[ivoire]

Sounds like a 16-45mm and a 55-300 would be good additions for you. you'd have the benefit of image quality with your primes and versatility with the additions. convenience is always nice.

[Eruditass]

you said anyone to find non-zooms limited has "primus envy." I suppose I misinterpreted that as you think it is nonsense. If that was a misinterpretation, you can ignore my following statements. Then say they are less limited than zooms for you, acknowledging it is different for other people, so anyone in your previous statement is a contradiction. My philosophy logic is coming out, that is all. I acknowledged that they both have limitations in my post.

I'm not seeing a contradiction. For me, size, weight and speed are more important than zoom.
I also find that prime lenses give me overall better image quality than the few zooms I have tried over the years, including the 16-45, 16-50, 50-135, 17-70 and 60-250.
This makes zooms more limiting than primes for my shooting style.
I did break down and buy a 60-250 simply because Pentax seems uninterested in completing their lens line and has no primes between 77mm and 200mm.I've had a 12-24 for a few years for the same reason on the wide end.
It's a compromise I'm not especially happy about having to make, though the lenses seem to work well enough.
I had a 14/2.8 but wanted the extra width of the 12mm FL for interiors. I've since sold the 14 in favour of the 15LTD for size considerations.
The 14, while excellent, is just too big.

What other people do doesn't matter to me. How you do your photography is your business, and I could care less about it. I'm just passing on what works for me.

[Wheatfield]

you said anyone to find non-zooms limited has "primus envy." I suppose I misinterpreted that as you think it is nonsense. If that was a misinterpretation, you can ignore my following statements. Then say they are less limited than zooms for you, acknowledging it is different for other people, so anyone in your previous statement is a contradiction. My philosophy logic is coming out, that is all. I acknowledged that they both have limitations in my post.

You just need to take your sense of humour out for exercise every now and again.

[Wheatfield]

I think primes are much more limiting compared to zooms. If u really wanted u can just pop the zoom to a certain focal length and not touch it virtually making it the same as a prime in FL terms.

How about lens speed?
How about portability?
How about flare resistance?
How about IQ?

[Pioneer]

I find that I am carrying and using my prime lenses more often then my zooms, mostly because I am still learning and I want to ensure that the IQ of the lens is not the limiting factor. That being said however I don't think I would want to be without my zooms. I actually own both of the DA kit zooms, as well as several others from my old film days, and they are always with me on my trips because they are so handy. In fact, the 18-55 kit lens is so light I wrap it in a sock and carry it in my vest pocket even, when I am out shooting with a single prime.

I recently ran through a lot of the pictures I've taken with my zooms and have found that all but very few of the pictures have been taken at the 28, 50 (or 55)and 80mm focal lengths. Those few that were not in that range were out at the 200mm end of the kit zoom, because there was something specific that I was trying to hone in on. Less then a handful of my recent shots have been at the 18mm end because I am trying to learn when and how to use the extreme wide angle. Based on that information I could probably carry my primes in that focal length and rarely miss the zoom.

To go even further, most of my 28mm and 200mm shots are either landscape or animals and my manual focus lenses seem to be my favorites for this. The shots taken in the 50 to 85mm range are almost always people shots (grandkids, etc.) so these almost always require a good autofocus lens. Were it not for my LBA I could probably be perfectly happy with 4 primes in the 20mm to 80mm range and a 5th long telephoto.

But...so many lenses, so little time

[Eruditass]

You just need to take your sense of humour out for exercise every now and again.

Given your last response:

What other people do doesn't matter to me. How you do your photography is your business, and I could care less about it. I'm just passing on what works for me.

My brain told my sense of humor that it should go on a lunch break.

How about lens speed?
How about portability?
How about flare resistance?
How about IQ?

The first is limiting with regards to creativity, but less so composition. The rest are not applicable to composition (see thread title), but definitely versatility (which I allude to in the OP), and of course the final product, particularly when taking into account price.

[Blue]

In situations where I have needed 2 FL but wanted the IQ that I could get from using primes, I have used 2 bodies (even 3 a few times).

Edit: I currently have 3 AF zooms (counting the F 35-70mm) and I'm planning on getting down to 1. In fact, I'm going to do the same thing on my manual focus bodies.

[Pentaxor]

the only limit factor here is the time consumed in switching lenses. for some people, especially those with only one camera, using a zoom is very handy especially in those situations where you need to take a snapshot every second and not missing out on the good stuff.

for those who have the time in the world or fast-switching people, the primes would do just fine. and btw, why do you think some photographers carry and use 2-3 cameras all at once?

[Eruditass]

the only limit factor here is the time consumed in switching lenses. for some people, especially those with only one camera, using a zoom is very handy especially in those situations where you need to take a snapshot every second and not missing out on the good stuff.

for those who have the time in the world or fast-switching people, the primes would do just fine. and btw, why do you think some photographers carry and use 2-3 cameras all at once?

It's clear why some photographers carry and use 2-3 cameras at once, but that's not the scope of this thread.

I mentioned time is not a factor to be considered.

[stevebrot]

the only limit factor here is the time consumed in switching lenses. for some people, especially those with only one camera, using a zoom is very handy especially in those situations where you need to take a snapshot every second and not missing out on the good stuff.

for those who have the time in the world or fast-switching people, the primes would do just fine. and btw, why do you think some photographers carry and use 2-3 cameras all at once?

There is the time issue and also the difficulty of doing a lens swap on a narrow dirt trail on a steep hillside with nowhere to set bag, camera, or lens down. Add in a little gentle drip from the trees and...well, I think you get the idea!

I love my primes, but sometimes a zoom is the best tool for the job.

Steve

[Rondec]

It really depends on the situation. The only time that I feel that primes restrict me are when I don't have room to back up (or zoom with my feet). You can crop some, but you can't make a photo wider than it is. For family get togethers, I would rather stick the 16-50 on the camera, but if I am going out on a hike, the DA 35 or 40 is going to be perfect.

[ll_coffee_lP]

the only limit factor here is the time consumed in switching lenses. for some people, especially those with only one camera, using a zoom is very handy especially in those situations where you need to take a snapshot every second and not missing out on the good stuff.

for those who have the time in the world or fast-switching people, the primes would do just fine. and btw, why do you think some photographers carry and use 2-3 cameras all at once?

I think your comments make a lot of sense, however I'll throw something else in the mix...(not directed at you, directed at the overall thread).

I have one zoom (I have the DA 10-17mm, but I use it as a double f/l prime) and I almost never use it. Like wheatfield...I don't like the size, weight, or the limits of f/2.8 (I shoot almost exclusively between f/2 - f/4).

For me...using my feet to zoom is 100% acceptable (edit: I don't shoot landscapes, but I could see why this would matter), and I don't particularly care about the f/l, as long as it falls between 30mm and 75mm.

My primes have been hand picked because they provide something specific to the photo, be it bokeh, 3D, centre sharpness, etc. Because of this I decide in advance what I want the images to look like and put on the appropriate lens...f/l rarely matters to me. I have multiple f/l's as well to cover that base if needed, but it rarely comes into play.

Also...I frequently shoot with two bodies at the same time. This isn't because I require separate f/l's...it's because I want two distinct types of images, as well as a second camera for back up.

For example...I recently shot a wedding using only 3 lenses. The entire ceremony was shot with FA50, the portraits afterwards by FA77, and a couple of large group shots by DA10-17 (at 17mm). I changed one camera from it's prime to the FE, then back again as my only lens changes in the space of 6 hours of shooting.

Just some food for thought...

c[_]

[Eruditass]

My point is that with zooms, I use my feet to zoom as well, or rather decouple framing from perspective changes. This is impossible on a Prime, but possible in discrete steps with multiple primes.

The bokeh, 3D, and other unique rendering properties are a great point to throw into the mix, albeit hard to quantify. I'd say under the scope of this thread it is the one thing primes may be able to offer over zooms, though I have not personally experienced it yet.

[Eruditass]

I think I'm going to keep the kit zoom and the cheap 70-300 zoom I have now, for those times when I need them, but I am leaning towards Takumars for my primes.
I have a 50, and I am planning for a 28 and maybe something in the range of 100-200 teleprime, too. I'm thinking of sticking with m42 to save the time of changing the adapter, and for the quality of the Takumar line. I have a Tamron adaptall 28mm that I love, but I think I'll switch to a Takumar instead.
I like the IQ of the primes, and I am willing to miss a shot now and then as I learn (re-learn) to manual focus quickly and accurately.

Oops... your question!
I think you will miss some shots by only using primes - those times when you really cannot get closer, or change your view enough to get the composition you want. However, I think the trade off is for IQ and ultimately improving your photography by forcing you to re-think and recompose your shots. Just my 2 cents!

Having a bunch of M42 lenses is a great idea, it certainly is a paint to take off the adapter. I definitely need to try out some taks as I have heard their rendering is quite unique.

I've been quite interested in Tamron adaptalls as some of their lenses seem very highly regarded, both zoom and prime. The PKA adapter seems expensive and not completely reliable, however.

I have yet to take a day out with only MF primes but when I do I think I may see the pain of a non-split-image focusing screen!