Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 73

Thread: Prime Lens, Benifits?

  1. #21
    Glenn NK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Buckley View Post
    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
    4) The prime lens generally takes up less space than a zoom providing the same focal length.
    5) 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.
    Lets turn this around for fun:

    1) to get all the focal lengths of one zoom, quite a few primes are required which will cost more.

    2) the weight of several primes is going to be more than one zoom.

    3) several primes are going to take up quite a bit more room that one zoom.

    4) I will partially concede the last point (but I'm going to call it point No.4. ) However, the new zooms are using a much more sophisticated design technology than older lenses - all the newer versions of lenses that are designated Mark II are better than the first edition.

    5) If you use any type of filter for your lenses, one filter will fit the zoom - a few more may be required to outfit all the primes.

    Other comments:

    (a) John's mention of limiting the zoom range to 3:1 or 4:1 is spot on. Typically 4 to 1 is about the limit for a good zoom. Beyond that the distortion often gets out of hand.

    (b) If my 24TSE (tilt/shift) lens came in a decent zoom version, I'd have one. Because I'm stuck with one focal length (24mm), I had to buy a $500 2.0 Extender, and it only provides me with one other focal length option - 48 mm.

    (c) I've used a 100 mm macro with good results with my 1.6 crop body, but with my FF body, I've have to use the 2.0 Extender with it. I sure with it was a zoom.

    Glenn
    Last edited by Glenn NK; 27th October 2012 at 04:54 AM.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    19,064

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn NK View Post
    1) to get all the focal lengths of one zoom, quite a few primes are required which will cost more.
    2) the weight of several primes is going to be more than one zoom.
    3) several primes are going to take up quite a bit more room that one zoom.
    All true. However, those statements seem to be based on a premise that doesn't apply to me. The premise seems to be that one needs all focal lengths provided by a particular zoom lens. Once a person determines that all focal lengths aren't needed or even desired, none of the above statements have any practical application.

    However, the new zooms are using a much more sophisticated design technology than older lenses
    I've seen so many images made forty years ago that are of such high quality that the subsequent improvements in lens technology have such little practical application that 99% of the photographers posting here, certainly me, would improve their images more by improving capture and post-processing techniques than by buying the technology installed in current lenses.

    If you use any type of filter for your lenses, one filter will fit the zoom - a few more may be required to outfit all the primes.
    I own five lenses and have a circular polarizer for each lens because that's my preference. However, I believe the use of inexpensive step down rings would make it possible to purchase one filter that would work on all of my lenses.
    Last edited by Mike Buckley; 27th October 2012 at 05:29 AM.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,660
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Mike,

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Buckley View Post
    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.
    I don't "keep a log", so when I say "95%" folks will need to understand that that 95% is what it "feels like" to me at the time of writing. If more precision is required then lets look at my Primes ...

    - EF14mm F2.8L USM II - Can't remember the last time I used it. Probably a couple of years ago.

    - EF85mm F1.2L USM II - I think the last time I used it was when my EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II was on the blink and I had a shoot on. I have the occasional play with it much the same that someone who has a Ferrari in the garage that they just polish every day with a cloth nappie and never drive it.

    - EF135mm F2.0L USM - Can't remember the last time I used it

    - TS-E 90mm F2.8 - I use it for product photography & art reproduction. Gets a bit of use, but on a "per shot" basis, would be well under 1% of the time.

    With regards to zooms ...

    - EF16-35mm F2.8L USM II - used it a lot shooting landscape years ago, but these days I'm preferring longer focal lengths - so not currently getting a lot of use. Can't remember the last time I used it

    - EF24-70mm F2.8L USM - It mostly gets used for full-length studio portraiture but occasionally for a landscape shoot

    - EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II - currently using for most landscape - and most portraiture, which is the lions share of what I'm shooting right now.

    So be to as accurate as I can, I'll say that I use zooms 97% for the time, and of my zoom lenses, it's the 70-200 on the camera 90% of the time. But as a working professional photographer (albeit not full time), I don't have the luxury of picking and choosing the focal lengths I'm going to require. It's not acceptable for me to have to tell a paying client that I can't do a job the way they require it because it requires a 14mm lens and I only have a 50mm one.

