Prime Lens, Benifits?

[oleleclos]

...as a photographer, personally, I want the ability to shoot all of those things - and with just 3 zooms, I pretty much can.

I agree; I'm much the same (except I haven't yet needed a 14-24 enough to justify the expense). What I'm saying is that the choice of lens(es) should be driven by the pictures you want to make rather than the other way around. For that reason, my only prime (at the moment) is Sigma's superb 70 mm macro.

[Colin Southern]

I agree; I'm much the same (except I haven't yet needed a 14-24 enough to justify the expense). What I'm saying is that the choice of lens(es) should be driven by the pictures you want to make rather than the other way around. For that reason, my only prime (at the moment) is Sigma's superb 70 mm macro.

Could one turn that around though and say "I have everything from 14 to 200 covered" so "what opportunities does that now open up for my photography"? No limitations - the world is my oyster

[oleleclos]

Of course you can, but I wrote my advice in response to a question about whether to get a specific lens without a clear purpose.

If you already have, say, three high quality zooms covering 14 to 200 mm or something like that, you can go and tackle almost anything.

If, on the other hand, someone is unsure about which lens(es) to get, I think they are better served by letting the pictures they want to make drive their decisions, rather than the other way around.

BTW, great Facebook site you have

[FrankMi]

Unless these responses have Daniel thinking in another direction, his original goal was to learn composition and camera basics for which any reasonable camera/lens combination would work.

As he goes through that learning process he will also, based on the kind of photography he finds himself pursuing, be able to make use of the excellent advice posted in this thread for the specific additional lenses that he will come to favor for the reasons that match his needs.

[Manfred M]

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.

-

In my personal experience, what the aspherical elements, high index glass and new lens coatings have done is to move the zoom lenses into the same quality realm as primes formerly had, even just 10 years ago. From a performance standpoint the only two places where primes still outperform zooms is in that they will have larger maximum apertures and that they have less distortion, especially pincushion or barrel distortion. This level distortion, especially in higher end lenses, can easily be corrected in PP; although some of the less expensive lenses and the ones with a very long focal length range can have some particularly weird distortion patterns.

From a video standpoint, I wouldn’t put your Sony into the same class of cameras that I was referring to in my initial write-up of high end video work. If you look at the video output of some fairly good prosumer cameras, you will find that their lenses exhibit some pretty nasty barrel distortion; walls and pillars that curve in. While okay for home movies, this is not acceptable for feature films or even TV advertisements, hence the move to primes in high end work. There is no DxO optics for video, and with 1k and 2k images being the norm, the cost of IQ in interpolation and render time makes this a non-starter.

[Shadowman]

I think at most you want to own one prime lens with the widest aperture possible at the most convenient price. 50mm is fine for most shooting experiences but go with a smaller focal length if possible and use the zoom for everything else.

[William W]

The (Canon or Nikon) 50/1.8 gets recommend often ‘as “a must have” BECAUSE it is so cheap’ – I consider that poor advice.

Low Price is NOT a strong enough criterion of itself, to purchase anything.

I would rate usefulness beyond a low price (except gratis) and in this regard, Focal Length would warrant a large consideration.

ASSUMING the OP has an APS-C Format Camera, FL = 50mm might not be all that useful: especially if it is to be the ONLY Prime in the Kit.

Regarding what kit the OP actually has - my guess is the OP uses an Olympus E-500 body with two zoom lenses 14-45mm and a 40-150mm lens: maybe he can confirm.

WW

[Manfred M]

I think at most you want to own one prime lens with the widest aperture possible at the most convenient price. 50mm is fine for most shooting experiences but go with a smaller focal length if possible and use the zoom for everything else.

I use a 50mm lens on my full-frame camera and a 35mm lens on my crop-frame as walk-around lenses when I shoot downtown. They are both nice, fast and unobtrusive.

