[Srhphoto]

I also have a young family (very active 2 year old) so at the moment use zoom lenses. They give me the flexibility I need without having to frequently change lenses. In any event, the two zooms I use most frequently (Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 and Tamron 70-200mm f2.8) give me all of the IQ I need.

Having said that, and if finances allow, I'd like to add at least one prime lens to my bag at some point in 2015. A 77mm f1.8 keeps shouting my name. Or is it a DA* 55mm f1.4 or maybe a DA* 300mm f4. Difficult to tell LOL.

Cheers,

Simon.

[GaryH]

I just did an inventory. I have 7 Zooms and 6 Prime lenses. I actually enjoy shooting with the primes more but more often when on vacation, I will usually grab the zooms. I enjoy the IQ of the primes much more though.....

[pbancr]

I used to be a zoom-only user. Then I purchased the DA 21 ltd and found the Singles challenge here on the forum. A month using a single prime convinced me that I'd been missing out and that there was a world of primes to (buy and..) explore. Now I rarely dig out my zooms and when I do, it's usually my DA18-135 for its WR and convenience in taking snaps at family outings.

[northcoastgreg]

While I do prefer primes and try to shoot with them as much as I can, in the last few years I have found myself shooting more with zooms. Primes may be better, but nowadays we have zooms that are so good that the differences aren't as great as they used to be, especially for those of us who are mid-aperture shooters, and don't need to shoot fast lenses wide open. While my FA 20-35 is not quite in the same league as my DA 15, it nevertheless can hold it's own with my M 20/4, K 28/3.5, and K 35/3.5. Those old primes have more character, but the zoom is just as sharp and contrasty, and features better color fidelity. And the convenience of being able to zoom to the FOV one needs for a specific shot can hardly be underestimated. On a day trip to the Shasta-Lassen area of northern California, I tried to make do with only prime lenses and, with the light was changing so dramatically from moment to moment, I ended up missing some shots while changing lenses. When I can previsualize exactly what I need to get a specific shot, I'll take a prime. But when I'm not sure about the focal length, the zoom (or zooms) will have to come along.

[BarryE]

Two cameras, prime on each. Better IQ and advantage of more attention to subject, I feel - similar weight too. If on walkabout just have to think about images that work for two focal lengths and not numerous options with zoom. Swapping lenses is restricting and a risk if weather poor. WR zoom if raining.

[jcdoss]

One other thing I'll mention, which is probably not true for everyone, is that back when I was "a zoom guy," I found myself always using either extreme end of the zoom. I hardly ever landed in the middle... I don't know why, but examination of my old photos shows that the vast majority were taken at an extreme. Is this true for anyone else?

[Kerrowdown]

"Who's here amongst us, that currently uses and buys only prime lenses?"

I'll be one of those people, as I only own primes.

"how does it benefit you and your photography?"

Because all mine are fast legacy glass from my film days, now just being used on my digital backs, as I'm still just waiting for the Pentax FF to be launched.

[arkav]

I use zooms so I can figure out which primes I should pick up.

When I shot film, I used primes exclusively ( 28, 50, 100, 135 all M series ). I sometimes thought it would be handy to have a little gadget - like an empty slide frame on the end of two telescoping cardboard tubes that I
could slide in and out to get an idea of which prime I wanted to use for a particular scene. I know that optically, it's not the same thing, but just to get an idea of the framing.

Hmmm.....I wonder how hard it would be to separate the mirror box and viewfinder from an old film camera, then just mount a wide range zoom on it and use that to scope out a scene.

[Kerrowdown]

to get an idea of which prime I wanted to use for a particular scene

That comes with experience, after using your lenses for a while, you can actually visualise which one you need.

[jddwoods]

Once you've used an fa or da limited, LBA kicks in, and the zooms will have been ebayed.

I just prefer the improved sharpness, contrast, bokeh, and colours you get with primes compared to zooms.

(I have been tempted by the 50-135 and 20-40 though, but only really for the weather sealing. The weight and size is a little off putting!)

I agree completely. Once I got first limited, the DA15 I was hooked on primes and Limiteds until I got DA 15, 21, 35 macro, 70 Limiteds and the DFA 100 Macro WR. Hardly use my DA 17-70 anymore. Along with all of the advantages you mentioned, add in the primes, especially the limiteds are so compact compared to beer can size zooms.

