2010, 07:30 PM

how about one zoom AND 3 primes?? :P
it really depends in your needs, though

Pentaxor · 11-10-2010, 07:33 PM

DA15, 16-45 or Tamron 17-50, and DA55.

opiet70 · 11-10-2010, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by kshapero

14-35-55 or 16-50? You decide.
or any other combo of 3 primes or one zoom?

Lol. I'll decide if they come my way.

hcc is right - you need to know what you want to shoot. Every photographer has different needs based upon what they want to do and those needs normally change over the years. The zoom gives you much more flexibility in the long term but the primes will give you better pictures IF you know how to use them. This statement will also most likely be disputed by owners of the 16-50 because of it's great reputation.

What are your complaints with the kit lens? Will the 16-50 provide the quality you want since it is an upgrade to the kit lens? How much do you want to lug around? Where will you be taking the lenses - i.e. do you need WR or will you be in conditions where you shouldn't change lenses to reduce weather exposure? Do you think the 16-50 will give you everything you need? Will primes give you the flexibility you need or will you be in situations where the action (and distance) changes constantly and you need zoom capabilities?

Frankly, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the choices you listed. I've found I swap from primes to zooms (and have competing ones in the same focal lengths) depending on what the lens will give me and what the conditions are.

NeverSatisfied · 11-10-2010, 08:06 PM

The DA*16-50 is a good alternative to cover that range of focal lengths, and will probably cost about half of what a suggested list of primes would total. (I'm thinking DA 15 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, and DA*55 ???) Plus it's Weather-Resistant. I don't use my 16-50 as much as I used to, but it's a great performer, and my only nitpick is noticeable distortion at the wide end. But if you have LightRoom, Ishpuini's lens profile for the DA*16-50 can correct that easily.

clark · 11-10-2010, 08:10 PM

IMO 35 and 55 are too close to warrant the purchase of 2 primes. I'd say the sigma 10-20 and 55mm would be a good combo.

SpecialK · 11-10-2010, 08:25 PM

12-24 for the wide end, the 35 macro and 70 or 77 so you at least have some telephoto.

abacus07 · 11-10-2010, 08:30 PM

If I had money I would probably with 3 primes because I'm not a fan of bulky lenses. But I would probably start with the DA 15 or DA 21. but that's just because I lust for each of these and I can't find their MF equivalents cheap.

grainbelt · 11-10-2010, 08:53 PM

Hard to narrow it down like that. I bought and sold a number of lenses, and I'm down to

18-55
DA 35 2.8
FA 50 1.4
55-300

I rarely carry all of them, and always have the DA 35.

Rory · 11-10-2010, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by clark

IMO 35 and 55 are too close to warrant the purchase of 2 primes. I'd say the sigma 10-20 and 55mm would be a good combo.

That's ridiculous. If you don't notice a 20mm difference on a crop sensor, something is wrong.

GeneV · 11-10-2010, 09:06 PM

My K-x travel kit is DA 15/21/40/70. It has performed superbly. The kit lens was along as a backup. I like light and compact when traveling, and I am very comfortable exercising the K mounts. I don't think that set of primes takes up more total weight or volume than a DA*16-50 or DA17-70, and the weight is not always there, around your neck.

My one lens solution is usually the DA17-70, but usually on the K20d. As others have mentioned, the lens kit greatly depends on what you are shooting and your personal style.

clark · 11-10-2010, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Rory

That's ridiculous. If you don't notice a 20mm difference on a crop sensor, something is wrong.

fwiw i shoot a 1.3 crop

i'm not saying they're not different focal lengths, they do have their own merits, their own aethetics and their own 'feel'

I'm just saying that if it was my money and I was buying 3 prime lenses to start out with I would't buy a 35 and a 50, i'd buy a 14, a 50 and a 100mm macro
that would give me maximum shooting ability for my money

my personal AF lens collection is Sigma 15-30, 50mm, 90mm macro and I plan to add a 70-200 in the future

I use MF for the inbetween focal lengths, (zeiss 135, and a 28mm)- I plan on getting an AF 30mm and a samyang 14mm f2.8 in the future but at the moment these lenses are all I need, the 28 can give the same field of view as a 50 if you move your feet or crop a little, I think 30 and 85 are a better combination than a 50- I don't like the perspective of a 50mm, I prefer the slight distortion of the 30 and the slight compression of the 85, I find (on APC at least) that 50 is neither here nor there. Too close but too far

at least I think that way for the type of shooting I do, which brings us back to the idea of thinking about what you shoot
if you don't know what you shoot get a zoom, or multiple MF lenses. Then get AF versions of the ones you use most

paperbag846 · 11-10-2010, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

DA15, 16-45 or Tamron 17-50, and DA55.

I really like this suggestion.

You have one lens for low light/low DOF, one (tiny) lens for super wide when you are hiking about, and a do it all lens for all the standard things you might need. The Tamron is 2.8 and I've seen some people posting wonderful photos with it.

With that set up, there would be some days that you would only use the 55, or the zoom, or the WA, but they would complement each other quite nicely.

I'd ask you - why are you considering primes? Primes are not as much about IQ as they once were... although there are certainly some IQ advantages to primes, they are not strictly IQ related (although you can get more speed with a prime a la 55 1.4). Primes are much more discrete, lighter, and in general easier to work with. A hiker might prefer primes for their ergonomics on long treks, someone shooting portraits might prefer primes to for low depth of field to get a soft, flattering image, and a wedding photographer might prefer a zoom to ensure he/she never misses a shot.

So the answer is likely a mix of a zooms and primes for the most flexible set up.

Fl_Gulfer · 11-10-2010, 09:17 PM

One lens in South Florida because of the salt air getting in your camera when you change lenses.

11-10-2010, 07:17 PM	#1
kshapero Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Florida, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 437	3 primes or one zoom? 14-35-55 or 16-50? You decide. or any other combo of 3 primes or one zoom?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Primes / Vivitar zoom	JP_Seattle	Sold Items	7	05-10-2010 12:39 PM
working without zoom (primes only)	WMBP	Photographic Technique	39	10-01-2009 10:12 AM
135mm Lens test: Six primes and a zoom	Just1MoreDave	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	07-30-2009 09:38 AM
For Sale - Sold: smc Pentax M Primes, S-M-C Primes, THE Series 1 70~210 Zoom, Viv MFTC and more	monochrome	Sold Items	33	02-13-2009 01:29 PM
Fisheye questions: Pentax 10-17 zoom or primes?	troyz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	08-02-2008 05:16 AM

11-10-2010, 07:27 PM	#2
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,001	You cannot compare just like that. Everyone is different and everyone has different needs. If you want to travel light, one zoom lens is the best choice. For image quality, the prime lenses are the best option. If you want a small camera+lens system to fit into your jacket, you should consider the DA40mm pancake lens.

11-10-2010, 07:30 PM	#3
vicentesagredo Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Concepcion Posts: 100	how about one zoom AND 3 primes?? :P it really depends in your needs, though

11-10-2010, 07:33 PM	#4
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	DA15, 16-45 or Tamron 17-50, and DA55.

11-10-2010, 07:50 PM	#5
opiet70 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dallas, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 499	Originally posted by kshapero 14-35-55 or 16-50? You decide. or any other combo of 3 primes or one zoom? Lol. I'll decide if they come my way. hcc is right - you need to know what you want to shoot. Every photographer has different needs based upon what they want to do and those needs normally change over the years. The zoom gives you much more flexibility in the long term but the primes will give you better pictures IF you know how to use them. This statement will also most likely be disputed by owners of the 16-50 because of it's great reputation. What are your complaints with the kit lens? Will the 16-50 provide the quality you want since it is an upgrade to the kit lens? How much do you want to lug around? Where will you be taking the lenses - i.e. do you need WR or will you be in conditions where you shouldn't change lenses to reduce weather exposure? Do you think the 16-50 will give you everything you need? Will primes give you the flexibility you need or will you be in situations where the action (and distance) changes constantly and you need zoom capabilities? Frankly, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the choices you listed. I've found I swap from primes to zooms (and have competing ones in the same focal lengths) depending on what the lens will give me and what the conditions are.

11-10-2010, 08:06 PM	#6
NeverSatisfied Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 688	The DA16-50 is a good alternative to cover that range of focal lengths, and will probably cost about half of what a suggested list of primes would total. (I'm thinking DA 15 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, and DA55 ???) Plus it's Weather-Resistant. I don't use my 16-50 as much as I used to, but it's a great performer, and my only nitpick is noticeable distortion at the wide end. But if you have LightRoom, Ishpuini's lens profile for the DA*16-50 can correct that easily.

