The use of prime lenses?

~D~

~D~

~D~

Associate
Joined
20 Jan 2007
Posts
352
I'll be honest and say I am a noob when it comes to camera lenses but I just want to know what is the benefit of prime lenses in the modern market?

I've read that the image quality produced isn't much worse with zoom lenses any more and zooms have the obvious advantages of allowing for flexibility when it comes to composition.

The only benefit I can find is that primes have a larger aperture. Is this reason enough to spend money on a entire new lens?

I was looking at a 35mm prime earlier but this range is covered in my kit lens - so if I were to buy this would the only benefits be a much shallower depth of field and being able to use a lower ISO? (as well as better image quality).
 
Higher image quality and faster aperture are the main advantages, as you mentioned. They're also often relatively small/light (50mm f1.8/f1.4 for example).
 
Primes are generally much sharper. I did 2 identical portrait shoots at our school this year, the first with my Sigma 30 f1.4 prime and the 2nd with my Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 and there's no comparison. At 100%, looking at the eyes, the 30 f1.4 just blows the 17-70 out of the water.

My 17-70 isn't soft, but it's left behind by any half-decent prime.

Some zooms are highly regarded for their sharpness - on the Nikon side the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and Nikon 70-200 f2.8 are all held in very high regard for their sharpness, but even then a good prime will easily beat them. I'd actually kill for an 85 f1.4.
 
Unless I have an extra body, I can't get away with using a prime as I rely too much on the flexibility of a zoom. :(

I'm one who will sacrife that super sharp shot for just a sharp shot ;)

(I need more money to buy more gear :( )
 
Many zoom lens suffer from distortion also, barrelling at wide end and pin cushion at the long end. Prime lens dont have this problem as its designed for 1 focal length in mind.
 
There are something that a zoom lens just cannot do well.

True Macro capabilities
Close focussing (even if not macro)
Tilt-shift (TS)/ Perspective control (PC)
Defocus Control (DC)
Very large apertures (1.2/1.4 lenses)
The Brokeh is often nicer (e.g. Nikon 85 1.4)

Making high quality telephotos is very difficult. The best there is is Nikon's 200-400 f/4, which despite being the very best exotic telephoto zoom is handily beaten by all primes in its range. There is no high quality zoom that goes to 600mm etc. Yes, Sigma make some stupid lenses but their IQ is not desirable.
 
D.P. said:
Making high quality telephotos is very difficult. The best there is is Nikon's 200-400 f/4... Yes, Sigma make some stupid lenses but their IQ is not desirable.
Click to expand...

The 200-500 f2.8, as ridiculous as it may be actually has pretty decent IQ.

2uo00m9.jpg


Obviously, it's not prime level but still :D
 
cyclopopcicle said:
any chance of seeing those two?
Click to expand...
Not about to upload photos of our kids publicly :P

But here's a 100% crop of the left eye of the same individual. For the 2nd batch (kids who were missing or I was retaking) I used the 17-70mm at 50mm (wanted to be a bit further away). I regret doing so a touch, but they were all fully usable - just at 100% they're not exactly great.

Straight from the RAW file.

sigma30mm_crop.jpg

D300, Sigma 30 f1.4 @ f9 1/125

sigma17-70mm_50_crop.jpg

D300, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 @ 50mm, f9, 1/125
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom