[reh321]

Because we like primes?

Maybe you do, but I find myself “chained” when I use a prime, and I usually choose an F-stop like F/5.6, so I’ve used mostly zoom lenses in recent years. That way, I can choose perspective and framing separetly.

[jersey]

Maybe you do, but I find myself “chained” when I use a prime, and I usually choose an F-stop like F/5.6, so I’ve used mostly zoom lenses in recent years. That way, I can choose perspective and framing separetly.

I suppose people who use primes like them and really don't care about opinion of people who do not?

[c.a.m]

I think that some photographers appreciate the relative simplicity of using single-focal length lenses. On occasion, I wander about in my city with one prime lens attached to the camera.

- Craig

[acoufap]

That’s a reasonable approach. The 24mm on apsc is slightly narrower than 35mm at 62/54 degrees. But that’s still quite close. My annoyance with the da 21 is the slow aperture. I’d love a faster wide apsc prime but the reality is the DA 21 size is so appealing I might actually dislike a faster lens in practice.

Buy the DFA21 Ltd.

[cxdoo]

Why fiddle with unsatisfactory primes when Pentax now offers awesomely sharp zooms like the HD DA 16-85 mm ED WR ?

16-85 is pretty sharp, even clinical. I used Tamron 17-50 before that for many years but always felt something is lacking. Switched to pentax zoom, which is IMHO better lens - more uniformly sharp, more vivid colors, but still, somehow bland.

Compared to my primes, it just doesn't have that wow factor.

[acoufap]

Why fiddle with unsatisfactory primes when Pentax now offers awesomely sharp zooms like the HD DA 16-85 mm ED WR ?

16 mm

26 mm

60 mm

85 mm

Because it‘s a different and for some people nicer shooting experience?

[UncleVanya]

There are reasons to use either. Primes are typically either faster or smaller or sharper or cheaper or a combination of those. Primes impose a workflow change in your photographic exploration - making you move around more to find a shot. You can train yourself to do this with a zoom but it is easy to get caught in the mode of dialing in the focal length that works from where you are rather than moving around and finding the best angle. Primes can similarly be misused forcing a particular focal length to be used for a shot where another would have been better. Zooming with one’s feet is the mantra but people sometimes forget that zooming with your feet faces a change in perspective that’s different from actually using a different focal length from a specific location (mostly how much of the background appears and how it renders). Similarly zooming with the feet runs into practical issues - sometimes you can’t get closer or farther safely if barriers or access issues are in play.

To me both types play a role. A zoom is a workhorse - a prime is a spirited mustang. The prime might not be as refined as the workhorse, it might carry less, but it will be an interesting ride. You pick the tool that’s best for you at that time.

[RICHARD L.]

I use "primes" only in medium-format (645Z). My kit (for the moment) is an FA 35 mm f/3.5, a DFA 55 mm f/2.8, an FA 120 mm f/4, an FA 200 mm f/4 and an FA* 300 mm f/4. This covers about all my needs but it almost takes a llama to carry the whole kit ... lol !

Regards

[pres589]

So you're using primes for a system which all but requires larger, heavier glass instead of a fewer number of zooms. But when considering the smaller system, you say primes are "unsatisfactory" and go to a consumer-grade zoom? Doesn't compute.

Back to the subject at hand, or at least what I thought it was, often when I'm out with a full frame camera and a 50 I end up wishing it was a 40. I don't know why more systems and more companies didn't work harder on the 40mm focal length. It's too bad that AOC didn't work harder to producing a competitor to Konica's 40mm f1.8 unless the FA 43 was supposed to be that lens. Which I doubt in the extreme.

[RICHARD L.]

ou say primes are "unsatisfactory"

I said IF they find them unsatisfactory, then why bother ?, not that they ARE unsatisfactory. I have 5 medium-format 645 FA zooms but I'm using only some of my 645 primes this summer.

Regards

[reh321]

I suppose people who use primes like them and really don't care about opinion of people who do not?

You could at least avoid using the pronoun “we”.
There is a reason Pentax sells both prime and zoom lenses.

[jersey]

You weren't even in this discussion before so your ego must be really huge to think that my "we" had anything to do with you.

[reh321]

You weren't even in this discussion before so your ego must be really huge to think that my "we" had anything to do with you.

or your ego is very large to think that most others agree with you.
Just say “I “ and clearly state what your experience is.

Mine are all primes apart from the DA 55-300 PLM and the manual Tamron Adaptall 35-70.
I like using primes and zooms but definitely use the primes more and take out what I know will suit where I am going (I sometimes take three of the Ltds with me and swap a lens if I think one would work better than the others).
What someone uses is entirely up to them isn't it?
*Oh and the 20-40 Ltd I just bought!

[richard0170]

I like primes because they are smaller (excepting the more modern ones which seem to be overly large) and are therefore easier to carry, and because they impose a discipline on one and I find they make compositional choices easier. Clearly there is also a case for zooms though. One can not always "use your feet to zoom". Nor can one always carry a bagful of lenses around or indeed want to. Each to their own I say.
Personally I have long been a fan of the 40-45mm FF or equivalent field of view. However, I find location can make a big difference to whether a wider or narrower one is better.