Primes. Do theu really make you a better photog?

I think the argument about primes held a lot more weight in the older days when zooms really were, at a technical level, worse than primes for performance. These days we've amazing zooms which can perform fantastically well - well enough that they significantly reduce the advantage of primes (at a technical level).

As for the argument of primes making you a "better" photographer. Eh the main argument there is that the prime removes a layer of choice and thought, which is what focal length to use. Primes give you one focal length, so you've got no choice unless you take the longer process of changing lenses - and if you're using more than one prime at an event chances are they'll have big differences in their angles of view so its really a clear choice as to which would suit best for a given shot.

This removal of a thought process essentially forces one to frame the shot with their feet, not with the zoom (honestly I doubt either approach is any more pure or perfect than the other) and it also means that since you're not shifting the zoom around youre able to devote more attention to the scene.

It's one of those things that, as you gain more experience, become a lesser issue as more of the cameras operation shifts to the back of your mind as second nature.



Also don't forget many that advocate primes grew up with primes; in their day zooms were bad (or at least worse than to a significant level). So many spent a greater part of their photographic experience shooting with primes. Just as many dislike the angles of view that crop sensors give; many dislike using primes - its not a "this is better than that" its a case that they are more comfortable with what they know and grew up with.



Prime VS zoom - in the end its really going to come down to you; your budget, your situation, what and how you like shooting etc... Put your criteria on the table and see how things line up for you. Heck if you want you can always use a zoom like a prime, just don't touch the zoom control.


I agree with this totally. Almost all zooms used to be totally wretched, the only one I found useful at all for many years was the Nikkor 43-86 and it was prized by many photographers because it actually had good glass and worked reasonably well. Most other zooms not so much. When I returned to photography my budget would not afford me buying several primes as I had in the past and I was forced to purchased to Nikkor Zooms an 18-55 and a 55-200. Both have done nothing but surprise me with their image quality. That was not my experience in the 80's and Early 90's for the most part.
 
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.

You say this because you've never developed your own pictures. Almost everything you can do in LR was done in a darkroom before.

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

That would be cheating...

Why?

Because it would be zooming with a prime. :) Meant to be taken as a jest.
 
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.

You say this because you've never developed your own pictures. Almost everything you can do in LR was done in a darkroom before.

... I wonder if I should read this as an insult ... ;) ... anyway, you know what slide film is and what is usually done with it?
 
Perhaps the question isn't "do primes make you a better photographer" but rather "does learning to use a prime teach you better photographic technique"
 
Perhaps the question isn't "do primes make you a better photographer" but rather "does learning to use a prime teach you better photographic technique"


You definitely have to think about how you are going to frame the shot more when using a prime lens versus using a zoom. With prime lenses it is move closer or further away, or changes lenses. With a zoom its zoom in or out , or changes lenses. Its much easier to compose and frame the shot with zooms, on the other hand I miss the faster f stops that many prime lenses have. I had many AI Nikkor lenses that were FAST , now I have two zoom lenses that are ok but not fast.

Now I am missing my old 50 f1.2 and my 85 f1.8 sighs.... I wonder who has my 180 f2.8 these days... ??
 
Alex_B said:
... I wonder if I should read this as an insult ... ;) ... anyway, you know what slide film is and what is usually done with it?

As in "diapositive" in french. I missed that one, my bad !
 
Markw said:
I guess you can't use DX cameras, either.

Mark

You miss the point. APS-C or FF, if you shoot with a prime and zoom in in post process by cropping the image instead of "with your feet" at the time the picture was taken, you're cheating the whole idea here discussed about learning to composed with a fixed focal length.

Wouldn't you be amused if a guy came to you claiming he's great at photography because he uses only primes but has to systematically crop his images ? I would !

I'm not pointing at anybody here. I find this topic very amusing because everybody is going off topic, pulling the blanket their way ! Lol !
 
Markw said:
I guess you can't use DX cameras, either.

Mark

You miss the point. APS-C or FF, if you shoot with a prime and zoom in in post process by cropping the image instead of "with your feet" at the time the picture was taken, you're cheating the whole idea here discussed about learning to composed with a fixed focal length.

Wouldn't you be amused if a guy came to you claiming he's great at photography because he uses only primes but has to systematically crop his images ? I would !

I'm not pointing at anybody here. I find this topic very amusing because everybody is going off topic, pulling the blanket their way ! Lol !

The cropping does not matter to me, but I would be amused if he claims to be a great photographer because of equipment (and primes are equipment). I usually judge by the images.
 
Kolia said:
You miss the point. APS-C or FF, if you shoot with a prime and zoom in in post process by cropping the image instead of "with your feet" at the time the picture was taken, you're cheating the whole idea here discussed about learning to composed with a fixed focal length.

Wouldn't you be amused if a guy came to you claiming he's great at photography because he uses only primes but has to systematically crop his images ? I would !

I'm not pointing at anybody here. I find this topic very amusing because everybody is going off topic, pulling the blanket their way ! Lol !

News flash: people who use zoom lenses crop their images too.

I guess they're cheating as well since they didn't zoom far enough to compose the shot the best they could.

I crop 7/10 images I process, and shoot all prime lenses. The way I see it is: Get exposure, general composition and focus nailed in the camera. Tweak the images lightly with a slim crop and straighten the verticals if you need to.

If you had two people with similar skill levels in photography shoot the same event, yet one was allowed to crop in post, and the other wasn't. I guarantee you that the person who was allowed to crop and straighten their images would have a stronger set.

I think you are the one who is arguing something that is irrelevant and pointless. But carry on as you will.
 
I do not get the whole thing about needing a zoom lens to "get closer" anyway. I do have primes and I do have zoom lenses, but the by far longest focal lengths in my case are primes. And if that wild animal is too far even for my longest prime and I cannot get closer, of course I will crop (unless it is slide film .. I do not like the tape method ;) )!

Oh, another comment:
I know a very very talented photographer, but does a lot of work without a tripod and can hardly ever get the image straight in camera. I would guess she straightens about 80% of her images in post. Nevertheless I would never call her a bad photographer, since the final images she delivers are outstanding and breathtaking.

I think as photographers we are too easily captured in the thought pattern, that there is only one valid or one golden route to the perfect image. No, there are many! Of course to each of us personally, the path to the finished image, our workflow, does have meaning. Also I do many things in a certain way beause I do like my processes and they are part of the whole fun in photography. But what counts in the end is the final product. In that respect we could all learn from our customers, at least from those customers who have some feeeling for composition and quality ;)
 
Some here need to work on their sense of humor!

Alex_B I agree with you (can't get the "like" button on the iPhone app apparently ?!?). Ultimate ways to reach our goal and how we get there is a large part of the fun.

Frank Doorof had an interesting view of the prime vs lens argument in his talk at B&H Photo. In street photography he prefers the zoom because, to him, it is more important to "get the shoot" and seize the moment. A zoom lens allows him to quickly reframe a random subject walking down the street, before that person walks out of range.

At the end of the day, all we see is the picture. The actual fun of how we got it isn't being told with it. So what ever floats your boat is fine.
 
"Multiple" can apparently be autocorrected to "Ultimate" by an iPhone apparently...

Multiple ways to get the shoot.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top