Prime Lens Owners - How often you use your zooms?

mano · 06-12-2011, 01:49 AM

Recently my (light) walkabout kit consisted of the 15&35mm Limiteds and the DA 55-300. The combination turned out to be the best for me. I don't miss the flexibility of a zoom in the shorter range, and even when using the kit lens or the DA* 16-50 I found out that nearly all my shots were done at either the extreme ends of the zooms or around 35mm.

At the longer ranges I actually like to have that flexibility and I don't think I would exclusively switch to a longer prime instead, even if I could currently afford the DA* 300 (for example). Also, as others noted, the DA 55-300 is really light and compact.

Recently I added the DFA 100 Macro to the kit, don't know if it will join the set for good.

axl · 06-12-2011, 02:13 AM

NEVER

I sold my last zoom in December 2010 (Sigma 10-20) and so far haven't looked back. 4 primes from 24 to 100 cover all I need at the present and frankly I'd get by with 2 (24+55).

Regards

RonHendriks1966 · 06-12-2011, 02:31 AM

I have two zooms at the time, 50-135 and 60-250, and they serve me well for sports on bigger fields.

NicoleAu · 06-12-2011, 02:57 AM

I use my FA50 90% of the time at the moment. I love shooting with it and barely shoot with my 18-250 any more. I just use my zoom if I need a wider angle or if I can't reach with the 50. My 77mm is on it's way to me and no doubt I will be shooting with that almost exclusively to learn it. When I first got my camera all I wanted was a big lens so I could zoom in on anything, but using the prime, it's taught me to slow down and consider composition more. I never thought I'd fall in love with primes

Greve · 06-12-2011, 03:05 AM

I have only one zoom lens and that's the DA 18-55 WR. I almost never use it except for when I am going on long hikes where I might have use for the WR feature of the lens.

JHD · 06-12-2011, 05:44 AM

With the exception of the DA40 and the Tamron 90, I dumped all my primes.

**Digitalis** · 06-12-2011, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by yusuf

178? wow, that's lot. Are they all uniquely different?

yes they are, though my favourite 50mm lens from any SLR system would have to be the pentax K/A 50mm f/1.2

yusuf · 06-12-2011, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by JHD

With the exception of the DA40 and the Tamron 90, I dumped all my primes.

That's a different perspective. So what are the zooms you having now?

epqwerty · 06-12-2011, 08:38 AM

For myself I use the zoom lenses for vacationing with family if I am by myself I prrsonally go with my primes 28 35 50 and 135. I just find the zooms handy for my family members as the can zoom inside of having to move around etc.

BrianR · 06-12-2011, 09:07 AM

From the start of 2010 to today 70% of my shots have been with my DFA 100mm macro, 13% with my DA 18-55mm, 9% with my FA 50/1.4, and 7% with my DA50-200mm (the small remainder with assorted screwmounts or the odd borrowed lens). I prefer using my macro as my general purpose lens over either of my zooms, I just like the focal length for most stuff, macro or not.

Most of my DA 18-55mm have been at 18mm, and most of my DA50-200mm have been at 200mm+ a 1.4 teleconverter, so I generally use them as 'primes' anyway. I almost never use them to have a range of focal lengths instantly available but rather for the extreme ends of their ranges that my two primes are furthest from. If I had the money I'd get a wide prime (the 14 or 15) and the 300mm prime, in that order. Alas.

VaughnA · 06-12-2011, 09:12 AM

I am very tempted to sell or trade my 16-45 and get a F50 so that I can go with 15,31,50 and my 55-300. I have a little 28-105 that I really like that would be a decent walk around zoom if necessary. I'm becoming hooked on primes and just don't use my zooms anymore except for my 55-300 when birding.

jstevewhite · 06-12-2011, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by JHD

With the exception of the DA40 and the Tamron 90, I dumped all my primes.

I've considered this solution with a couple of exceptions, but I've had real trouble finding a zoom in the 20-70 f2.8 range that wasn't *obviously* inferior to the primes I have in that range. (FA35, FA43, Helios 44M). I had the 16-50 2.8, and it was a disappointment. I have a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 that does ok when I need the flexibility. But I can almost always tell the difference between an image from it and one from one of my primes. (Same with the DA* 16-50). I can't always tell the difference between the DA* 50-135 and the Helios, or the D-Xenon 100mm (if it's not a macro shot). Sometimes it can be tough to tell the diff between the DA* 50-135 at the long end and my Tamron 180 f2.5 (both at f4).