[Des]

One other thing I'll mention, which is probably not true for everyone, is that back when I was "a zoom guy," I found myself always using either extreme end of the zoom. I hardly ever landed in the middle... I don't know why, but examination of my old photos shows that the vast majority were taken at an extreme. Is this true for anyone else?

Yes, same for me. I mostly shoot nature photography. I started with a Tamron 18-250 - you'd think that would be a wide enough range! But plenty of my shots were either at 18 or 250. Anyway it told me my next purchases should be a birding lens (I got a Sigma 170-500) and an ultrawide (got the DA 12-24). Since then I have filled in more of the gaps (including 35, 50, 77, 100 primes - and yesterday picked up a 43 for only $A400).

I think I was drawn to the "drama" of long tele and wide angle. I still love it, but with the primes my photography has become more nuanced. Or maybe it's just a different sort of drama: the drama of a super-sharp landscape, or a macro, or lovely bokeh, or really thin DOF, or the "fairy lights" effect of the 77.

One other thing I would add. At the long tele end, it seems to me that there is a general trend towards zooms. Think of all the xx-300, xxx-400 and xxx-500mm zooms out there (with Pentax to add a 135-450-ish zoom soon) and compare the number of long primes. Many manufacturers used to make 400mm f5.6 primes; now only Canon does. More experienced birding/wildlife photographers than I might have something to say about this, but having had a 170-500 (currently for sale - see the marketplace!) and now a 400mm prime, I don't find a long prime very limiting. If you want a step up from the 55-300 or its equivalent for birds and wildlife, consider a 300mm or longer prime (with a teleconverter if necessary) rather than a longer zoom. The gain in speed and optical quality will often outweigh the loss of versatility - especially when you need to crop. For the one time you come across a cryptic, rare or endangered species, you want the shot to count.

[derekkite]

Primes. Long zooms are unsatisfying. Sometimes the 500 is a bit to long and a zoom could fit the scene that appears, but when I had a zoom those shots never worked anyways. The 300 Pentax and 500 sigma are sharp and render nicely. When I have either of them on I shoot subjects to fit.

On the short end I have a couple cheap zooms which are in the cupboard. Sometimes I get them out for documentary shooting, surveys or information gathering. The 12-24 is handy, and gets use for video, but for some reason the FA 43 seems stuck to my second body. If I remove it to use something else, it finds its way back. I lust over the 31.

[AdrianM]

Time, space, and weight seem to be the key dimensions here. Time to be able to change lenses, space to move around to frame the shot, and weight limits for what can be carried. These aren't always forthcoming, and that often means having to compromise. My preference would be to ready to get a shot rather than miss it completely. Consequently, there is always one lens in my bag at all times, and always on the camera when just walking around - a Sigma 18-250 Macro. After that I choose to use a Sigma 500 f4.5 for birds if weight isn't a problem, or a DA*300 with RC if weight is a problem, but sometimes use a Sigma 100-300 f4 with or without RC if constrained in tighter spaces such as a rain-forest. For wide angle primes, I have three DA Ltds 15, 21 and 40 and these are in and out of my bag depending on purpose and constraints. Of these, the DA 15 Ltd is easily my favourite for landscapes and panoramas. There is usually more time with wide angle shots than telephoto shots - telephoto subjects tend to be moving (therefore no 'time'), so my preference is to have a long focal length immediately available eg 250mm, 300mm or 500mm, and to change lenses if time permits for wide angle subjects. The most used lenses in the portfolio are the 18-250, 500 f4.5 and DA*300.

[GeneV]

I am the opposite of some here. Other than popping one of the compact kit lenses (18-55, 18-135, 50-200, 55-300?) on the camera and running off, my compact, grab and go kit will be a body and a few ltd primes. It is more compact and less intrusive when I am doing other things with other people. The DA* zooms I really like are all on the large side and seem to put everyone into pose mode. I shot a vacation once where 90% of the time I had only the DA 21, 40 and 70 ltd around. You can put them all in a coat pocket, and I did not miss much.

[kh1234567890]

That comes with experience, after using your lenses for a while, you can actually visualise which one you need.

That is exactly what I do. Except for the DA70, which I seem to have a mental block against