    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.
    What does a prime offer you that a zoom doesn't? (at a fixed zoom length).

    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?
    Facebook stripped the EXIF data, not me - they're on my website with EXIF data intact if you need it, but "because I don't own a 70mm prime - nor a 165mm one for the image I created the following day" to answer the question.

    To the best of my knowledge primes aren't even made at those focal lengths - so I'd have to have gone wider (135mm for the 2nd - cropped - and taken the hit on the loss of quality). As a case in point though, how many primes does just 2 zoom lenses replace? Quite a few.

    Keep in mind also that the shot I end up with often isn't the one I plan; these days I don't need to "bracket exposures" to ensure a keeper, but I'll often "bracket the composition" which a zoom makes it exceedingly easy to do - especially in changing light. Primes just can't cut it in that situation.

    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?
    Because Canon don't make one.

    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.
    I'm speaking in terms of relatively current technology. An 24-70/2.8L II + 70-200/2.8L II will set you back $4428 - Equivalent Primes (24/1.4L. EF35/1.4L, EF50/1.2L, EF85/1.2L, EF100/2.8, EF135/F2L, EF180/F3.5L, EF200/2.0L) will set you back $15,277 - and be nowhere near as versatile (assuming I want L quality but don't need anything faster than F2.8) (both valid assumptions in my case).

    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!
    I couldn't care less either - I do however feel it's important to challenge the common prime "dogma", giving my reasons for doing so in the process.
    Last edited by Colin Southern; 27th October 2012 at 07:06 AM.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Provence, France
    Posts
    993
    Real Name
    Remco

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Stephen View Post
    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.
    You might be right, but some of those primes are 'specialty' lenses, with capabilities not or rarely found in zooms, like macro (1:1 or better) or tilt/shift (the TS-E 90mm F2.8).

    My case: I got one prime lens: a 90mm macro. Reason for buying: 1:1 macro possibility. So it was bought for a specific reason, after I found that the available lenses were limiting me. All my other lenses are (short-range) zooms. For the kinds of subjects I do at the moment, a 50mm would be about useless, so wasted money (either too short, too long or can't focus close enough, and for macro 1.8 isn't used all that often).

    And the 50mm might be the cheapest available (in a given quality range), but on an APS-C that's already a short telelens (~75-80 mm FFE). Given Daniel's questions in other threads, I'd suggest first getting some RAW and PP software, and play with that. Then decide on extra gear when running into limitations (or get a toy when having extra cash available).

    Daniel is shooting Olympus, btw., and has the range 14-150mm covered (profiles can be useful ... ).
    Last edited by revi; 27th October 2012 at 09:03 AM. Reason: spelling corrected

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,660
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Buckley View Post
    The premise seems to be that one needs all focal lengths provided by a particular zoom lens.
    The way I look at it is to imagine a set of spanners - if one only desires to work with 10 & 12mm nuts then one only needs 10 & 12mm spanners. But if one only has 10 & 12mm spanners then that's also all they CAN work with as well. Yes, I appreciate that it's a choice, but that choice also then becomes a limitation.

    In contrast, another mechanic invests in an adjustable wrench - he too may work with 10 & 12mm nuts a lot of the time - but it's no longer a limitation because the next day he can work with an 8mm nut - or an 18mm nut if the opportunity presents itself.

    I consider myself a very versatile photographer - and (for me anyway) that means having ALL the tools I need to capture ANYTHING that catches my eye; I hate being in a position where I can't capture the image I want because of lack of equipment.

  6. #26
    Mark von Kanel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,861
    Real Name
    Mark

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Colin whilst you are sadly misguided about spanners.. (a bloody shifter for gods sake!! (must be an electrician)) your reasoning on lens's seems perfectly sound i have a 105 macro, a 50mm f1.4 and a 35 mm for street stuff all have a specific use. i see no reason to buy others and the rest of my lens's are /will be zooms but all very expensive ones!!!

  7. #27
    oleleclos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Channel Islands
    Posts
    112
    Real Name
    Ole Henriksen

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Lots of good advice in these replies, so let me just add a couple of cents' worth:

    Don't let the choice of lens come first - it's putting the cart before the horse. Instead of thinking "what lens do I need", think: "what picture do I want to make" and then "how do I want to make it".