If I could find a ~20-~70 that wasn't obviously inferior to my FA35 and FA43, I might use zooms more. Of course, they can't replace the f1.9 speeds.

paperbag846 · 06-12-2011, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by jstevewhite

If I could find a ~20-~70 that wasn't obviously inferior to my FA35 and FA43, I might use zooms more. Of course, they can't replace the f1.9 speeds.

I would imagine the Tamron 28-75 would be able to replace that FA 35, although I don't think you will ever find a zoom that renders exactly like the FA 43.

I'd bet you could find one that looks 90% like it, though. However it's always good to keep one fast prime around, no need to own 100% zooms. Also no need to own 100% primes... Generally speaking, thats either going to be less flexible, or much more expensive (because you would have to own so many primes to cover all the ranges).

Think about it:

--- ASPC---

Ultra Wide (x-15) - Wide (16-27) - Normal (28-40) - Short Tele (41-55) - Tele (56-70) - Long Tele (71-x).

You don't need all of these ranges covered, but if you *wanted* that kind of flexibility, you would end up with a kit that looks like (high quality):

DA 15, DA 21, FA 35, DA* 55, FA 77, D FA 100...

I mean, sure, that would nice to own, but not incredibly cost-effective or practical in the field. And I'm sure there are some here that are thinking "put an FA 43 between that 35 and that 55!"

If the purpose is to collect fine objects as well as take photos, then this makes a lot of sense. They are beautiful, and fun, to own. But for the most part, you can get the same results in a much more cost efficient package with 2 zooms and a fast prime in the middle.

pdo · 06-12-2011, 10:16 AM

I owned DA* 16-50mm and 50-135mm I the only time I ever touch the zooms is when I'm shooting event.. other time I'll use my 50mm or 100mm Macro.. I love shooting with small lenses and light cameras.

jstevewhite · 06-12-2011, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by paperbag846

I would imagine the Tamron 28-75 would be able to replace that FA 35, although I don't think you will ever find a zoom that renders exactly like the FA 43.

I'd bet you could find one that looks 90% like it, though. However it's always good to keep one fast prime around, no need to own 100% zooms. Also no need to own 100% primes... Generally speaking, thats either going to be less flexible, or much more expensive (because you would have to own so many primes to cover all the ranges).

Think about it:

--- ASPC---

Ultra Wide (x-15) - Wide (16-27) - Normal (28-40) - Short Tele (41-55) - Tele (56-70) - Long Tele (71-x).

You don't need all of these ranges covered, but if you *wanted* that kind of flexibility, you would end up with a kit that looks like (high quality):

DA 15, DA 21, FA 35, DA* 55, FA 77, D FA 100...

I mean, sure, that would nice to own, but not incredibly cost-effective or practical in the field. And I'm sure there are some here that are thinking "put an FA 43 between that 35 and that 55!"

If the purpose is to collect fine objects as well as take photos, then this makes a lot of sense. They are beautiful, and fun, to own. But for the most part, you can get the same results in a much more cost efficient package with 2 zooms and a fast prime in the middle.

LOL.. Yes, I'm addicted to the machines themselves, and I'll always do some shooting with every lens I own. I love the feel - I've said before, If I were truly rich, I'd have a museum of cameras of all makes and models, and I'd shoot with them a lot. And I like the 43 in there between the 35 and the 55.

I've got the UW covered with the 10-20, which does a very good job, and is virtually indistinguishable from the DA15 (after pp - the DA15 has better color out of the box). I've got the long stuff covered - it's really hard to tell the DA* 50-135 from primes at f3.2+. But the FA35 and FA43 are such stunners, optically - sharp, crisp, saturated - that's it's really hard to mimic them even with PP. That Tamron looks like it might be a candidate (28-75), but from looking at images, it's nowhere near as sharp or saturated as those two at f2.8, and I do a lot of shooting there. And I keep thinking about a DA* 55 1.4 for the speed. *sigh*. Zooms==convenient, except when they aren't.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Input from DA* 200mm Owners: Owners Regrets over 300mm ?	BBear	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	57	08-12-2013 12:22 PM
focal length prime vs zooms	sany	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	05-15-2011 01:14 PM
Kx Owners - 18-55mm Kit Lens Upgrade	Braciola	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	10-16-2010 08:50 PM
Suggestion for Sigma 24-70 owners (or potential owners)	joeyc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	08-07-2009 03:12 AM
Any K200d owners using the DA* zooms?	Jerry O	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	04-16-2008 12:14 PM