11-10-2010, 08:10 PM	#7
clark Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 301	IMO 35 and 55 are too close to warrant the purchase of 2 primes. I'd say the sigma 10-20 and 55mm would be a good combo.

11-10-2010, 08:25 PM	#8
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	12-24 for the wide end, the 35 macro and 70 or 77 so you at least have some telephoto.

11-10-2010, 08:30 PM	#9
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	If I had money I would probably with 3 primes because I'm not a fan of bulky lenses. But I would probably start with the DA 15 or DA 21. but that's just because I lust for each of these and I can't find their MF equivalents cheap.

11-10-2010, 08:53 PM	#10
grainbelt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Albums Posts: 587	Hard to narrow it down like that. I bought and sold a number of lenses, and I'm down to 18-55 DA 35 2.8 FA 50 1.4 55-300 I rarely carry all of them, and always have the DA 35.

11-10-2010, 08:56 PM	#11
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	Originally posted by clark IMO 35 and 55 are too close to warrant the purchase of 2 primes. I'd say the sigma 10-20 and 55mm would be a good combo. That's ridiculous. If you don't notice a 20mm difference on a crop sensor, something is wrong.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2010, 09:06 PM	#12
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	My K-x travel kit is DA 15/21/40/70. It has performed superbly. The kit lens was along as a backup. I like light and compact when traveling, and I am very comfortable exercising the K mounts. I don't think that set of primes takes up more total weight or volume than a DA*16-50 or DA17-70, and the weight is not always there, around your neck. My one lens solution is usually the DA17-70, but usually on the K20d. As others have mentioned, the lens kit greatly depends on what you are shooting and your personal style.

11-10-2010, 09:09 PM	#13
clark Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 301	Originally posted by Rory That's ridiculous. If you don't notice a 20mm difference on a crop sensor, something is wrong. fwiw i shoot a 1.3 crop i'm not saying they're not different focal lengths, they do have their own merits, their own aethetics and their own 'feel' I'm just saying that if it was my money and I was buying 3 prime lenses to start out with I would't buy a 35 and a 50, i'd buy a 14, a 50 and a 100mm macro that would give me maximum shooting ability for my money my personal AF lens collection is Sigma 15-30, 50mm, 90mm macro and I plan to add a 70-200 in the future I use MF for the inbetween focal lengths, (zeiss 135, and a 28mm)- I plan on getting an AF 30mm and a samyang 14mm f2.8 in the future but at the moment these lenses are all I need, the 28 can give the same field of view as a 50 if you move your feet or crop a little, I think 30 and 85 are a better combination than a 50- I don't like the perspective of a 50mm, I prefer the slight distortion of the 30 and the slight compression of the 85, I find (on APC at least) that 50 is neither here nor there. Too close but too far at least I think that way for the type of shooting I do, which brings us back to the idea of thinking about what you shoot if you don't know what you shoot get a zoom, or multiple MF lenses. Then get AF versions of the ones you use most

11-10-2010, 09:12 PM	#14
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by Pentaxor DA15, 16-45 or Tamron 17-50, and DA55. I really like this suggestion. You have one lens for low light/low DOF, one (tiny) lens for super wide when you are hiking about, and a do it all lens for all the standard things you might need. The Tamron is 2.8 and I've seen some people posting wonderful photos with it. With that set up, there would be some days that you would only use the 55, or the zoom, or the WA, but they would complement each other quite nicely. I'd ask you - why are you considering primes? Primes are not as much about IQ as they once were... although there are certainly some IQ advantages to primes, they are not strictly IQ related (although you can get more speed with a prime a la 55 1.4). Primes are much more discrete, lighter, and in general easier to work with. A hiker might prefer primes for their ergonomics on long treks, someone shooting portraits might prefer primes to for low depth of field to get a soft, flattering image, and a wedding photographer might prefer a zoom to ensure he/she never misses a shot. So the answer is likely a mix of a zooms and primes for the most flexible set up.

11-10-2010, 09:17 PM	#15
Fl_Gulfer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Gulfer Photos: Albums Posts: 3,054	One lens in South Florida because of the salt air getting in your camera when you change lenses.