    The answer to those two questions will often point to the technical solution, including the choice of lens - small aperture wideangle with good depth of field for interiors and landscapes; short tele with large apterure for portraits so as not to crowd the subject and to isolate it from the background; long tele for sports and wildlife - etc. etc.

    Depending on the variety of subjects you want to tackle, you will then end up with a list of lenses you would like to use. And unless that list is very short, you would in this day and age be better off with a zoom lens (or maybe two) than a range of primes - as others have pointed out, a single high quality zoom will often be cheaper than the range of primes it covers, and also more than match them on quality.

    I have only recently gone fully digital, having a long background in analogue photography (medium and large format, prime lenses, the whole nine yards). What convinced me to go digital was the Nikon D800, and without going into details here, I find it matches 5x4" film scans and far outperforms medium format scans, more than satisfying the needs for large format prints. It even outperforms film on dynamic range.

    I chose for my main lens the 24-70 mm f/2.8. It covers five classic primes: 24, 28, 35, 50 and (almost) 85mm. This range of primes would have cost me almost exactly the same as the zoom (assuming f/1.8 versions of the 50 and 85) and not given me any better quality at comparable f-stops. The only slight benefit would have been 1.5 stops more light on the 50 and 85. Some would also consider the smaller sizes of each of these lenses individually a benefit (a large zoom can intimidate some subjects), but the overall bulk I would have had to carry around would have been greater.

    For me, a high quality zoom is the clear choice for convenience and flexibility. Besides, there is one more benefit to a zoom: dust. With digital cameras, the less you change lenses, the less you expose your camera's interior to dust.

    A final thought: Zooms started out on TV and movie cameras; not so they could make viewers seasick by zooming in and out on things (which professional cameramen rarely do), but to give them an "infinite number of fixed focal lengths" in order to be able to frame accurately. With TV and movie cameras, you can't crop the picture afterwards (or at least you couldn't in pre-digital days).

    Think of a zoom on a stills camera the same way - it's not a 24-70 (or whatever) it's a 24, a 25, a 26 etc. etc., as if you had a camera bag full of 47 primes!
    Last edited by oleleclos; 27th October 2012 at 12:26 PM.

  8. #28
    Moderator Manfred M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    22,291
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Colin - I think your spanner (wrench) examples is interesting, because every mechanic or maintenance person I know carries at least one full set of wrenches (metric and imperial measure), simply because they work better. At the bottom of the toolkit, they also have an adjustable just in case they need it. It is the tool of last resort for the tradesman, as it has only two benefits; adjustability and possibly cost. My father-in-law, who taught heavy equipment repair at a community college, always referred to them as "knuckle busters" They do not perform as well as purpose made wrenches and removing a bit of skin was always a likely outcome when using them.

    Ole - the other trend I've noticed is in film and video (another hobby that I am into fairly seriously into), is that at the high end, zooms are out and primes are in. If you are doing serious work, with your Red, Arri or Panavision cameras, you are likely shooting with a set of primes from Cooke, Leica, Panavision, Red or Zeiss. This trend started with HD, because the zooms where simply not sharp enough. Yes, they are still used for some shots where the film maker needs a zoom in or out, but there are not a lot of those in most films. Filmmakers and videographers have a whole different set of constraints that still shooters never see; a lens cannot have any focus breathing as focus is changed during a shot. A zoom needs to stay in focus, when zooming in and out, so parfocal, rather than varifocal zooms are required.

    I think analogies are good, and understanding the tradeoffs in choosing a particular set of tools, is something that is important to understand. In photography, zooms have become the workhorses, with primes generally being relegated to the role of being special purpose tools.

  9. #29
    Scott Stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    292
    Real Name
    Scott

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    I just don't see it as an "either-or" proposition. Again, no one on this thread has a bag full of ONLY primes, and as far as I can tell no one (other than the OP) has ONLY zooms.

    My point is that it is FUN to dip your toe into the >2.0 aperatures, and it can be done at a very low price. If you sniff at the f/1.8 nifty fifty, then look at the Canon 50mm f/1.4 for $339.00.

