Prime Lens, Benifits?

[Tri Danimal]

So I am thinking about getting a Prime Lens, maybe 80mm? My reasoning is this will allow me to not have to fiddle with different lenses adn focus on learning photo composition and other "basics". Is this the wrong atitude? What would be the benifit of a prime lens, or is there something else I could get that would better aid in my photo learning?

[FrankMi]

Hi Daniel, seriously, if your current goal is to perfect your photo composition, then any camera and lens will work. It doesn't matter for composition if you have a $50 entry level compact or a $5,000 DSLR. To learn most of the basics, particularly in Manual mode, almost any current camera will work for that as well.

There are folks that prefer starting out with Prime lenses for a variety of reasons including enforcing the need to learn all you can about the basics of photography before you move on to other lenses. If your current camera has almost any lens then you have everything you need for the two tasks you mention.

On the flip side, if you want to buy a prime lens for a specific reason, please tell us what you want to be shooting (landscapes, macros, portraiture, flowers, etc.) and what you have for a camera and budget and we can help guide you to an appropriate choice.

[Geoff F]

As Frank said, there are arguments for and against primes.

They usually give good quality at a realistic price when compared with zooms. But many modern zooms have increased in quality while the price has become a little more competitive so there isn't so much difference now.

And you have the adaptability of zooming to suit the scene. The old argument was that you can 'zoom with your feet' and a prime will teach you to explore camera angles which you would otherwise overlook.

My reply has always been 'considering the type of shots I take, zooming by moving closer/further away would often involve a wetsuit or a very long ladder'!

But for long distance work or close up macros a prime can be an excellent lens.

If you want to learn the principle of prime lens photography you can always just use a zoom at a fixed setting. A little while ago we had a 50 mm challenge here. Use any lens, zoom or prime, but only at 50 mm. I think it was calculated at 50 mm on a full frame camera.

[rpcrowe]

Although I own several primes, I shoot mostly with my zoom lenses. It is spouted by prime lens advicates that primes "force" you to become a better photographer. That is hogwash! IMO, there is no piece of gear which will make the photographer be more cognizent of composition which is often the reason given for use of prime lenses. I as am perfectly aware and capable of good composition with my zooms than I ever was using primes...

One benefit of prime lenses can be the wider apertures available. The widest aperture which is generally available for DSLR zoom lenses is f/2.8 while there are many primes which have 1.8 or 1.4 and even wider apertures. IMO, the wide aperture is a two edged sword: whle it allows shooting at a faster shutter speed and/or a lower ISO, the depth of field is extremely narrow and focus is often missed when shooting at those wide apertures.

I don't feel constrained by the f/2.8 aperture of my mid range zoom lens, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. In fact, because of better auto focus and the excellent IS capability of the 17-55mm lens, I seldom use my 50mm f/1.8 Mk i lens for low light shooting. Instead I will select my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.

I am also fairly adept at the creative use of flash. The addition of flash, used properly, will make up for the slower aperture of the zoom and will often provide better lighting than will available light. At least, I have some control over the lighting from my flash units.

The myth that prime lenses always beat zooms in image quality is simply not always the case. I agree that there was a time when no self respecting photographer desirous of decent imagery would touch a still camera zoom lens. However, today's top-line zoom lenses are perfectly capable of producing excellent image quality. For (non-pixel peeking) general photography, I will put the quality of the imagery I can obtain with my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses is right up there against that of top-line prime lenses and ahead of lesser primes.

The Canon "Nifty-Fifty", 50mm f/1.8 Mk ii, lens has become something of a cult item among certain photographers. It is a relatively inexpensive (below $100 U.S. Dollars the last time I looked) and it does have a wider aperture and better image quality than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 "kit lenses" against which it is usually compared. However it is not a magical lens. Image quality wide open is not all that great, auto focus in dim light can be chancy and the bokeh from the five bladed aperture is not all that smooth.

I shoot with zooms because the zoom will provide me with greater flexibility. I seldom need to crop to any great degree in post processing when shooting with my zoom lenses. I can usually crop pretty closely in the camera using either the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or 70-200mm f/L IS lens. Cropping in the camera allows me to take advantage of the entire frame which is a very important consideration when shooting with the smaller framed Canon 1.6x crop cameras.

I shot with prime lenses for a longer time than I like to remember because it reminds me of how old I am getting. I did quite well with my prime lenses but, I think that I can do a lot better using the above mentioned two topline zoom lenses on a pair of 1.6x cameras.

[Manfred M]

I think primes are great; I think about half of my lenses are primes:

The advantages are:

1. Generally optically superior - no pincushion or barrel distortion;

2. Fast - if you want a fast zoom, you are going to top out at a pretty respectible f/2.8. If you want shallower DoF, primes will be faster; and

3. Smaller and lighter that zooms.

The downside is that you are stuck with a single focal length, hence they are not as flexible, and in reality, in spite of being less complex, they are not a whole lot less expensive than a zoom.

From a learning to shoot standpoint, I think zooms are great, because you are forced to work the shot more so than with a zoom. When shooting with a zoom, you have two choices; move around to get a better composition or just adjust the focal length and shoot. A prime doesn't give you the second choice and makes you work for the shot, and frankly I think that is an important skill to learn when you are starting out in photography. Once you have the "working the shot skill", you are far better placed whether to zoom in or move around (usually both).

I find that when I am unhappy with my composition, I'll grab my camera with a single prime lens and head out just to sharpen my shooting skills. I find that this pretty well always works for me.

[Tri Danimal]

Thanks guys, some times I get "toy" envy and have to do a quick sanity check to make sure I dont grab something that might break the bank and then not even be needed for what I am trying to do.

[ajohnw]

If you want optical quality it's best to stick with shorter range zooms in the 3:1 or maybe 4:1 range. 3:1 in particular is likely to get close to matching a prime. At 4:1 they are usually soft at one end or the other all or of the way through. In practice though this often doesn't really matter. Vignetting and distortion are increasingly cured in the camera or via a lens file so in really terms that doesn't matter as much as it did.

When upgrading personally I would stick with zooms but go for more aperture. Not for the speed but for the decrease in depth of field which can be useful at times. The 1 or 1/2 stop gain primes sometimes give don't really amount to much in practical circumstances as far as speed goes. As with faster zooms they gain because they reach their best performance at higher apertures. An f2.8 for instance is likely to be better at F4 / F5.6 than the slower lens which is being used wide open.

-

[Shadowman]

Depending on the focal length, they usually can get you into some tight areas tight alleyway) that you would be constrained with a 70-300mm lens.

[Mike Buckley]

I'll just add my usual response that almost all of my shooting is done with a prime lens because there is a zen-like experience of looking for scenes that are a good fit with the focal length that I don't get when using a zoom lens and looking for a focal length that is a good fit with the scene. It's probably not possible to know whether you prefer zooms or primes in this regard without trying out the concept for a weekend of shooting. You don't need a prime lens to try it; you can use just one focal length of a zoom the entire weekend.

Other benefits of the prime lenses:

1) The cost of a prime lens is generally less for comparable image quality and especially when referring to apertures larger than 2.8 in a zoom lens.
2) The prime lens generally weighs less than a zoom providing the same focal length
3) The prime lens generally takes up less space than a zoom providing the same focal length.
4) There are old prime lenses on the used market that have spectacular image quality that are also ridiculously inexpensive. One of my used prime lenses is more than 20 years old and the other one is at least 12 years old.

[Scott Stephen]

I agree with both Richard and Manfred, even though they were disagreeing with each other. A good zoom is fine for all your needs as far as aperature and IQ, and I have the same one Richard has.
That said, there is something about a really wide aperature shot now and then; the way it isolates the subject so well by blurring the background. Yes, it can be tricky to get focus right with such a narrow plane of focus, and you duff a lot of shots trying, but that is the beauty of digital; you can take 899 pictures for free, and just throw away the bad ones.

A crop camera, (non-full frame) like almost all consumer cameras are, magnifies the telephoto on all your lenses. This can be confusing, because when all the magazines and websites talk about the perfect length lenses for a given purpose, they are usually referring to how it works on a full-frame body, not a crop. I have the super-cheap 50mm 1.8, and I can tell you it is sometimes a little tight if you are close to the subject. If you were to get an 85mm prime on your crop sensor camera, you might find it hard to use, because you are always trying to back away from your subjects to get them into the frame. If you have a zoom lens that will hit 85mm, really try using that length and ONLY that length for a while and see if you like it.

[Colin Southern]

I own more primes than I do zooms - but they virtually never get used (less than 5% of the time).

Pretty much all the usual pros and cons have been mentioned above, so let me just add/reiterate what I feel are a the two most important points:

1. It's often said that "a prime forces one to think about composition". This is false in my opinion; what it's really doing is limiting you to only compositions that suit that focal length. If one thinks that that's important then buy a zoom and leave it on whatever focal length you wish. I use zooms 95% of the time and composition is pretty much ALL that I'm initially thinking of when I look through the viewfinder. Further to that though, when it's time to create a new photo in a given area - at a given time - my brain is constantly analysing what I see and streaming that through my "built in focal length database". eg "how about a wide-angle shot of that direction" - no - won't work - will be firing into street lights that will over-power the scene when ambient light drops" "OK - how about I hit that area beyond those lights with a long lens" - no - won't work - it'll be obstructed by that tree branch" "OK - how about the long lens - same area - but from a different vantage point?" - yep - that could work. "OK - need to be a little closer for the right perspective - decision time - I'm on an overbridge so do I liaise with the police & transport departments - get some scaffolding erected in the middle of the motorway - get all the cars diverted around me?" Nope - not enough time (light fading) - "flash of brilliance ... I know - I'll twist the zoom ring on my lens to zoom in!".

That was EXACTLY my initial thought processes and actions in the creation of this image ...



Would I have been able to get this image with a prime? Nope - not even close.

Which leads me to ...

2. Primes are speciality tools: eg

- My 14mm allowed me to get this commissioned shot:



(A zoom would have started at at 16mm and would not have allowed me to achieve the same perspective in the space available) (it was shot to show the view that would have been seen from the breakfast table - printed on a large canvas - and sent off to the clients daughter who had moved overseas to live, to remind her of home).

- Other speciality primes I have are a TS-E 90 (for art reproduction & product photography) (sharp - allows me to get in close - allows me to shift DoF) - 85mm/F1.2 (extremely fast) - 135/F2 (tighter DoF than F2.8 zoom).

My STRONG advice is - if you don't have an unlimited budget - then zooms represent BY FAR the most versatility and the best value for money.

[Cogito]

So I am thinking about getting a Prime Lens, maybe 80mm?

I've got a feeling that this is a mistype. I hope so. Why a 80mm lens? On an SLR way back when, everyone started with a 50mm (or thereabouts) lens. If you are using a sensor that provides a 1.5 focal length multiplier then a 35mm (ish) lens would give a normal everyday use. With a FF or 4/3rds sensor I'll leave it up to you to decide.....
Whatever! Your prime lens will be of better photographic quality. Its wide-open aperture is not so necessary now since most quality DSLRs can shoot at ISO 400 without degradation of the image. So f2 on a film SLR shooting ISO 100 equals f4 on a DSLR at ISO 400. Buy a prime! Or a SHORT quality zoom.

[William W]

So I am thinking about getting a Prime Lens, maybe 80mm? My reasoning is this will allow me to not have to fiddle with different lenses adn focus on learning photo composition and other "basics". Is this the wrong atitude?

The idea of using ONE Focal Length to get you out of your comfort zone and to extend your learning is a good idea – but I suspect you do not need to spend money to achieve this goal.

I think you might mean “not fiddle with different Focal Lengths”

Assuming you have a Zoom Lens, you can set the zoom lens to ONE FOCAL LENGTH and use just that. If you do not trust yourself, then use a little bit of GAF tape and tape the Zoom Turret. There is no need to buy a Prime Lens just to use a Single Focal Length, if you have the Focal Length already covered, in a Zoom Lens.


***

What would be the benifit of a prime lens

As a GENERALIZATION - the main Advantage of a Prime is that it (can be) VERY FAST, i.e. can have a VERY large maximum aperture, which means Primes are better to / for -

 Exploit very shallow Depth of Field
 Generally use in low light
 Arrest Subject Movement
 AF Acquisition
 AF Speed
 Make a Brighter Viewfinder
 Be used with tele-extenders (e.g. whilst still maintaining AF etc)

Other advantages include, but are not limited to:
 Less prone to Lens Flare and Veiling Flare
 Lens Hood is more useful
 Will keep a constant IR Focus Variance
 Less conspicuous & (generally) Lighter and (generally) Smaller
 Less expensive than the comparable Zoom
 Often better general IQ, to a comparable Zoom


***

. . . is there something else I could get that would better aid in my photo learning?

I don’t know –
What camera and lens(es) and accessories, do you have?


***

Conversation:


I, like Colin, have more Prime Lenses than Zoom Lenses, but unlike Colin I use my Prime Lenses more often than my Zoom Lenses - that is - except when I am using a Zoom Lens: and then I tend to use that Zoom Lens exclusively throughout that particular shoot or session.

The abundant use of my Prime Lenses is mainly due to what I Photograph - the majority of my work is Portraiture and either I am in a controlled environment (such as a Studio) where I can change Primes easily – or, in situ I tend to work in Available Light only and I would rather have two cameras with a Prime on each Camera and one or two other Primes in the bag, than work with one Camera and a zoom (I also like System Redundancy, so I tend to always use two cameras) – though fast Zoom is very efficient for a location Portait shoot: but as I already have (many) Prime Lenses (and as mentioned above these are less susceptiable to Flare and their Lens Hoods are more effective) I will usually choose a Prime Lens.

However for light weight and ease of travel and compactness a short compass zoom is ideal and I would not be without my very small collection of Zoom Lenses.



One point which I am exceptionally passionate about is: the WRONG notion that using a Prime Lens is either superior or will make one a better Photographer – of itself NO LENS will make anyone a better Photographer –


A ‘Better Photographer’ – if stopped in his tracks whilst making a Photograph -
will be able without thinking to ramble off ALL the reasons why she chose that particular lens, to make that particular image.



The other issue which gets up my nose – is the ridiculous notion of “zooming with your feet”. In my Student Day that phrase would have landed me six cuts of the cane – as the Subject Distance determines PERPECTIVE.

FOCAL LENGTH determines ‘The Shot’ - be it wide, or normal, or tight.

So ZOOMING, only determines ‘The Shot’ – - moving your feet will change the PERSPECTIVE.



This leads me to endorse wholeheartedly a point Colin has already made . . .

“It's often said that "a prime forces one to think about composition". This is false in my opinion; what it's really doing is limiting you to only compositions that suit that focal length. . . etc”

In this respect - a zoom is just a big bundle of Prime Lenses.

A Prime Lens will not make one a ‘better photographer’ and a zoom lens will not make one a worse photographer.

But poor photographers can use both Primes and Zooms with equal inefficiency; and with equal disrespect; and with equal lack of understanding.

If you have a zoom lens, then take a moment to think about what Focal Length would best suit the scene or the shot - and set the zoom before you raise the camera to the eye – that will start the brain box working, you can bet on that.

WW

[Colin Southern]

The other issue which gets up my nose – is the ridiculous notion of “zooming with your feet”.
In my Student Day that phrase would have landed me six cuts of the cane – as the Subject Distance determines PERPECTIVE.

Love it!

Lets bring back the cane for anyone who mentions "zooming with their feet" in future! Either that or I'll take them to a few motorway overpasses - mountain ridges - or beaches (with shark-infested waters) and ask them for a demonstration

[William W]

. . . I was on a roll and just couldn't control my passion . . . the fingers were moving at lightning speed and THUMPING the keyboard

Best to you.

Bill

[Scott Stephen]

Everyone here has a prime. They vary on their opinions as to the utility of a prime, but they all have them.

Because one can be had so cheaply, I suggest you go ahead and get one. If you shoot Canon, get the 50mm 1.8 "nifty fifty". It costs about $108.00 US. And it rivals its much more expensive Canon 1.4 and 1.2 bretheren, even exceeding them at certain aperatures!
Don't get one that is f/2.8 like some recent inexpensive lenses (Canon 40mm f/2.8) aimed at movies. The whole point is to get somewhere between 1-point something and two-point-zero so you can experience the feel of the widest aperatures. For that price, it is a no-brainer. Everyone should have one prime lens at that price, even if you never get another.