I agree with Bill, a 50mm lens on a crop frame camera is not a particularly useful focal length. With my D90 it is too short for good head shots and its FoV is too narrow for good general purpose shots; in fact it is a focal length that hardly ever gets used on my zoom lens.

Spending money on a lens you are not going to get a lot of use out of is not a good investment, regardless of how little you paid for it.

[Colin Southern]

Low Price is NOT a strong enough criterion of itself, to purchase anything.

Oh I don't know -- I bought a couple of air beds yesterday for camping because they were cheap.

Edit: Scratch that -- They both went flat during the night so took them back this morning and bought a couple of far more expensive folding camp beds. Thank goodness I didn't by cheap lenses -- probably wouldn't have been able to return them!

PS: Bill - is Sraylya anywhere near Nucland?

[Scott Stephen]

BUT, again,...
Show me a zoom lens with AF under f/2.8 and under ten grand, and, well, you'd be showing me yet another lens I'll never spend the money to own. But ANYWAY, I lost my train of thought...

FUN!

Yes, that was it. Fun. It is very simply FUN to have even just ONE lens that is in the 1.2 to 1.8 aperature range. The potential for bokeh, and also the fact they are usually so compact and light. Seriously. Anyone with 3 or more lenses should have ONE prime.
And as for length, on a crop body, a 50mm strikes me as the perfect portrait length. The fact that they tend to be cheap at this length helps my estimation of them enourmously.

If you have a FF body, you probably aren't looking to this thread for enlightenment, and you also probably already have at least one prime too.

[William W]

is Sraylya anywhere near Nucland?

yis mayt - jist to the lift

[William W]

. . . well there is no 'perfect portrait length' - that phrase is in the same category as 'zooming with your feet'.

Now before anyone gets all hot and bothered - the words are important and it is the words (which constitute the 'advice') and not the person which is under scrutiny.

'Fun' yes - sure good idea to get a fast Prime for fun and to explore Shallow DoF.

But, if the OP wants 'fun' - then I suggest he think about the FL first - the FL which will be MOST useful if the OP (or anyone) is to buy any Prime for the kit.

***

It is also worth noting that if one does choose to save and invest in an F/2.8 zoom: then having F/1.8 to F/2.5 available will NOT make very much difference in Shallow DoF for THE MAJORITY of shots MOST PHOTOGRAPHERS will ever make, anyway.


WW

[William W]

Relevant to this thread and ‘zooms and primes usage & usefulness’ are these statistics -

I have just arrived back from 7 weeks in France and Italy.
For the ‘holiday part’ of the travel – I specifically bought a 24 to 105/4 Zoom Lens to use with my (‘Full Frame’) Camera.
Also in the ‘holiday’ Camera Kit, I took: 15/2.8; 35/1.4; Set of 3 Tubes; a White Bal Card; Table Tripod; Net-Book; 500Gb Portable Hard Disc and an SX40HS as my back-up camera.
I shot about 8000 images and about 97% of the total, were shot with the 24-105 zoom.
Roughly speaking, when using the 24 to 105: FL = 24mm~28mm was used for about 40% and the remaining Focal Length Compass of the Zoom Lens was used about equally.

I chose this particular zoom (over the 24 to 70/2.8 and the new Tamron 24 to 70) for the extra FL and the Image Stabilization. I considered that IS would be more useful (and it was) - as I expected to be rather in Low Light (sans Flash) where arresting Subject Movement would be LESS of a concern than arresting Camera Shake.

The (extended) 70 to 105 range (on a FF camera) proved invaluable for Candid Portraiture where that extra compression gained beyond using 70~85mm is useful:

“Sofia in Venice”
@ FL = 105mm: F/4 @ 1/25s @ ISO200

In the middle (35 to 70) the lens was just lovely as a ‘street lens’

“Stand - OVER THERE!”
@ FL = 70: F/5.6 @ 1/500s @ ISO200

And at the other end, 24mm to 28mm was overwhelmingly very pleasing:

"Bordeaux 01"
@ FL = 28mm F/10 @ 1/1250s @ ISO200

And for those interested in Bokeh - it was nice to Photograph Bokeh, also:

“Rainy Day Bokeh”
@ FL = 105mm F/4 @ 1/15s @ ISO50

I posted these comments to serve as an example why one who generally always uses Prime Lenses will make exclusive use of a Zoom Lens - but still initially choose and then use that zoom lens as if it were a “Set of Primes”

WW

All images © A.J Group Pty Ltd Australia / WMW 2012

[William W]

USING STEP UP / STEP DOWN RINGS

Regarding Post #22 where Circular Polarizing Filters and Step Down Rings are mentioned:

TWO remarks for the archival clarity and accuracy of this thread and also just in case someone is thinking about acting upon the comment made and might be considering buying Filters and Rings

Point at issue #1:
If one has a set of lenses, for example five lenses, and one chooses to buy only ONE Circular Polarizing Filter – then it would prudent to buy the filter to fit the LARGEST diameter Lens and then a set of Step UP Rings, to ‘step up’ the LARGER FILTER from the other lens’s SMALLER diameters.

IF one uses Step Down Rings for attaching Filters to Lenses one then runs the risk of an Optical Vignette.


Point at issue #2:
If one does choose to use Step Up Ring to attach any filter, but especially a CPL, then one runs the risk of NOT being able to attach a suitable LENS HOOD to the Lens.

Especially when the need arises for a CPL, a Lens Hood is usually mandatory as best practice and for best IQ.

***

When describing Rings, I find it most easily explained if the LENS is the CONSTANT –
The MALE side of the Ring attaches to the Lens and then we need to either “step up” or “step down” to the attachment which is inserted into that Ring + Lens combination.

WW

[Manfred M]

The other downside that I've found with step down rings is that the filters tend to bind to them and are a bit awkward to remove. I ended up pickng up a pair of plastic filter wrenches just to take them apart.

I found that no matter how loosely I attached them, after a few hours of shooting they just seem to lock together.

[William W]

. . . I've found with step down rings is that the filters tend to bind to them and are a bit awkward to remove. . .

Good point – I had forgotten that I have indeed had myself and seen with others, this exact issue.

I have a theory that the filter is easier to remove, if the ring’s MALE end is first removed from the lens and then the Filter is removed from the ring’s FEMALE end.

I think that ANY variation caused to the diameter of the MALE side of the ring when it is attached to the lens, ‘squishes’ the female side of the ring, tighter.

***

Also I think - as the day gets hotter, the inside of the ring (the female end on the filter) also gets 'more' tighter, than the outside of the ring (the male end on the lens) - I don't have any maths for this last comment - just a gut feeling, that I am correct.

WW

[dubaiphil]

I'm still trying not to get sucked into this thread!

It keeps calling though!

I own zooms and primes. There are different circumstances when I'd choose between the two. Let me give you one:

If I'm travelling during daylight, I prefer having 3 prime focal lengths in one lens - a zoom - I'm walking about with the same total weight in equipment but with one lens on my camera. I'm less exposed to any potential mishaps (from dust on sensor to having items stolen) as I am just walking about with a camera around my neck on a Black Rapid. I'm not drawing attention to myself by swapping lenses and carrying a big shoulder/back pack.

If I'm travelling but out at night, then I'm sorry but there's no substitute (IMO) for a good quality prime. If I'm visiting a market area I might make several trips, each time with a different prime. I can shoot in much lower light. Lowest potential ISO ranges in similar light - f1.4 at ISO 1600 or f2.8 at ISO 6400.

That's a no brainer, isn't it?

Now if you didn't have a prime while shooting in the evening and travelling and were fortunate to own an f2.8 pro zoom, you'd have a lot of noise to deal with. Now if you had a larger range zoom (18-200 for example) you'd be shooting at an even higher ISO.

You'd get mush.

