Ditching zoom lens for prime!

Dunks

Dunks

Dunks

Soldato
Joined
31 Oct 2004
Posts
8,691
Location
London
Hey guys,

I'm currently in the process of getting rid of my Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and replacing it with a Sigma 50mm f/1.4!

I really don't have a specific type of photography that requires a range of focal lengths so hopefully switching to prime only for the near future will help me stop and think about photos and composition more often :)

Anyone here done anything similar? How'd it work out?
 
Recently have.

From the Tamron 17-50mm to the Sigma 30mm (although I'll be getting a zoom UWA lens sometime and have the 55-250mm).

I really like it. The pros, being compactness, fast and quicker af, outweigh the cons for me. I do miss zooming in and out a bit, but it'll probably help my composition.
 
Haven't ditched my zoom as for work where you need to be quick (press etc) they are invaluable, however for anything artistic/personal I'll reach for a prime every time, as you say it seems to make you think about the shot so much more.

Only zooms I'll happily go for now are, much like Razor says, an UWA and long telephotos.
 
i made that exact move as i went to a 1dmk3.

both really nice lenses for different reasons, i do miss the wideness of the 18-50 sometimes though
 
I'm still undecided, I just fear there being a situation where my 18-50 would have been perfect, but unless I can find ~£250 out of nothing, selling my 18-50 might be the only way to go :p
 
It's down to you. I wouldn't ditch the versatility of a zoom personally just for one lens - especially a 50mm on a crop body. Whilst You'll have the advantages of the prime, you will also be limited by it. Check your current shooting and see what focal length you prefer before deciding. If you're normally shooting at 50mm then maybe you won't see the swap as limiting. If you're shooting elsewhere, then you may do.

I would suggest the other option of keeping the zoom and buying the 50 1.8 (not as good in any way as the 1.4) but gives you the option of a significantly faster prime vs the zoom at only £50 ish second hand.
 
When I first started out with the kit lens, and wanted something faster/sharper I bought the 50mm 1.8 because that's what everyone recommended, and I wasn't sure of the focal length I usually shoot at at that point so I just went with it.

I hardly used the lens because for me it was just too long on a crop body for a general lens, so I sold it on. Having said that, for the price it really is a great lens as it's very sharp for sub £100. The af hunting in low light is terrible though.

I then made the step up to the Tamron 17-50 and for a year now I've been very happy with it as it's a versatile lens with great optics at a good price.

I realise I wanted something quicker (aperture wise) still and I realise that I don't really use the wide FL on the Tamron when just generally out and about (unless shooting landscapes/architecture, etc) and I wanted something wider than 17mm anyway for that kind of stuff.

Thus, coming to my decision to buy the Sigma 30mm and now debating which UWA lens to get.

---
I guess I'm saying is make sure you know that the lens you are buying will do what you want and is appropriate for what you're shooting.
Although if you're 'experimenting' as you're not sure yet, other than the hassle of buying and selling you wouldn't lose much money by changing lenses around as glass keeps their value usually.

Although naturally in the future, you'll probably want to change around anyway as you're shooting preference/style changes (read: develops/specialises) and you'll want better/sharper/quicker lenses.
 
Last edited:
I hardly use my 17-50mm since I bought the 30mm, it is handy when I can only take one lens on a day trip with the family though. I've also got a 50 and an 85.
 
I'm debating doing this as well, I have a 70-200 2.8 is which I very rarely use... to be fair I only bought it because it was a bit of a bargain and I didn't have anything in that focal range. I'm going to sell this lens and then invest in three primes as I reckon I can break even, main reason for this is I hope to do some more serious gig photography after summer and I will need some fast glass, probably looking at Sigma 30mm 1.4, Canon 50mm 1.4 and Sigma 85mm 1.4 if I buy those second hand I shouldn't be out of pocket and I see it as the best way to improve my photography as trying to get gig shots at 2.8 with no flash is a nightmare!
 
Ive tested my Nikkor 18-105 vs 1st gen AF Nikkor 50 1.8 & they both produce equally sharp results at 50mm but the zoom has more AP distortions (even with an ED lens) & the zoom has more contrast.
 
I have. I only use the Sigma 50 1.4 and Canon 10-22 for everything now.
When my work requires longer then I will get a longer prime but for now this is great!
 
I'm really tempted to get a 50mm or 30mm prime but can't decide between the two. I want something for portraits and fancy bokeh shots for my nikon D5100 but I'm not sure which would be better for that.
 
I have more primes than I have zooms.

If you forget the focal range, primes have better versatility in speed, sharpness and will result in a more cinematic feel due to the DoF.

I only use zooms only when the situations arises where the focal length changes drastically and quickly but kinda the same (like group formals, from family of 4 to group shots, I stick the 24-70 on, where it would be shot in F/2.8 to 5.6 anyway).
 
It's worth noting that, for Nikon at least, on the faster primes (24/35/50/85 f/1.4) the AF isn't as fast as the best zooms. It's just an engineering consideration (the depth of field is narrower, hence the AF must be more accurate) and it's not like they're slow but I do find it noticable comparing the 50/1.4 and 35/1.4 against the 24-70 f/2.8 which has AF which is close to instant. Just saying as if you're shooting moving stuff you may want the zoom.

That is of course not true of the telephoto primes which are generally excellent in every way as you'd expect...
 
I've only got the 1 prime. A nikkor 50 1.8 g. It's good and gives the nice bokeh when wide but the problem is it just doesn't get sharp till f4. At f4 there is really no difference between the 50 prime and my 18-105 zoom. Would love a prime that's pin sharp at 1.8. Then I might actualy use it more than I do.
 
I used to have several L zooms, and moved to an 85mm F1.8, 30mmF2 (Canon) and 100mm macro. I'm MUCH happier with the results. They're massively lighter and I prefer the depth of field opportunities with the wider apertures, that you could simply never get with most zooms. Sure, I don't take quite as many shots, but the ones I do are in my opinion better.
 
How would you guys rate the Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G (£199.99) or the 35 mm version for sharpness and general all round use + low light etc?
 
When I go out for a day I take a 35mm f2 and a 50mm f2 prime, 80% of the time I use the 50mm and if I could only have one lens it would 100% be the 50mm. I love not having a ton of gear and just working the 50 for what I'm trying to do.

It really depends on your shooting style though but for me I wouldn't have it any other way. :D
 
Mint_Sauce said:
When I go out for a day I take a 35mm f2 and a 50mm f2 prime, 80% of the time I use the 50mm and if I could only have one lens it would 100% be the 50mm. I love not having a ton of gear and just working the 50 for what I'm trying to do.

It really depends on your shooting style though but for me I wouldn't have it any other way. :D
Click to expand...

Thanks. I've spoken to a few others also and they are saying similar things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom