[Lowell Goudge]

@JinDesu--


So your style is to take 'one lens' and then use that lens... you don't go swapping around and all that. Whatever you have on the camera at any given time---that's what you're gonna use...

Does that hinder your composition to some degree? Do you ever miss shots because of you have one singular focal length on the camera???

It seems to me primes are best suited for portraits or studio type things...but I could be wrong...

We have had this discussion many times in the past.

Personally I like to use primes because they force me to look around with one perspective. I don't swap lenses often, maybe 4-5 times in a day, when shooting primes. Usually i go out with one lens on and decide I will shoot that lens. then after a while, i may go back and shoot the same things again with another lens for a different perspective. do i miss shots, perhaps, we all do any way so it does not matter. you need to think about the overall context of a shot to consider it missed. lets say you thought you should have a short tele to capture someone's expression. why not go wide, and shoot the whole scene that causes it. same event different shot. don't consider shots missed, consider them shot differently.

[Blue]

I used primes predominantly. I also will use a 2nd body/lens, maybe even a 3rd to keep from lens switching.

[eddie1960]

well as of today i am now down to just the WR kit zoom (which i am keeping for bad weather). My 24-70 2.8 was sold this am and it was my last zoom. I'm sitting on about 15 primes though
The reason I made the move back to primes is largely as Lowell put it. Using one FL forces me to think about the shot and composition a little more. Certainly i miss the odd shot not being able to zoom, but i find i get more keepers as well. many primes also have the benefit of being faster than my zooms were as well (50f1.4/50f1.7/55f1.8/85f2 are in my collection for instance) they are also in most cases sharper edge to edge, and for lenses in the telephoto range they will be a true 200mm for instance, where zooms effective fl depends heavily on subject distance so they are more predictable as well.
OTOH it can make for a heavy travel case (on the weekend i flew out to Victoria for 2 days and had 9 lenses with me ) though once i arrve what i go out with is a smaller kit (I shot with 8 of the 9 btw so it was worthwhile i guess)

[L33tGreg]

One reason I haven't seen here yet (though I may have missed it) is that its easier to do AF calibration with primes. Zooms tend to vary from the point-of-view of AF calibration across the zoom range. I like primes up until about 100mm, where I find it easy enough to zoom with my feet (or can take a reasonable crop). Past 100mm, I like a zoom (see my signature). At 200-300mm, zooming with your feet can take a good bit of walking! I also like primes because they are faster than zooms. My DA40@2.8 got shutter speeds about 25% faster than my Tamron 17-50 @ 40mm/2.8.

[bbluesman]

Primes and foot zoom are the way! Lately using mostly my DA40 due to it's compact size and lightweight, sharpness and sweet bokeh. 40 FL is very comfortable for me to on mid to close range street shots. Totally agree on better speed and sharpness on the primes.

[123jippo]

I would say that I have 2 main resons to use my prime lenses:
1. Better IQ, i think all my primes have better IQ than my zooms
2. Bigger apertures than zooms not have

But still i use more zooms than primes cos i need to change my focal lenght quickly and also i do not want to change lens too much all time. Lens swapping is not good idea to do in everyplace...

[Blue]

well as of today i am now down to just the WR kit zoom (which i am keeping for bad weather). My 24-70 2.8 was sold this am and it was my last zoom. I'm sitting on about 15 primes though
The reason I made the move back to primes is largely as Lowell put it. Using one FL forces me to think about the shot and composition a little more. Certainly i miss the odd shot not being able to zoom, but i find i get more keepers as well. many primes also have the benefit of being faster than my zooms were as well (50f1.4/50f1.7/55f1.8/85f2 are in my collection for instance) they are also in most cases sharper edge to edge, and for lenses in the telephoto range they will be a true 200mm for instance, where zooms effective fl depends heavily on subject distance so they are more predictable as well.
OTOH it can make for a heavy travel case (on the weekend i flew out to Victoria for 2 days and had 9 lenses with me ) though once i arrve what i go out with is a smaller kit (I shot with 8 of the 9 btw so it was worthwhile i guess)

The DA 18-55 WR is the only af zoom I currently have. I use it in very humid & hot situations. However, I am not completely happy with the results. I think I would be better off with a F 35-70/3.5-4.5 or FA 28-70/4 in that roll. I think they were better optically.

[8540tomg]

As so many have said before primes are almost always faster, sharper, lighter than zooms and make you think more about what you are trying to accomplish. On the down side you do have to carry several primes to make up the focal lengths covered by a zoom or two. There is also the lack of convenience a zoom provides. I would say I shoot primes 85% of the time with the rest of my activity going to my DA* 16~50/2.8 zoom. This is a very good zoom, no AF failures as yet, but the primes are still better at their various focal lengths. Primes remain my optics of choice but opinions will vary.

Tom G

[redrockcoulee]

I think that I usually see in terms of what focal length is on the camera. I mean that if I have a wide angle lens on my eye sees wide angle shots more readily than it does long shots, not saying that it does not see them it is just that the mind set is already made. As I shoot medium and large format as well I am used to having to change lenses. Even with zooms you might have the wrong one on and miss your shot unless you have the large range one. At work I have the 18-200 on a Nikon D200 and it is convienient but not the best lens and costs more than the primes I own for the Pentax. On the flip side I would not wish to be loaded with a bag of primes covering each focal length. And some just do not work for you. A good zoom and a couple of primes is probably the perfect way to go. The other reason I do not have many zooms is that my wife does so I can borrow.

[johnha]

Primes put me in a much better mood than zooms (I have too many of both), the silky smooth focusing of a manual focus prime is a world away from most primes and almost all zooms (only my manual focus push-pull zooms have a similar feel). The mood change affects my photography and like others, I take more time to consider more options, which I feel improves my photos.

I feel for all but 'specialist' shooting you only need a wide-angle, standard & short-tele primes (and then you'll use one of these predominantly). If you're into wildlife you'll need a long lens (you'll always need a longer one though!). Depending on your needs, long primes might not be the best choice, my main long lens work is for aircraft, where I find the flexibility of a zoom is more useful. Fast jets are small but transport/formations are much bigger, being able to pull back quickly is very important.

Having considered the photos on my flickr page, almost all were shot with primes (28, 35, 50) and mostly on mono film too, I'm not quite sure what this says about photography...

[alamo5000]

you need to think about the overall context of a shot to consider it missed. lets say you thought you should have a short tele to capture someone's expression. why not go wide, and shoot the whole scene that causes it. same event different shot. don't consider shots missed, consider them shot differently.

Great quotes by Lowell!!

Sorry I have been tied up doing the unthinkable (working).

I like this thread so far... its given me so much to think about...

[dadipentak]

I use zooms for sports, events and similar casual situations but when I'm out shooting for the fun of photography, I tend to use primes for their quality and character. Now to be honest, I'm not enough of a lens connoisseur to be able point to specific differences performance between the two kinds of lenses--it has more to do with a desire to get the best possible results.

[Brangdon]

I can understand the use of long prime lenses (300mm, 400mm, 500mm etc)....so really I am wondering about the use of shorter primes...

As a novice I like Ltd primes for their small size and weight as well as image quality. I don't have a good long prime because I don't feel I can afford the weight (and the price doesn't help). My current load-up is 15mm Ltd, 40mm Ltd, and 55-300mm DAL. None of these is especially fast; but I haven't found that to be a problem . (I have a 50mm f/1.7, which I find hard to use wide open.) Using a zoom at the longer end means I can zoom out to find my subject, then zoom in for the picture.

I switch lenses quite a lot. I have an 18-250mm superzoom for when convenience is more important than image quality. But even then, I can rarely school myself to leave the 15mm behind. I have a 100mm macro, too, so really I am 15mm + 40mm + whatever big lens I think I need. I don't like to carry more than one big lens. I will get a 200mm or 300mm one day, but they are so big and heavy I doubt they will get much casual use so I need a definite event for them.

[Sandy Hancock]

I don't see the point of primes,




apart from them being faster, sharper, smaller and lighter

What he said, except I'd add this photo:



And add "prettier" to his list of adjectives