Primes. Do theu really make you a better photog?

[dxqcanada]

"Primes. Do theu really make you a better photog?"

Nope, back in the old days ... SLR's came with a 50mm lens ... and there were lot's of bad images taken with them.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I am, (and have always been) of the impression that the better the equipment, the better one can become as a result of having it in their arsenal.

 

[dxqcanada]

Most of my lenses are primes ... my zoom lenses are just convenient (as I do not have to walk around four lenses stuck in various pockets)... the images I take are similar with both types.

 

[Markw]

Primes can be very versatile. You can shoot just about anything with a 50/1.4 and 135/2.8 or 2 or 1.8.

On the other hand, some primes are primes for a specified reason. Take, for example, the 14/2.8. On an FX camera, this is extremely wide. look gotten from an UWA lens is very specified. It has a distinct feel and look that really can't be changed. Objects in the background are compressed. The inverse is true with objects close to the lens.

No, it doesn't make you a better photographer. But, having a myriad of primes really makes you think about spacial compression and FOVs as well as DOF while you photograph. So, having a few select primes is probably a better learning method than having an 18-200/28-300. But, it doesn't mean the photos you take with the lenses will be any better than if you took them with the zoom. Either way, you have to know what you're doing with what you have to get the best photos YOU can make, not the lenses.

Mark

 

[belial]

Im aware that zooms can be used to take great photos as well. I guess I worded it wrong. I view being a "better photographer" as becoming knowledgable on a set of skills and versatile in a myriad of conditions. I was looking at this from a learning perspective

 

[Robin Usagani]

most newcomers with 50mm 1.8 think so.

 

[Solarflare]

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.

Well, thats actually still true, since the laws of optics havent decided to change since then.

But if you spend enough effort and dont oppose a lot of glass and weight, zooms can be as good as primes in most respects. Say a 2000$ Nikon Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII will get close to the 500$ Nikkor 85mm f/1.8. You still wont get the apertures of primes, though. And the zoom will be substantly larger and heavier.

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).

I dont understand enough about lens design to know if there was ever any "new enlightenment" about zoom design, like there was with the double-gauss lens for prime lenses. I think computers helped a lot, first to compute better lens constructions, and then to automatize the production.

But I would like to point out that prime lenses are still, well, "dirt cheap" compared to zoom lenses, and also much lighter and shorter. Ultimate quality glass, like for medium format, is still primes.

Also don't forget many that advocate primes grew up with primes

I'm photographing since 4 years and I have a DSLR since 2 months, and I already quite love prime lenses.

Just as many dislike the angles of view that crop sensors give

Thats however something I cant agree with. The "full frame" sensor was chosen arbitrarily, the crop factors are arbitrary as well, and medium format and large format dont even refer to any specific sensor size in the first place. So its really all pretty random. What sensor size do you want to have today ?

Also, if you double the size of the sensor, you have four times the sensor area, but you also have eight times the size and weight of the optics. So at a certain point, you have to give up and stop letting the optics grow with the sensor, resulting in much less light on your sensor.

And there is the effect of depth of field. Certainly, we can all agree we want some of that - its a very popular element to photography in general. However, depth of field can get so small that I've seen portraits where one eye was in focus, while the other was blurred. So at a certain point you're also forced to introduce the view camera, or make shift/tilt the default for all your lenses, in order to avoid insanely closed apertures and still get enough light onto your sensor.

So, if somebody says "crop factors are crap", they are refering to a belief system, not to actual facts. Every camera is a compromise, and that definititely also includes sensor size.

Heck if you want you can always use a zoom like a prime, just don't touch the zoom control.

Thats a nice exercise for a photography beginner, but wont give the maximum aperture and the weight and size advantages of a prime.

Well it probably means you will have faster glass...and what does that ultimately mean? Faster glass! :mrgreen:

I do agree that manufacturers need to make zooms faster

Not when you see the price you don't. You willing to pay $25,000 for a 24-70 f1.4?

More importantly, it will also be huge and impractically heavy in the first place, even if you could afford it.

[...] But, having a myriad of primes really makes you think about spacial compression and FOVs as well as DOF while you photograph. [...]

Having a myriad of lenses of any type is a bad idea.

 

[Dao]

I wonder if a person super glue his/her 17-55mm zoom lens so that it only works 55mm will all of a sudden become a better photographer.

If a person want to learn, it really does not matter if it is a zoom lens nor prime lens.

 

[cgipson1]

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.

Well, thats actually still true, since the laws of optics havent decided to change since then.

