[Cosmo]

Hm, are you sure 300mm + wouldn't be a safer option for this subject?

No, man up and shoot 28mm on film.

[redpigeons]

that's a whole new topic

[legacyb4]

Without realizing it, I'm starting to head in that direction with a 21, 24, 28, 35, 43, 50, 77, 85, 100 in the bag. I'll pass on the medium prime telephotos (135 range) and lust after a 300.

is it ever really possible to finish a prime lens set there are so many each with its own quirks soon you find out that after buying some primes you end up with 21,24,28,30,35,43,50,55,58,77,85,105,135,150,200,300 and still going

Lenses are like a poor man's garage full of Ferraris; you pick your flavor depending on your mood and run with it for the day!

Aren't you bothered that you have to change lens continuously? How do you do practically? how do you plan?

[Just1MoreDave]

Hi guys, I'm a newbie so... sorry for the question!

Aren't you bothered that you have to change lens continuously?
How do you do practically? how do you plan?

PS: you forgot the 14mm!

Planning starts by thinking about what you might shoot on this outing, choosing to bring focal lengths that will work. Having an organized camera bag is important, because a lot of primes are similar in size and shape. Then you have to think ahead a bit to have the right lens on the camera and/or be in the correct position. A lens change can only take ten to fifteen seconds, if you have the second lens in your hand, oriented so it will go in the camera. If your camera bag is organized well enough, you can probably get the whole process of putting the front cap on the old one, selecting a new lens, removing its rear cap, releasing the old lens, installing the new one, capping the old one and putting it back in the bag in less than 30 seconds. Oh, take the new front lens cap off, I always forget something.

Yes, you may miss shots or find yourself in a situation outside of the plan. It is not against the law to carry a zoom and use that too. Even if you always use zooms, learning to plan ahead will help. Zooms can't cover everything either, so lens changes are necessary.

[redpigeons]

Planning starts by thinking about what you might shoot on this outing, choosing to bring focal lengths that will work. Having an organized camera bag is important, because a lot of primes are similar in size and shape. Then you have to think ahead a bit to have the right lens on the camera and/or be in the correct position. A lens change can only take ten to fifteen seconds, if you have the second lens in your hand, oriented so it will go in the camera. If your camera bag is organized well enough, you can probably get the whole process of putting the front cap on the old one, selecting a new lens, removing its rear cap, releasing the old lens, installing the new one, capping the old one and putting it back in the bag in less than 30 seconds. Oh, take the new front lens cap off, I always forget something.

Yes, you may miss shots or find yourself in a situation outside of the plan. It is not against the law to carry a zoom and use that too. Even if you always use zooms, learning to plan ahead will help. Zooms can't cover everything either, so lens changes are necessary.

saying that ... I rarely ever feel the need to change a lesson a random day on the street. I use medium wide lenses and I use my legs to get closer if I need to.

in situation where you would need to switch focal length often like wedding photography for example when you need to instantly switch between portraits and group shots ... obviously a zoom would be the better choice

I still think that the fact that I started shooting with a normal prime helped me learn better. and get some better shots then I would have with a zoom

[axl]

Ha...
I'm not alone then. I have all the 3 exact same lenses as you redpigeons but I have DA40 in the mix too. As such I then tend to use either 24/40 or 31/50 combo. And like you I'm lusting for 77 (though I'd be happy with 70 too).
For now I have extremes covered differently, but 20/2.8 and 77 would be nice.
Butfor now I'm really happy with:
Sigma 10-20 (mostly used as10mm prime), Sigma 24, FA31, DA40, F50/1.7 and Sigma 105.

[kthung]

Almost completed?? What are you talking about??

You're still missing the DA 14mm, DA 15mm ltd, FA* 24mm f2.0, FA 35mm f2.0, DA 35mm ltd macro, FA 43mm ltd, FA 50mm f1.4, A 50mm f1.2, FA 77mm ltd, FA* 85mm f1.4....etc

[ILoveVerdi]

I must be doin' it wrong, I keep buying more 50s.

[Bart]

I must be doin' it wrong, I keep buying more 50s.

It's a hint: your subconscious wants a FF where the 50mm would be 'normal' - again.

[séamuis]

I have 4 55mm takumars... my prime collection will never be complete im afraid.

[redpigeons]

It's a hint: your subconscious wants a FF where the 50mm would be 'normal' - again.

I am hinting Pentax too
that's is why I posted this thread. we are buying 35mm lenses give us 35mm digital camera please.

[ILoveVerdi]

It's a hint: your subconscious wants a FF where the 50mm would be 'normal' - again.

You're right, that's why the 50mm 1:2 came with a K1000 on the end of it

[Bart]

I am hinting Pentax too
that's is why I posted this thread. we are buying 35mm lenses give us 35mm digital camera please.

Motion seconded!
But then, I read 'some guy' Ned said even the 31mm would be next to worthless on a modern day FF (digital that is)
If only we would get the chance to verify this!

You're right, that's why the 50mm 1:2 came with a K1000 on the end of it

That's strange. For me it was the other way around: my SP500 came with a super Tak 50mm 1:1.4 on the other end

But then again, that was a long time ago.

[eyou]

from your list of limiteds youre going to have to get a 43mm after the 77mm. it is inevitable....

[séamuis]

Motion seconded!
But then, I read 'some guy' Ned said even the 31mm would be next to worthless on a modern day FF (digital that is)
If only we would get the chance to verify this!

if this were true, then canon and nikon would have been in trouble a long time ago. most of their current lenses especially the primes are based on film era lenses. besides. if the 31 does great on film and great on aps-c digital why would it all of a sudden suck on FF digital? if it were bad enough to be 'worthless' on FF digital we would see serious hints of that on aps-c. and the truth is we dont. its performance would be similar to what you would expect from a low ASA high resolution colour film such as velvia or the like. 'worthless'? I think that comment is worthless...