[Macario]

The making pictures/taking pictures argument is weak, sorry.

It takes an eye to compose - not some arbitrarily restrictive rectangle you need to fit an image into. Although that fitting-it-into-a-frame exercise can be fun, I guess, for the particular challenge, it will teach you nothing more than seeing with a particular angle of view. I have nothing against primes except their awkwardness, but you can use a zoom to frame what you see.

Actually it isn´t weak. I do not agree with the making/taking part as such. But I do have to say, with primes you ogten do make better pictures as with zooms. Just because you learn to look around you like the lens. with zooms, you zoom in and out, and when you cannot zoom enough you start to curse why can´t you zoom more. With a prime you do not really have that problem, as you already know what you will get in the frame.

[Cambo]

Hi all ! As title says is it worth to start shooting with primes? Im planing to buy my first prime lens but im a bit afraid, because im used to point and shoot cameras and now to my k-5 with kit lens 18-55. Maybe you can give me advice with which prime lens i could start 35 mm 2.4 or 40 mm 2.8. I mostly shoot some landscape and my wife. Maybe there is one which can do it all in good terms . Thx all

Frame up a nice portrait of your friend (or something) at 55mm and take the shot. Now put that on playback, zoom out to 18, and walk forward till you have the same shot. Difficult, eh? (No!). Do what photographers did for a hundred years before zooms were invented.

Zoom with your feet!

You'll never really learn about photography shooting with zoom, IMHO. You'll never learn about hyper focal lengths, aperture control and it's effects at different focal lengths and focussing distances, etc. As well as the true meaning and use of each focal length and it's effects on the background, etc. You can read about it, and study, etc., but you won't truly know it till you put it into practice. And with a wide angle fixed length lens, like a 14mm, manual focussing is not really an issue either - stop it down to f8, put it on the hyper focal distance, and everything's sharp from 1 foot to infinity - you don't even HAVE to focus. Great in tight quarters at parties and stuff, no flash, high ISO.

I actually hate zooms now, although I still own some and use them. But for the pure joy of photography, fixed focal lengths rule. One reason why I LOVED the Fuji X100 camera so much, and it's drawing rave reviews by everyone who uses it;

FinePix X100 | Fujifilm Canada



Taken with the Fuji, handheld, fixed focal length lens.

Don't be afraid of fixed focal length lenses; when you see how wonderful and FUN they can be, you won't want to shoot anything else.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

I love my 15mm LTD!

If you like landscapes, you need the 15mm or 21mm Limiteds.....the 40 is way too narrow........

On the other hand, shooting his wife with the 15 or 21mm, resulting in portraits with a gigantic nose, may have negative effects on his future lensbudget...

[RioRico]

I'm not sure how you live but the realized profit you're making from your hoard is pennies... but I guess with all the time you have from not working that's better than nothing. Why not consider a regular paying job and have the financial option of being able to buy any lens at any time, and you'd have a more stable financial security for the future too.

I long-ago retired as a software engineer when I went through an extended cycle of falling unconscious, ceasing breathing, turning blue, etc. We now live comfortably (if not lavishly) off savings and retirement remittances (me mate was also a senior codemonkey). From where we now live, the nearest work (all low-paying jobs) are many mountain miles away. More work stress would likely kill me prematurely. I should die for minimum wage?

But it's not only the toxic mix of health, age, distance and low payoff that biases my choices. We travel -- we'll be somewhere betwixt Arizona and Guatemala for the next several months. If I *did* tie myself down with a job, such would be impossible, and I'd have so much less time for photography, and for these forums! And if I could buy any lens(es) I want, I'd just go hog-wild.

So I'll just say that life is pretty good now except that we don't travel enough. And I'm pretty happy with my process for churning lenses. I don't *need* the latest and greatest, and what I *do* really want, I find a way to obtain. Cheers!
__________________________________________

EDIT -- A PM'd comment provokes me to this reaction: I totally understand where creampuff is coming from. I would take an entirely different approach than my current style if my livelihood were involved. As a pro I'd buy the best tools possible and swing with them. As a past-pro and current dilettante, I have the freedom to work and play within my self-imposed limitations. And I have great fun trying and learning from a variety of low-cost lenses. Today I'll go shooting with a no-iris projector lens on its own rough focusing helicoid, a TDC (Three-Dimensional Camera Co) VIVID Anastigmat 127/3.5. It's an artistic lens, not a pro lens, yet it produces images that I've printed and sold. I wouldn't use it for paid work. I wouldn't have found it if I hadn't been trolling for trash lenses. That's where I get my thrills: try all sorts of stuff and see what works and why. Fun fun fun.

---

Last edited by RioRico; 12-30-2011 at 02:19 PM.

[Ikarus]

Frame up a nice portrait of your friend (or something) at 55mm and take the shot. Now put that on playback, zoom out to 18, and walk forward till you have the same shot. Difficult, eh? (No!)

Make that "impossible". You'll never get the same shot this way due to the difference in geometric distortion between a focal length of 18mm and one of 55mm, which is especially noticeable in facial features. See for example here for a good illustration of the effect.

[creampuff]

RioRico, keep at it and enjoy! Time and health are precious commodities we all need to make the most off.

[abacus07]

Make that "impossible". You'll never get the same shot this way due to the difference in geometric distortion between a focal length of 18mm and one of 55mm, which is especially noticeable in facial features. See for example here for a good illustration of the effect.

As a landscape photographer I would be more concerned about changing the size perspective between the foreground and the background. Imo if you're going to shoot primes then you typically will carry two or three different focal lengths and zoom with your feet or compose differently instead of zooming.

But that article is an excellent example why you don't do headshots with 35mm or wider.

[Ikarus]

As a landscape photographer I would be more concerned about changing the size perspective between the foreground and the background. Imo if you're going to shoot primes then you typically will carry two or three different focal lengths and zoom with your feet or compose differently instead of zooming.

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with it, but I believe that the term "zoom with your feet" would best be avoided, the reason being that it implies an equivalence between zooming and walking, a misconception that keeps causing a lot of confusion in these prime vs. zoom discussions.

[RioRico]

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with it, but I believe that the term "zoom with your feet" would best be avoided, the reason being that it implies an equivalence between zooming and walking, a misconception that keeps causing a lot of confusion in these prime vs. zoom discussions.

Well, zoom-with-your-feet sounds better than doing-the-optical-shuffle. Have I got my framing and perspective right? Guess I better do the optical shuffle. Hay, that could be a dance tune!

Ya shuffle to the left
Ya shuffle to the right
Ya hold down the shutter
And try to get good light
Ya shuffle to the rear
Ya shuffle to the front...
(somebody, help me out here)

What else to call it? FOV shift? Peripatetic pedestrian re-positioning? The moonwalk?

Imo if you're going to shoot primes then you typically will carry two or three different focal lengths and zoom with your feet or compose differently instead of zooming.

Depending on the targets, we might carry several primes, or only use just one single prime. My LOTD (lens of the day) strategy incolves using just one lens in as many different situations as possible. (I could invoke HCB or other mostly-one-lens masters but that wouldn't be fair.) Using a fixed-lens camera or a single-lens strategy really forces me to think about subject-field relations.

[Ikarus]

What else to call it?

I like calling it "change in perspective". You know, that thing that no lens, be it zoom or prime, can do for you.

[abacus07]

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with it, but I believe that the term "zoom with your feet" would best be avoided, the reason being that it implies an equivalence between zooming and walking, a misconception that keeps causing a lot of confusion in these prime vs. zoom discussions.

Yes, but this is the life of using primes. And most people that use primes carry usually carry several which effectively gives them a zoom. I'm not going to be concerned about the effect that changing perspective if I move around with my DA40 to give me an equivalent FOV from 35-50. Each lens you carry fills a range. Either you recompose or you move around. Where the zoom with your feet logic truly fails is when you talk about using an 18mm lens to give you the same photo as a 55mm picture. In portraits it doesn't work and in landscapes you may have walked miles or you cannot walk there.

[theunartist]

I long-ago retired as a software engineer when I went through an extended cycle of falling unconscious, ceasing breathing, turning blue, etc. We now live comfortably (if not lavishly) off savings and retirement remittances (me mate was also a senior codemonkey). From where we now live, the nearest work (all low-paying jobs) are many mountain miles away. More work stress would likely kill me prematurely. I should die for minimum wage?