[Andrew1]

Daniel, you learn better with practice and you will practice more doing what you enjoy. Prime or zoom really doesn't matter if you can come to use your tools without thinking. Your eventual familiarity and results with a prime is no better than someone who knows the capabilities and limitations of their zoom. With the performance characteristics of modern lenses it's certainly not a quality issue. Combine that with a sound understanding of the camera and its controls and you've got a winning combination of the hardware to use with your creative skills. Most people will agree that when first choosing a camera go with your gut feel on the ergonomics for you personally. The same goes for the lens. Decide what you want to use it for then get the best one for your purposes. Buying a lens then trying to change your use or style to accommodate the lens is the wrong way to approach photography.

[Manfred M]

Not all primes are inexpensive. My Nikkor f/2 105mm DC was over $1000, and there are certainly others in that price range, Start looking at the really long fixed lenses, and they make my pro zooms look cheap in comparison.

[Mike Buckley]

Colin,

You mentioned that you use zooms 95% of the time. However, based on your other posts, you use one zoom -- your 70 - 200mm -- most of the time. If you use it 65% to 75% of the time, it's a little misleading to say that you use zooms (plural) 95% of the time. Instead, it would be more clear to explain that you use one zoom almost all of the time and you rarely use any other lens, whether it's a prime or zoom lens.

You mentioned how your brain works. I hope you'll give enough latitude to not just accept but also cherish that all brains work differently. As an example, I'm looking for a particular photographic experience that I don't get when using a zoom lens. That's because of how my brain works.

You stripped the EXIF data pertaining to your very nice "Automotion" image. You mentioned that you couldn't have gotten it with a prime lens -- "not even close." Why could you not have used a prime lens that would have gotten an image that is at least close to the one that you got?

You mentioned that the second image was shot at 14mm and that a zoom would have started at 16mm. Why not get a zoom that starts at 12mm?

My STRONG advice is - if you don't have an unlimited budget - then zooms represent BY FAR the most versatility and the best value for money.

I agree that they offer the most versatility. I couldn't disagree more that they offer the best value for the money, especially "by far" the best value for the money. I contend that the best value for the money is to be obtained by purchasing prime lenses long discontinued that were made when zoom lenses were not being made of the quality that are being made today.

By the way, I couldn't care less whether others shoot with prime lenses or zoom lenses. There's absolutely no pride of ownership or decision-making in knowing that for me at this point in time that prime lenses are generally the way to go. If everyone else in the world prefers using zoom lenses for whatever reason makes them happy, I'm absolutely thrilled for them!

[rpcrowe]

The 50mm f/1.8 Mark ii is a good lens which has some significant drawbacks. Auto focus accuracy and speed in low light (where primes are supposed to lead the pack), I.Q. wide open (the reason many people recommend primes is that they have a larger maximum aperture) and its not so great bokeh because of the five bladed aperture.

However, where the 50mm really falls on its face is in its build. I use a Mark-ii occasionally which is approximately the same optically but, is far better built.

I had a 50mm f/1.8 Mk ii for a very short time and it WAS THE MOST EXPENSIVE LENS I EVER USED

Shooting with this lens cost me about one U.S. Dollar per shot. I had probably shot less than 100 shots with it and accidently (and fairly gently) tapped it against a door frame as I was pasing through the door. The result was that the front element was spinning on the floor. So long, "Not So Nifty Fifty"!

I have been shooting for over fifty years and have put lenses through some pretty harsh conditions (especially in combat venues) but, never ruined one - until the 50mm f/1.8 Mk ii.

I am not against prime lenses but would recommend any serious photographer who wants to use prime lenses effectively to carry more than one body. My photojournalist friends covering Vietnam (I was a cinematographer there) always shot with primes but, also always carried at least two cameras and sometimes more. This would allow them more versatility in shooting and help prevent losing images due to time spent changing lenses or having the wrong lens on a single body when the image suddenly came up...

Another thought... You don't always need an aperture wider than f/2.8 to use selective focus effectively. F/2.8 and even f/4 can b;ur the background...