But if you spend enough effort and dont oppose a lot of glass and weight, zooms can be as good as primes in most respects. Say a 2000$ Nikon Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII will get close to the 500$ Nikkor 85mm f/1.8. You still wont get the apertures of primes, though. And the zoom will be substantly larger and heavier.

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!

 

[Kolia]

If a person want to learn, it really does not matter if it is a zoom lens nor prime lens.

My thought exactly.

Unless the person holding the camera decides to take a photograph, a snapshot will always be a snapshot.

 

[SCraig]

Primes can be very versatile. You can shoot just about anything with a 50/1.4 and 135/2.8 or 2 or 1.8.

Really? Tell me how to photograph a hawk on a fence post a hundred feet away with a 50mm or 135mm lens. If you try and walk closer they are going to fly, so that pretty much ends the "Zoom With Your Feet" argument.

There is a place for EVERY lens, that's why we have interchangeable lenses. There is not one single lens ever made, zoom or prime, that will cover every aspect of photography. It all depends on what YOU want to shoot.

The bulk of what I shoot is birds or wildlife. I seldom have any use for a prime lens because I can't control how close to me they are going to be, and walking up to them with a short lens is not an option. I don't even own any primes for my DSLR's because I find them too limiting given what I prefer to shoot. I do have a 17-70mm zoom that gets some occasional use but the majority of the time my 70-300 or 150-500 is on my camera.

 

[Markw]

Primes can be very versatile. You can shoot just about anything with a 50/1.4 and 135/2.8 or 2 or 1.8.

Really? Tell me how to photograph a hawk on a fence post a hundred feet away with a 50mm or 135mm lens. If you try and walk closer they are going to fly, so that pretty much ends the "Zoom With Your Feet" argument.

There is a place for EVERY lens, that's why we have interchangeable lenses. There is not one single lens ever made, zoom or prime, that will cover every aspect of photography. It all depends on what YOU want to shoot.

The bulk of what I shoot is birds or wildlife. I seldom have any use for a prime lens because I can't control how close to me they are going to be, and walking up to them with a short lens is not an option. I don't even own any primes for my DSLR's because I find them too limiting given what I prefer to shoot. I do have a 17-70mm zoom that gets some occasional use but the majority of the time my 70-300 or 150-500 is on my camera.

Well, I shot this at 200mm:

Not exactly at 150 feet away, but it was shot with my 80-200 zoom. I could have shot it with a 135/2.0 just as easily.

But, I completely see what you're saying, and I agree there. Of course not everything can be shot with those two particular lenses. But, MOST people aren't shooting hawks at 150 feet away and could function on, oh..I'd say 75% of their work very well if given those two primes. By no means am I trying to advocate you to hinder yourself when shooting. I shoot with a 17-35/2.8, 85/1.4, and 300/4.0 The last two are simply because anything I could shoot with a 50, I could almost as easily shoot with the 85. Anything I would shoot with the 70-200 (save for events and the like. For those, I still use my trusty 80-200/2.8D), I could shoot with either the 85 or 300. I rarely use any zoom I have in the middle of the range anyhow for some reason. I just generally need the extremes more often. Would I kill for a 120-300/2.8 OS on most occasions when I'm using my 300/4 AF-s? Sure. But, it's also 6lbs.

Sure, there are, of course, situations where you will need other lenses, and lots where zooms are better options, but I was just trying to make the point that primes can be versatile, and very useful.

Mark

 

[o hey tyler]

Every time I purchase a new prime lens, my photographic skill level gets raised by at least +2. Sometimes my defense gets raised, as well as my attack skill. But mainly my photography skill tree and all the perks involved are the beneficiaries. Soon I will be able to summon Ansel Adams, and cast TTL flash pulses from my fingertips. Just need a 200mm f/1.8L...

 

[12sndsgood]

Set your zoom and take your hand off of it, it is now the same as a prime as far as learning goes. Would I learn more going out with a 50mm prime versus using a zoom lens set at 50mm? No, my learning will be based on how much work and thought I put into it. Just using a prime isn't going to teach you anything unless you go out specifically to improve. And as I just pointed out that can be done with your zoom lens.

 

[Ernicus]

I have taken many pictures with my 50mm 1.4 that I could not have with my zoom set at 50mm. That statement comes to me as just plain silly. The optics are better on the prime and the light it can soak up is not even comparable, thus rendering better quality image.

For learning to frame/compose, yeah a zoom set to a set focal length is fine, but that's just silly. Using a prime isn't about learning how to compose an image with it, it's about creating a stunning image that a zoom (unless a high dollar zoom..but even that's a bit debateable) simply can't do.

If you take a portrait with a 50 prime and a zoom set on 50, you can spot which is which immediately, if not for the bokeh alone.