06-12-2011, 01:49 AM	#31
mano Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 151	Recently my (light) walkabout kit consisted of the 15&35mm Limiteds and the DA 55-300. The combination turned out to be the best for me. I don't miss the flexibility of a zoom in the shorter range, and even when using the kit lens or the DA* 16-50 I found out that nearly all my shots were done at either the extreme ends of the zooms or around 35mm. At the longer ranges I actually like to have that flexibility and I don't think I would exclusively switch to a longer prime instead, even if I could currently afford the DA* 300 (for example). Also, as others noted, the DA 55-300 is really light and compact. Recently I added the DFA 100 Macro to the kit, don't know if it will join the set for good.

06-12-2011, 02:13 AM	#32
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	NEVER I sold my last zoom in December 2010 (Sigma 10-20) and so far haven't looked back. 4 primes from 24 to 100 cover all I need at the present and frankly I'd get by with 2 (24+55). Regards

06-12-2011, 02:31 AM	#33
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	I have two zooms at the time, 50-135 and 60-250, and they serve me well for sports on bigger fields.

06-12-2011, 02:57 AM	#34
NicoleAu Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 539	I use my FA50 90% of the time at the moment. I love shooting with it and barely shoot with my 18-250 any more. I just use my zoom if I need a wider angle or if I can't reach with the 50. My 77mm is on it's way to me and no doubt I will be shooting with that almost exclusively to learn it. When I first got my camera all I wanted was a big lens so I could zoom in on anything, but using the prime, it's taught me to slow down and consider composition more. I never thought I'd fall in love with primes

06-12-2011, 03:05 AM	#35
Greve New Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Aarhus Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 15	I have only one zoom lens and that's the DA 18-55 WR. I almost never use it except for when I am going on long hikes where I might have use for the WR feature of the lens.

06-12-2011, 05:44 AM	#36
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	With the exception of the DA40 and the Tamron 90, I dumped all my primes.

06-12-2011, 08:05 AM	#37
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by yusuf 178? wow, that's lot. Are they all uniquely different? yes they are, though my favourite 50mm lens from any SLR system would have to be the pentax K/A 50mm f/1.2

06-12-2011, 08:23 AM	#38
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497 Original Poster	Originally posted by JHD With the exception of the DA40 and the Tamron 90, I dumped all my primes. That's a different perspective. So what are the zooms you having now?

06-12-2011, 08:38 AM	#39
epqwerty Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Ontario Posts: 550	For myself I use the zoom lenses for vacationing with family if I am by myself I prrsonally go with my primes 28 35 50 and 135. I just find the zooms handy for my family members as the can zoom inside of having to move around etc.

06-12-2011, 09:07 AM	#40
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	From the start of 2010 to today 70% of my shots have been with my DFA 100mm macro, 13% with my DA 18-55mm, 9% with my FA 50/1.4, and 7% with my DA50-200mm (the small remainder with assorted screwmounts or the odd borrowed lens). I prefer using my macro as my general purpose lens over either of my zooms, I just like the focal length for most stuff, macro or not. Most of my DA 18-55mm have been at 18mm, and most of my DA50-200mm have been at 200mm+ a 1.4 teleconverter, so I generally use them as 'primes' anyway. I almost never use them to have a range of focal lengths instantly available but rather for the extreme ends of their ranges that my two primes are furthest from. If I had the money I'd get a wide prime (the 14 or 15) and the 300mm prime, in that order. Alas.

06-12-2011, 09:12 AM	#41
VaughnA Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,363	I am very tempted to sell or trade my 16-45 and get a F50 so that I can go with 15,31,50 and my 55-300. I have a little 28-105 that I really like that would be a decent walk around zoom if necessary. I'm becoming hooked on primes and just don't use my zooms anymore except for my 55-300 when birding.

