fixed focal vs. zoom

[AndrewG]

but what I mean is not in the case of having 3 or 4 lenses, its in the case of having a 50mm only...and you see something that's a bit out of reach...with another you should be able to get it whilst with a 50mm you might not be able to and miss out on a great shot opportunity...thats what i mean..

You just have to work a bit harder to get that shot-it might involve walking!

 

[ShutterGlam]

Well, I have the 50mm (fixed focal) and I absolutely love it for shooting portraits. It focuses in on the subject and blurs everything surrounding it. I love it and you can buy them used as cheap as $80. In my opinion every photographer should have it in their kit because it's so inexpensive and they produce a great portrait. Once I got mine it has barely left my Nikon D90.
But....at the same time I love having the option of a zoom lens because it gives me the ability to get subjects that are farther away.

 

[flyin-lowe]

What brought this back to life? I was ready to get on Google and try to figure out what this new stimulus check was all about, then I realized then thread is a year and a half old

 

[patrickt]

I started shooting before zooms so I still have a soft spot for primes. That said, it's primes for superior optics and zooms for convenience. I really enjoy using my 35mm, 50mm, 77mm, and 100mm but on a day-to-day basis I normally leave home with my 17-70 zoom on the camera.

I live and shoot in a city and of course you can shoot a prime and move back and forth as you compose. But, it really isn't always practical. I got quite angry at a tourist who had a wide-angle prime on his camera so he joined the Easter Procession of Silence to take pictures. That meant no one else could take pictures with having a fat tourist in ridiculous shorts in his shot.

 

[Josh66]

but what I mean is not in the case of having 3 or 4 lenses, its in the case of having a 50mm only...and you see something that's a bit out of reach...with another you should be able to get it whilst with a 50mm you might not be able to and miss out on a great shot opportunity...thats what i mean..

I may be a little late replying...but-

For the cost of ONE good zoom, you could buy two, or probably three good primes.

Why would you only have a 50mm?

I think 50, 85, and 135 would be ideal - but that's me.

It sounds like you're comparing a good prime to a crap zoom. Primes are cheaper, that's a fact - not open for discussion. A zoom of the same quality as a prime will cost several times more. Not to mention that there are no (or very few, and very expensive) zooms that are as fast as the primes that are readily available.

Name one f/1.4 zoom. Heck, even 1.8. I don't know of any (that doesn't mean there aren't any). 2.8 is usually the fastest zoom you'll find.

 

[bp4life71]

I think professionals who work doing weddings, events etc. will have primes because the quality, as everyone states is superior.

For the other 99%, its all about convience...and a prime lense is NOT convenient. It is human nature, that if you have to go a few extra steps, then you just wont do it.

Personally, not having a zoom would be a complete Pain in the rear. If I was a pro doing portraits, then i certainly would have some primes...but guess what....99% of us are not pro and just take pictures as a hobby.

I'll be getting the 50mm 1.8 soon. This will be the only prime that I ever own unless I find one laying on the ground or get one as a gift. The only reason i'm getting this one is because my wife owns a daycare center (160 kids) and on holidays the children get their pictures taken with santa, easter bunny etc.

The question is this, are you trying to make money off your pictures? If the answer is no, then the IQ between the prime and a good zoom are not going to matter.

This is all just my opinion and not based on anything I researched.

 

[Josh66]

...but guess what....99% of us are not pro and just take pictures as a hobby.

...So you should settle for crappy gear? Maybe not "crappy", but certainly not "optimal".

How much money you make from your photography shouldn't determine the quality of gear you buy...

 

[Josh66]

It is human nature, that if you have to go a few extra steps, then you just wont do it.

You might be lazy, but here you are implying that all humans are just as lazy as you.

Taking two or three steps is not very hard for me to do. If you can't manage that, maybe you should just stick to your zooms...

 

[bp4life71]

...but guess what....99% of us are not pro and just take pictures as a hobby.

...So you should settle for crappy gear? Maybe not "crappy", but certainly not "optimal".

How much money you make from your photography shouldn't determine the quality of gear you buy...

I didn't say you had to have crappy gear even if its just your hobby. My meaning and intent was to say, the difference in quality for what MOST hobbyists do, ie. saving on their computer and no big prints, would not even be noticed...so is it worth the money for that 500.00 hobbyist lense as opposed to that 1500.00 lense. That is what I was implying.

As far as your laziness post, what I was meaning is that most people would not walk that extra 50 yards to grab a shot, as most hobbyists are just taking pictures with no intent on getting that BEST shot.

Again, I would say that most people on this forum (including myself) would take the extra steps to get that photo...but reality is, the fact your on this website constantly means you are a more die-hard hobbyist. Im talking about the general public as a whole.

Who pissed in your cornflakes by the way?

 

[bp4life71]

I'll also say this, the people on this forum have been incredibly helpful...but i'll also say, I have never been on a forum where there is also so many incredibly rude people. I guess you have to take it with a grain of salt....or maybe thats normal for people in the photo realm. I dont know, I'm new to this so can't say for sure, but there is ALOT of very rude people here.

Maybe mad because they can't sell their pictures after buying all that top notch equipment? Wink!

 

[DScience]

SpEEEEED!

 

[burstintoflame81]

I am a newbie but here is my two cents anyway. I just got a canon 85mm USM F 1.8 prime and love it. It is fast, it shoots better in low light, and I have a 2x kinko teleconverter if I want to make it longer. I will probably get the 50mm next, but the little use that the 85mm has gotten so far lets me know that it was a good choice.


If you want speed, low light shooting, and also sharper AF, go with the Prime. If you are worried about needing distance. You can get a teleconverter for like $70 bucks and a 50mm prime f1.8 for $99 just incase you need to bump up to 100mm and sacrifice a little.


Think of your average zoom as the old saying "Jack of all trades, king of none" It covers all of the bases but makes sacrifices to do it. A prime is a no nonsense quality lense that does one job...take good pictures, and thats all. ( well usually anyway )

 

[fiveoboy01]

but what I mean is not in the case of having 3 or 4 lenses, its in the case of having a 50mm only...and you see something that's a bit out of reach...with another you should be able to get it whilst with a 50mm you might not be able to and miss out on a great shot opportunity...thats what i mean..

I see what you're saying, but the counter-argument is that what if there is very little light and/or you either are not allowed to use flash or your flash won't illuminate the subject due to distance? At the least you can get a shot and crop it. Ideal maybe not, but better than no image at all, or a blurry image due to a slow shutter speed.

Both types definitely have their places, and I wouldn't give up either of my primes, nor either of my zooms... Not having to dick with the zoom function actually allows you to focus on the composition. I've found that I notice more things in the frame(that shouldn't be there) with a prime vs. a zoom.

 

[klikdimitri]

Going with prime lens or zoom lens is always a basic question for beginner, including myself. Currently I have both zoom and prime lenses for different purposes. If you want only 1 all-round lens then go for mid zoom lense such as 17-85mm or 18-55mm and it will serve you for most of your need. Should your budget permit, go for 'fast lens' such as f/2.8 to enable you to shoot at low light without having to use flashlight. I almost do not use any flashlight since I love the natural tone.
However, nor of my zoom lenses can compete the clarify, crisp and blur effect (bokeh) of my 50mm f/1.4 lens which has been my favourite lense for close up low light lens.
So, you have to decide which way to go. As for me, I went for both.

 

[Dao]

I'll be getting the 50mm 1.8 soon. This will be the only prime that I ever own unless I find one laying on the ground or get one as a gift.

Once you get a fast prime lens, your decision may change.

Fast prime lenses are fun to play with (of course, I am not a pro). And they usually cost less than a good quality zoom lens.