Primes. Do theu really make you a better photog?

[Derrel]

i do mostly portrait, so i sold a 70-200, 24-70 17-55, bought a 24, 50, 85 and 135 for less than i sold all 3 and invested the left over money on more lighting.

That sounds so lovely.

Mark

Replacing 183 different focal lengths with FOUR individual lengths, and completely ditching the entire range from 17 to 24mm, meaning ALL of the real wide-angle potential gone. Oh, and getting rid of the entire range from 136 to 200mm. Lovely.

 

[o hey tyler]

i do mostly portrait, so i sold a 70-200, 24-70 17-55, bought a 24, 50, 85 and 135 for less than i sold all 3 and invested the left over money on more lighting.

That sounds so lovely.

Mark

Replacing 183 different focal lengths with FOUR individual lengths, and completely ditching the entire range from 17 to 24mm, meaning ALL of the real wide-angle potential gone. Oh, and getting rid of the entire range from 136 to 200mm. Lovely.

I'd say so as well.

 

[sovietdoc]

i do mostly portrait, so i sold a 70-200, 24-70 17-55, bought a 24, 50, 85 and 135 for less than i sold all 3 and invested the left over money on more lighting.

That sounds so lovely.

Mark

Replacing 183 different focal lengths with FOUR individual lengths, and completely ditching the entire range from 17 to 24mm, meaning ALL of the real wide-angle potential gone. Oh, and getting rid of the entire range from 136 to 200mm. Lovely.

Hmm...sounds like shooting yourself in the foot to me...

 

[pixmedic]

That sounds so lovely.

Mark

Replacing 183 different focal lengths with FOUR individual lengths, and completely ditching the entire range from 17 to 24mm, meaning ALL of the real wide-angle potential gone. Oh, and getting rid of the entire range from 136 to 200mm. Lovely.

Hmm...sounds like shooting yourself in the foot to me...

assuming of course, that they NEED those focal ranges. the wide angle shots are gone, but human zoom works wonders for the long ends. not ALWAYS applicable obviously, but you have to tailor your lenses to what you shoot. If you can pin the majority of your shots to those ranges plus what you can move on foot, then by going all fixed focal you have the best aperture ranges available, need less lighting, and you get the best image quality for that focal length. honestly, it doesn't sound too terrible to me. But im no pro so...take my opinions with a grain of salt :mrgreen:

 

[Solarflare]

And if you carried enough primes to match the focal lengths available on the zoom.. you would have MORE expense.. and a lot MORE weight!

Well, since that would be an infinite number of lenses - yes, obviously.

But if, instead of grabbing a 24mm-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8, I grab say a 50mm and a 135mm, I have less weight and more aperture, and high image quality. Yes I dont have all focal lengths. But I have other advantages now.

 

[Kolia]

As long as you manage to get the shoot, who cares you did it with a prim 135mm or zoomed at 135mm ?

Stop trying to validate your choices, it just shows you are insecure in your decision ! Lol !

 

[cgipson1]

And if you carried enough primes to match the focal lengths available on the zoom.. you would have MORE expense.. and a lot MORE weight!

Well, since that would be an infinite number of lenses - yes, obviously.

But if, instead of grabbing a 24mm-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8, I grab say a 50mm and a 135mm, I have less weight and more aperture, and high image quality. Yes I dont have all focal lengths. But I have other advantages now.

Whatever!

 

[Kolia]

.My parents weren't ever very big into photography it they had an old manual film camera and I rarely find an over or underexposed shot in our albums of several hundred 4x6's

Those are the pictures that made it in the album. The bad exposure ones have been thrown away !

I have a few albums from my early 35mm Rebel period. They are all nice looking. The 3 legal document size boxes of photos in the attic tho are full of note so great snapshots !!! Lol.

 

[sovietdoc]

Lol yeah, people that post amazing pics on flickr usually shoot a few thousands shots and then chose 1 or 2. You don't just take a shot and its super great. You gotta do different ones and then choose the best one. It was slightly different with film but with digital, that's how it is now

 

[ghache]

i do mostly portrait, so i sold a 70-200, 24-70 17-55, bought a 24, 50, 85 and 135 for less than i sold all 3 and invested the left over money on more lighting.

That sounds so lovely.

Mark

Replacing 183 different focal lengths with FOUR individual lengths, and completely ditching the entire range from 17 to 24mm, meaning ALL of the real wide-angle potential gone. Oh, and getting rid of the entire range from 136 to 200mm. Lovely.

Your right. If i need to shoot at 200. I will get a 200mm and use it. I don't shoot portraits with a 17, 24 is wide enough for me to do whatever i need to do. I dont take self portrait of my fat self in a mirror so using a lens that wide is no use to me.

 

[Kolia]

I hope you "Prime Guys" don't crop your pictures in post !!!

That would be cheating...

 

[o hey tyler]

I hope you "Prime Guys" don't crop your pictures in post !!!

That would be cheating...

Why?

 

[unpopular]

I never crop for the purpose of getting closer. Usually it's for aspect ratio.

 

[Alex_B]

For many years I used primes only with slide film.
I never felt leaving out continuous ranges of focal lengths was a limitation ... even though with slide film you do not crop.

 

[Derrel]

That sounds so lovely.

Mark

Replacing 183 different focal lengths with FOUR individual lengths, and completely ditching the entire range from 17 to 24mm, meaning ALL of the real wide-angle potential gone. Oh, and getting rid of the entire range from 136 to 200mm. Lovely.

Hmm...sounds like shooting yourself in the foot to me...

Yeah...even though a headshot would be more up his alley...

Newbies often become enamored of certain Canon primes they hear talked up on the internet...they often even have nicknames for their primes..."the plastic fantastic"; the "Prime pipe"; and so on. Humorous.