    Although I don't think the OP actually said he has a Canon, and yet the conversation has drifted that direction. In any event, Nikon has a parallel to all the Canon lenses at a similar price point, and then of course Sigma makes a good 50mm that mounts on basically all platforms ($499.00).

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    19,064

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Colin,

    If you catalog your images, your software may make it very easy to know the percentage of use that each lens and/or each focal length was used. That information isn't helpful to me but every once in a while it's an enjoyable part of the hobby.

    About all those lenses that you use so rarely that you don't remember when you last used them: If your wife is like mine, it would behoove you to use all of them today if for no other reason than to justify keeping them.

    You asked a good question about what a prime offers me that a zoom at a fixed focal length doesn't. Your question was in the context of how my brain works. When I'm using a zoom as a walk around lens, it's not the same experience for me as using a prime because of how my brain works. I know I can always use the other focal lengths on the zoom and my brain takes advantage of that. However, I don't get more images or better images than when using a prime lens, just different images. And when using the zoom, the experience of looking for and ultimately capturing the images isn't quite as enjoyable. Not everyone and perhaps very few people will feel that way but that's how it works for me, at least presently.

    The prime also offers me a smaller size, which means it weighs less and is less noticeable. As an example, if I want to use my 85mm for candids, it's a lot more clandestine than a 70-200mm zoom.

    As an aside, when I was in Turkey, strangers would see my rented 70-200mm zoom and ask to be photographed. The lens itself is so large that it would be the ice breaker that allowed me to quickly get into really enjoyable conversations with the locals. However, the locals there are so open and friendly that my guess is that very little is needed in terms of an ice breaker. I quickly learned to walk around with the zoom, not my prime lens, in between destination points.

    I'm not a gearhead but I'm really surprised to learn that Canon doesn't make a zoom lens that includes the 14mm length. Nikon makes two for use with a cropped sensor and one for use with a full-frame sensor. Tokina also makes a highly regarded zoom, though I don't remember if it works on a full-frame sensor (despite that I own it). That explains why I was so surprised by your initial comment about that.

    Thanks for reminding me of the expense of two high-quality zooms covering the range of 24mm to 200mm. It makes me feel especially good about the cost of funding my hobby with my three primes at 35mm, 85mm and 180mm that work just fine for me. I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that my three primes take up less space than the two zooms. I'm sure they weigh far less than those two zooms. That's pretty impressive, considering that they give me everything that I need to more than adequately support my hobby, with the exception of the occasional rental when a zoom lens is absolutely required.

    I do however feel it's important to challenge the common prime "dogma", giving my reasons for doing so in the process.
    Maybe it's just me, but I think you and others are overstating the widespread appeal of the so-called dogma.

    Great discussion!

  11. #31

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    19,064

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Buckley View Post
    By the way, I couldn't care less whether others shoot with prime lenses or zoom lenses.
    Now that I have participated in this discussion a bit, I realize that I need to amend that statement. I really, really do hope almost everyone buys only zoom lenses. That will make it even easier and cheaper for me to pick up high-quality used primes.

  12. #32
    dubaiphil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northampton
    Posts
    1,848
    Real Name
    Phil Page

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    I'm not chiming in!

    And to think, I'm just going out to sell my best zoom - to buy another manual focus prime with the proceeds

    What a numpty!

  13. #33
    Glenn NK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    The main reason I prefer a zoom (provided it is of good quality - and there is a price to pay for quality), is that it can eliminate most cropping. I zoom to compose the image and include/exclude the elements in the frame as required. This is particularly true for landscapes where maximizing detail is important.

    "Foot zooming", at the ocean with waves crashing onto the beach or rocks while setting up the tripod is too dangerous (and the water on the north-west coast is too cold year round). It's a non starter.

    The "prime only" mantra was very true twenty (or even ten) years ago because of image quality, but it is slowly giving way to a new reality. When the Canon 17-55 came out about six years ago, it set a standard for IQ that wasn't often achieved by many of the primes, and Nikon has introduced some excellent zooms too.

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...hp?product=303
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=28&page=1

    Beliefs die slowly.

    Glenn

  14. #34
    Mark von Kanel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,861
    Real Name
    Mark

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Quote Originally Posted by dubaiphil View Post
    I'm not chiming in!

    And to think, I'm just going out to sell my best zoom - to buy another manual focus prime with the proceeds

    What a numpty!
    and no doubt a manual focus one at that! yup numpty indeed but i would be interested in the zoom

  15. #35
    ajohnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S, B'ham UK
    Posts
    3,337
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver View Post

    Ole - the other trend I've noticed is in film and video (another hobby that I am into fairly seriously into), is that at the high end, zooms are out and primes are in. If you are doing serious work, with your Red, Arri or Panavision cameras, you are likely shooting with a set of primes from Cooke, Leica, Panavision, Red or Zeiss. This trend started with HD, because the zooms where simply not sharp enough. Yes, they are still used for some shots where the film maker needs a zoom in or out, but there are not a lot of those in most films. Filmmakers and videographers have a whole different set of constraints that still shooters never see; a lens cannot have any focus breathing as focus is changed during a shot. A zoom needs to stay in focus, when zooming in and out, so parfocal, rather than varifocal zooms are required.
    .
    I recently bought a Sony compact to get hd video and have noticed that even that is optically better than my previous 6mp one and assume that this is purely down to adding HD video to the camera. Both cameras have Carl Zeiss Vario Tessars. Not that I have ever been miss lead by that. The Tessar aspect etc indicates design not quality.

    I'm not surprised that video cameras are having problems given the very extreme zoom range many of them have. Makes me wonder which way things will go as HD moves on into yet higher resolutions and deeper colour depths. I believe that the standards for this are already available.

    Some have mentioned improvements in optical design and glasses. What these mean really is less glass and as consequence weight than earlier lenses. Stray reflections are also now accounted for during design and that plus better coatings has given slight increases in contrast. As to the lenses themselves I am not sure that they have improved in some ways. I'm thinking of high quality earlier zooms that more or less remained the same length while being zoomed, 2 touch designs that remain in focus as zoomed and might even have the same max F ratio throughout. I have one of those by Olympus and apart from stray reflections it's as good as modern lenses. It does weigh rather a lot more though. That was one of the reasons that they weren't all that popular in their early days.

    -

  16. #36

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,660
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Quote Originally Posted by oleleclos View Post
    Don't let the choice of lens come first - it's putting the cart before the horse. Instead of thinking "what lens do I need", think: "what picture do I want to make" and then "how do I want to make it".

    The answer to those two questions will often point to the technical solution, including the choice of lens - small aperture wideangle with good depth of field for interiors and landscapes; short tele with large apterure for portraits so as not to crowd the subject and to isolate it from the background; long tele for sports and wildlife - etc. etc.
    I hear what you're saying, but as a photographer, personally, I want the ability to shoot all of those things - and with just 3 zooms, I pretty much can.

  17. #37

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,660
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver View Post
    Colin - I think your spanner (wrench) examples is interesting, because every mechanic or maintenance person I know carries at least one full set of wrenches (metric and imperial measure), simply because they work better. At the bottom of the toolkit, they also have an adjustable just in case they need it. It is the tool of last resort for the tradesman, as it has only two benefits; adjustability and possibly cost. My father-in-law, who taught heavy equipment repair at a community college, always referred to them as "knuckle busters" They do not perform as well as purpose made wrenches and removing a bit of skin was always a likely outcome when using them.
    The difference being that they don't make nuts that fall between standard spanner sizes though, and there is (and needs to be) a sh*t load more spanners in a set than there are prime lenses over a given zoom range.

    If one were to produce primes in 5mm increments from, say, 15mm to 200 (about 48 by my count) then I'd agree that optically you'd have a solution that approached the usefulness of just 3 zooms. Best they be attached to separate cameras though.

    I might add that the only time I've removed skin using an adjustable spanner is when the nut corroded or access to it is particularly difficult - 99 times out of 100 the adjustable works just fine if used with appropriate forethought.

