Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
Primes unless I am required to work on the fly at say a wedding / event. Casually always a prime.
Poll: Primes or Zooms - Lets have a poll
- Thread starter bigredshark
- Start date
I'd err slightly towards zooms, but I love primes as well. For me and what I shoot (landscape and wildlife) I don't normally need superfast lenses but I do need compact equipment more often than not. A decent zoom can provide me what two or three primes could, but in less space and weight. On the other hand anything longer than 300mm and it would have be a prime, unless space was really tight. I do also love my 35 f/2, but it could be a little wider a lot of the time, which leads me on to another negative with primes. For crop bodies primes are generally the wrong focal length to really work. FF bodies can nicely take advantage of the focal lengths provided for by common primes (24, 35, 50, 85 etc) but on crop bodies they generally end up a little bit in the middle of nowhere.
Associate
I'd quite like to see a poll for why most people prefer primes, e.g.
-image sharpness
-image quality (distortion, CA, flare etc...)
-wide apertures
-size/weight
-forced alternative shooting approach
Personally I'd love a set of primes but unless I'm getting paid ££££s for photos, my £200 Tamron 17-50 does 95% of what I need. It also zooms!
-image sharpness
-image quality (distortion, CA, flare etc...)
-wide apertures
-size/weight
-forced alternative shooting approach
Personally I'd love a set of primes but unless I'm getting paid ££££s for photos, my £200 Tamron 17-50 does 95% of what I need. It also zooms!
Associate
for me its the wide apertures and the sharpness when only stopped down a tad.
Soldato
Maybe, but generally the next lens down will match e.g.
17/18 = 24
24 = 35
35 = 50
50 = 85
85 = 120/130
Caporegime
I had that lens too, and I would totally agree with you, until I went and bought a 5Dii and 24-70L, then I thought that was better than the 17-50. Then I got some primes...
It comes down to one word most of the time.
Bokeh. Our brain LOVES it, absolutely LOVES it. You might not realise it in consciously but sub-consciously, we all LOVE bokeh.
The 2 stop advantage, the sharpness, contrasy result are just the icing on top.
True, guess it does do that.
Problem is it isn't quite the same and Canon have some real issues with small shorter focal length lenses. Most under 50mm are 20+ year old designs and lower quality in almost every way compared to the more modern zooms. The larger aperture primes are too big (and very expensive) but usually much newer.
Maybe one day Canon will release a load of new slower primes of reasonable price (like a 24 f/1.8/2, 28 f/1.8 and 35f/1.8 etc).
Last edited:
Caporegime
True, guess it does do that.
Problem is it isn't quite the same and Canon have some real issues with small shorter focal length lenses. Most under 50mm are 20+ year old designs and lower quality in almost every way compared to the more modern zooms. The larger aperture primes are too big (and very expensive) but usually much newer.
There's only a few under 50mm prime.
24L II is 2 years old.
35L is 12 years old (1998), pre DSLR. But It is anything BUT lower quality...the photos can speak for themselves.
Then Nikon didn't make a and 24/1.4 35/1.4 until last year, so up until 6 months ago, so if you shoot Nikon, you don't even have a choice of getting "lower quality" fast primes. Period.
Associate
One of the numerous reasons I've chosen not to get any pro lenses - indefinite upgrades!
I remember back in the day when the 18-55 kit was all I needed. Then I used a 50mm, then I heard about the Tamron...
Consumerism ftl.
Caporegime
The only way to curb the need to upgrade is to buy the most expensive glass in the focal length. lol
I said small, then went on to say the large aperture are too big (for my use).
I'm talking about lenses like the 24 f/2.8, 28 f/1.8 etc, all of which haven't been updated since the EOS system was introduced.
I'm not interested in the L primes as they are way too big for my needs (and don't really need 1.2/1.4 for landscapes...
With Nikon you could buy 2nd hand 28 1.4 AF-D and 35 1.4 AIS.
The updates were a long time coming though!
I said small, then went on to say the large aperture are too big (for my use).
I'm talking about lenses like the 24 f/2.8, 28 f/1.8 etc, all of which haven't been updated since the EOS system was introduced.
I'm not interested in the L primes as they are way too big for my needs (and don't really need 1.2/1.4 for landscapes...
I have the same problem with Nikon. I would love some updated 24 2.8, 20 4.0, 35 2.0. That is smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 1.4s, but every bit as sharp.
The problem is even worse for crop bodies. There are no 14/16mm 2.8 or 4.0 primes.
Caporegime
That doesn't count...it's MF.
I hate it when Nikon users say that, really bugs me. I mean who actually does that? I don't know ANY DSLR users put on a 30 year old MF lens on it and use it on a daily basis.
28/1.4 isn't MF, it's an AF-D lens and was fairly legendary for it's performance, indeed it still changes hands for above it's original price (and it's not like they only made 10 of them either).