But it's not only the toxic mix of health, age, distance and low payoff that biases my choices. We travel -- we'll be somewhere betwixt Arizona and Guatemala for the next several months. If I *did* tie myself down with a job, such would be impossible, and I'd have so much less time for photography, and for these forums! And if I could buy any lens(es) I want, I'd just go hog-wild.

So I'll just say that life is pretty good now except that we don't travel enough. And I'm pretty happy with my process for churning lenses. I don't *need* the latest and greatest, and what I *do* really want, I find a way to obtain. Cheers!
__________________________________________

EDIT -- A PM'd comment provokes me to this reaction: I totally understand where creampuff is coming from. I would take an entirely different approach than my current style if my livelihood were involved. As a pro I'd buy the best tools possible and swing with them. As a past-pro and current dilettante, I have the freedom to work and play within my self-imposed limitations. And I have great fun trying and learning from a variety of low-cost lenses. Today I'll go shooting with a no-iris projector lens on its own rough focusing helicoid, a TDC (Three-Dimensional Camera Co) VIVID Anastigmat 127/3.5. It's an artistic lens, not a pro lens, yet it produces images that I've printed and sold. I wouldn't use it for paid work. I wouldn't have found it if I hadn't been trolling for trash lenses. That's where I get my thrills: try all sorts of stuff and see what works and why. Fun fun fun.

I hear you and agree with all you said here RioRico!

I look at lenses as very similar to Wine Collecting. As all wine collectors know, when you go out and buy that $100 bottle, you're insured you're going to get a wine that has that "$100 bottle of wine taste". But all collectors I know, will try all wines at all levels and costs, the big thrill in wine collecting is when you can find that "$100 bottle of wine taste" in a $12 bottle... which I'm having right now!!!

I'm also glad to hear you consider yourself currently a "dilettante", which my wife has been calling me for the last couple of years...

Happy New Year!

BTW - this also applies to Camera Equipment... so yes, a first prime is worth it but like wine collecting, knowing what you're looking for is most important.

[theunartist]

I finally i setup my mind that i will buy 35mm 2.4 or da 40mm 2.8, is there any big difference in image quality between this two lenses? thanks

Looks like everybody missed this Ron... I think if you take a look at Lens Reviews, they're pretty much equal IQ wise. The 35/2.4 probably gets lower marks than deserved because of it's seemingly too low a price and plastic mount; the 40/2.8 may get a bump here and there cause, darn it, it so small and cute...

I have used a 40 and own a couple of 35's, to me, they're too close to call. But in value, I like the 35/2.4; the 40/2.8 cost double but I don't think it delivers 2x the IQ over the 35.

[drugal]

I have and love the 40/2.8, but if I were to get a single prime lens it would probably be the 35/2.4 because it is that much closer to the ideal 'standard' lens of just over 28mm for our APS-C sensor and it is a bit faster. I forget whether someone else mentioned this yet in this thread, but the view through a standard lens 'looks' a lot like what we see through our eyes.

Having said that, I did something similar to what Rio suggested ... I looked at my 'keeper' shots and saw what focal lengths I used most. I found that most of my favorite shots where closest to the 40 and 21 pentax primes. So I bought the 40 first because it was cheaper and got the 21 about a year later.

[Cambo]

Make that "impossible". You'll never get the same shot this way due to the difference in geometric distortion between a focal length of 18mm and one of 55mm, which is especially noticeable in facial features. See for example here for a good illustration of the effect.

As a landscape photographer I would be more concerned about changing the size perspective between the foreground and the background. Imo if you're going to shoot primes then you typically will carry two or three different focal lengths and zoom with your feet or compose differently instead of zooming.

But that article is an excellent example why you don't do headshots with 35mm or wider.

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with it, but I believe that the term "zoom with your feet" would best be avoided, the reason being that it implies an equivalence between zooming and walking, a misconception that keeps causing a lot of confusion in these prime vs. zoom discussions.

I know that, and WE know all this because we've shot with primes for years...he HASN'T EVER shot with one, and I was just trying to give a simple example of what it would be like shooting with a prime to a BEGINNER who has never done that.

OK, smarty pantses's'z, let's see if YOU can come up with an example for the guy...

Sheesh, tough crowd!



Cheers,
Cameron