Or you could rely on that fantastic invention - VR or IS, depending on your camera's flavour. Then you'd be at f4.5, with a slower shutter, and still have mush. Or blurry mush if you have people in your shots.

Now if someone wants to get a prime, ignoring the composition aid/"zooming with feet" discussion where people have very different views, it opens up different possibilities, doesn't it?

And isn't that the purpose of your personal photography? It is for me

[revi]

We do tend to get a bit sidetracked here sometimes, don't we

To get back to OP's (Daniel's) question, and starting from what he has (Olympus E-500 with 14-150mm, or 28-300 FFE covered), personally I'm not sure a (50 mm) prime is the best use of his money, unless he has a particular use in mind for that lens. Basically two reasons for this:
- I understood he also needs/wants PP software.
- the camera is a model of 7 years ago, so technically not up-to-date. I'm not even sure Olympus still makes SLRs*... And that would make me think hard before investing in Olympus lenses.

That is not to say that primes don't have their uses, but my budget does not allow me to get a complete collection, nor do I have clients to take into account.
So for me primes are in general a bad way to spend my money, with one exception. That was a macro lens, giving me 1:1 possibilities (and a good IQ).
So now my kit consists of a 18-55 kit zoom, 28-75 F2.8, 90 mm F2.8 macro, and 70-300 zoom. Next addition could be a wide-angle (perhaps even a prime),
or a F2.8 zoom starting at 70mm (AF on the other is broken ...).

And to give a counter exemple to Colin's:
If I'm taking pictures at an event (indoor or outdoors), action can happen over a range of distances. By the time I mount the proper prime, the moment is over...
And if I'd have needed a shorter lens, cropping won't help me. And, like I said, I cannot afford both a series of primes and a series of zooms. And as I'm more often
at events than at night-time markets...

But I agree that both primes and zooms have their uses. From there, each will have to figure out what's best based on favourite subject and budget (lets not forget that aspect).
Colin now seems to be in the enviable position of having his photography pay for the best possible kit, but most I think are more limited... (esp. the non-professionals).

Remco
(trying to get this a bit back on track for OP)

*: Newest DSLR I saw from Olympus was the E5 at €1500, otherwise it looks like they switched to hybrids like the PEN series

[Tri Danimal]

Hey all,
Sorry for pulling the pin on the grenade and then running away. My energy levels are at an all time low as I prep for a race on Nov 18, Ironman Arizona, I’m working 50-60 hrs a week and training ~20 hrs a week. I have replied with quotes to some of the major responses that I have found in the thread. I really appreciate all the time you guys and gals are taking to help me out. There are a lot of really great and in-depth responses to my original post and to be honest I don’t understand many of them.

Lets turn this around for fun:

(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.

Glenn

Can you explain a bit more what you mean by the 3:1 and 4:1 ratios? If its in the tutorials then please just say so and Ill look there but I don’t remember seeing this there.

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 ... ).

I have also updated my signature to make it easier.

Unless these responses have Daniel thinking in another direction, his original goal was to learn composition and camera basics for which any reasonable camera/lens combination would work.

As he goes through that learning process he will also, based on the kind of photography he finds himself pursuing, be able to make use of the excellent advice posted in this thread for the specific additional lenses that he will come to favor for the reasons that match his needs.

Lately I have really enjoyed taking macros of flowers and plants. I have also been reading Scott Kelly’s books “How to make you photos look like the Pros” which has got me into attempting Landscapes (with poor attempts), especially since we now have dramatic clouds of the late fall early winter weather. I have always been fascinated with clouds but I cannot make the photos look like I remember the scene.

I believe I have arrived at a decision that I need to look in to PP options rather than a new lens, for now ;-).

[Mike Buckley]

When John and Glenn mentioned 3:1 and 4:1 ratios, they are referring to the ratio of the longest focal length to the shortest focal length of a zoom lens. As an example, a classic 70-200mm zoom lens is a little shy of a 3:1 ratio (200:70 is almost 3:1).