  18. #38
    rpcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    17,409
    Real Name
    Richard

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    I tend to disagree with the statement, "About all those lenses that you use so rarely that you don't remember when you last used them: If your wife is like mine, it would behoove you to use all of them today if for no other reason than to justify keeping them. "

    Although I might feel justified in including my wife in the decision to purchase any lenses (we always confer when deciding to buy any large ticket item - be it a lens, a dish washer or a sewing machine), I don't feel obligated to justify keeping lenses. My lenses are all paid for and the only payment I have is my house payment and my utilities and insurance. I owe no other money. If I use a lens once or twice a year (which is probably my average usage of my 400mm f/5.6L lens) there is no reason why I should not keep it. Storage space is minimal and the money I got from selling the lens is not needed to supplement my living expenses. However, if I do need that lens, I have it and don't have to go through the hassle of renting one. I tend to sell my equipment to buy other equipment. My 24-70mm f/2.8L lens paid for my 7D camera and I am quite happy with the swap.

    Lenses are tools just like a plumber or carpenter's tools. I have a faucet wrench that I have used only once - but when I used it, I needed it. I also have a portable electric planer which I haven't used in one or two years, until I needed it for a project last week and was glad that I had it. My wife was glad also since tis was one of those "Honey Do" projects.

    OTOH... My wife is always pestering me to get rid of my flyrods since I don't fly fish much anymore. I don't get rid of them because I would be admitting to myself that I am growing older. That is a painful admission!

  19. #39
    rtbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Albertville, Mn
    Posts
    1,567
    Real Name
    randy

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    As I progress in my photograpic journey, I started with an "adjustable spanner", I learned that I was unable to properly address some "nuts". So I added two "fixed spanners" for my most frequently encountered "nuts", I find that the "adjustable spanner" kinda sits in the bottom in the bottom of my "tool chest". Maybe I will progress to more "adjustable spanners" someday when I run out of "nuts"

  20. #40

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    17,660
    Real Name
    Have a guess :)

    Re: Prime Lens, Benifits?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Buckley View Post
    If you catalog your images, your software may make it very easy to know the percentage of use that each lens and/or each focal length was used. That information isn't helpful to me but every once in a while it's an enjoyable part of the hobby.
    Bridge would do it if all the images were in a single folder ("database"), but it's not a metric that holds any curiosity for me to be honest; I simply see them as tools to achieve a result.

    About all those lenses that you use so rarely that you don't remember when you last used them: If your wife is like mine, it would behoove you to use all of them today if for no other reason than to justify keeping them.
    They're owned by my business, so I'm quite safe there

    I'm not a gearhead but I'm really surprised to learn that Canon doesn't make a zoom lens that includes the 14mm length. Nikon makes two for use with a cropped sensor and one for use with a full-frame sensor. Tokina also makes a highly regarded zoom, though I don't remember if it works on a full-frame sensor (despite that I own it). That explains why I was so surprised by your initial comment about that.
    They do - it's the EF-S 10-22 - but that equates to 16-35 on a full frame, and I already have the 16-35 and the full frame camera. The other one they make is the 8 - 15mm, but it's a fisheye (although software can correct the distortion.

    Thanks for reminding me of the expense of two high-quality zooms covering the range of 24mm to 200mm. It makes me feel especially good about the cost of funding my hobby with my three primes at 35mm, 85mm and 180mm that work just fine for me. I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that my three primes take up less space than the two zooms. I'm sure they weigh far less than those two zooms. That's pretty impressive, considering that they give me everything that I need to more than adequately support my hobby, with the exception of the occasional rental when a zoom lens is absolutely required.
    I'm glad they work well for you. Personally, I'd rather give up photography than to have it restricted to only 3 focal lengths (or more specifically, only 3 fields of view); a fraction of the cost for sure, but also a FAR smaller fraction of the versatility. With regards to the space they take up - total non-issue for me; my standard "boot of the car" kit consists of 3 large toolbags - and then if it's a pro shoot then generators / light stands / strobes etc go on a trailer.

    Maybe it's just me, but I think you and others are overstating the widespread appeal of the so-called dogma.
    Not just lenses - time and time again I see the same dogma / misconceptions being bandied about; things like ...

    - UV filters degrading image quality

    - You need a prime to learn composition

    - Windows crashes all the time and everything "just works better on a Mac"

    - Nikon cameras have better colour than Canon cameras

    - The more megapixels the better

    - The concept that a prime - being sharper than a zoom - actually has relevance to real-world image quality (same/same for many other "specifications")

    - The list goes on. And on. And on.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Loading...