06-12-2011, 09:15 AM	#42
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by JHD With the exception of the DA40 and the Tamron 90, I dumped all my primes. I've considered this solution with a couple of exceptions, but I've had real trouble finding a zoom in the 20-70 f2.8 range that wasn't obviously inferior to the primes I have in that range. (FA35, FA43, Helios 44M). I had the 16-50 2.8, and it was a disappointment. I have a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 that does ok when I need the flexibility. But I can almost always tell the difference between an image from it and one from one of my primes. (Same with the DA* 16-50). I can't always tell the difference between the DA* 50-135 and the Helios, or the D-Xenon 100mm (if it's not a macro shot). Sometimes it can be tough to tell the diff between the DA* 50-135 at the long end and my Tamron 180 f2.5 (both at f4). If I could find a ~20-~70 that wasn't obviously inferior to my FA35 and FA43, I might use zooms more. Of course, they can't replace the f1.9 speeds.

06-12-2011, 09:38 AM	#43
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by jstevewhite If I could find a ~20-~70 that wasn't obviously inferior to my FA35 and FA43, I might use zooms more. Of course, they can't replace the f1.9 speeds. I would imagine the Tamron 28-75 would be able to replace that FA 35, although I don't think you will ever find a zoom that renders exactly like the FA 43. I'd bet you could find one that looks 90% like it, though. However it's always good to keep one fast prime around, no need to own 100% zooms. Also no need to own 100% primes... Generally speaking, thats either going to be less flexible, or much more expensive (because you would have to own so many primes to cover all the ranges). Think about it: --- ASPC--- Ultra Wide (x-15) - Wide (16-27) - Normal (28-40) - Short Tele (41-55) - Tele (56-70) - Long Tele (71-x). You don't need all of these ranges covered, but if you wanted that kind of flexibility, you would end up with a kit that looks like (high quality): DA 15, DA 21, FA 35, DA* 55, FA 77, D FA 100... I mean, sure, that would nice to own, but not incredibly cost-effective or practical in the field. And I'm sure there are some here that are thinking "put an FA 43 between that 35 and that 55!" If the purpose is to collect fine objects as well as take photos, then this makes a lot of sense. They are beautiful, and fun, to own. But for the most part, you can get the same results in a much more cost efficient package with 2 zooms and a fast prime in the middle.

06-12-2011, 10:16 AM	#44
pdo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Westminster CA Posts: 264	I owned DA* 16-50mm and 50-135mm I the only time I ever touch the zooms is when I'm shooting event.. other time I'll use my 50mm or 100mm Macro.. I love shooting with small lenses and light cameras.

06-12-2011, 10:32 AM	#45
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by paperbag846 I would imagine the Tamron 28-75 would be able to replace that FA 35, although I don't think you will ever find a zoom that renders exactly like the FA 43. I'd bet you could find one that looks 90% like it, though. However it's always good to keep one fast prime around, no need to own 100% zooms. Also no need to own 100% primes... Generally speaking, thats either going to be less flexible, or much more expensive (because you would have to own so many primes to cover all the ranges). Think about it: --- ASPC--- Ultra Wide (x-15) - Wide (16-27) - Normal (28-40) - Short Tele (41-55) - Tele (56-70) - Long Tele (71-x). You don't need all of these ranges covered, but if you wanted that kind of flexibility, you would end up with a kit that looks like (high quality): DA 15, DA 21, FA 35, DA* 55, FA 77, D FA 100... I mean, sure, that would nice to own, but not incredibly cost-effective or practical in the field. And I'm sure there are some here that are thinking "put an FA 43 between that 35 and that 55!" If the purpose is to collect fine objects as well as take photos, then this makes a lot of sense. They are beautiful, and fun, to own. But for the most part, you can get the same results in a much more cost efficient package with 2 zooms and a fast prime in the middle. LOL.. Yes, I'm addicted to the machines themselves, and I'll always do some shooting with every lens I own. I love the feel - I've said before, If I were truly rich, I'd have a museum of cameras of all makes and models, and I'd shoot with them a lot. And I like the 43 in there between the 35 and the 55. I've got the UW covered with the 10-20, which does a very good job, and is virtually indistinguishable from the DA15 (after pp - the DA15 has better color out of the box). I've got the long stuff covered - it's really hard to tell the DA* 50-135 from primes at f3.2+. But the FA35 and FA43 are such stunners, optically - sharp, crisp, saturated - that's it's really hard to mimic them even with PP. That Tamron looks like it might be a candidate (28-75), but from looking at images, it's nowhere near as sharp or saturated as those two at f2.8, and I do a lot of shooting there. And I keep thinking about a DA* 55 1.4 for the speed. sigh. Zooms==convenient, except when they aren't.