I can't help toying with the idea of joining the "primes only" camp.
Current lineup:
40D with:
16-35L
24-70L
50mm F/1.4
100mm Macro
Yes, those are great lenses and they do their job well. But I actually like that when shooting with th 50mm and the 100mm I have to think more about my composition and reposition myself instead of just turning a zoom ring. And shooting the 50mm at F/2.0 and F/1.8 is just plain addictive.
Primes lineup idea:
15mm F/2.8 Fish
28mm F/1.8 - Both ditched in favor of the 24L
50mm F/1.4 (keeping the one I've got already)
85mm F/1.8
100mm F/2.8 Macro (keeping the one I've got already)
135mm F/2.0L
300mm F/4 IS (When money allows)
So... to all you prime shooters out there - whaddayathink? Any suggestions for the lineup? Am I insane?
EDIT - Nobody seems to read the entire thread before answering, so let me just state a few things:
- I shoot merely for my own amusement.
- I have prevously owned the 70-200 F/2.8L. A damn fine lens, but a huge, white attention-magnet.
- I am considering making the switch only to challenge myself and to grow as a photographer. Not because I believe that shooting primes will turn my crappy snapshots into art.
Some like zooms, some like primes. Feel free to tell me which you prefer, your experiences with either, but do not tell anybody that their preferences are wrong. Man I seem to have stepped into a minefield with this thread!
Edited by Kaffemonster on Aug 29, 2008 at 09:11 PM GMT
No, you're definitely not insane. When I go out for street / stock / travel photography, I mainly use primes (35L, 85L, 135L) plus something for the wide end (17-40, 24 TSE or 15 fisheye). I derive massive pleasure out of shooting like this for the reasons you've stated.
Because I mostly shoot events and weddings for a living, I need my zooms. If it weren't for that... I'd still keep something like a 70-200 f/4 IS and a 17-40 though.
I guess some people prefer the siplicity and convinience that zooms offer, but primes has their own versatility when it comes to size/weight, being fast (1.2-1.4 zooms anyone? ), having amazing sharpness/bokeh combinations and generally performing very well, and this is just the technical aspects. I like how primes force you to "walk-zoom" and therefore do a more cognitive decision about framing and composition! I love them
I don't think I've used a zoom outside sports since i got my primes :P
You are not insane. Maybe I am because I have them both.
I started with zooms and then added a lot of primes which I really like and I use more then my zooms. But especially for landscape I still use the zooms most of the time.
It all depends on the work being done, which the OP carefully avoided talking about.
If you are doing sports, then zooms are generally the way to go. If you are doing landscapes or architecture or formal portraits, then primes are the way to go.
Sure, there are things you cannot do with zooms, as mentioned shooting at f1.2 to f2.8 but apart from that I think it comes down to personal preference and what works best for what you shoot. For example, at a rugby game my primary lens is a 400 f2.8 prime, there isn't really a zoom which comes close, but for close up stuff I always have a 2nd body with a 70-200 on it.
Warning: If you're gonna do it make sure you're doing it for the right reasons (lens lust qualifies as the right reason ). But if your photography is going well at the moment why change camps?
I took it one step further and ditched most of my AF lenses, kept the 35L and 135L just because they're brilliant!
Other than these two I have adapted the following three z's
16/2.8 Zenitar
24/2.8 & 55/1.2 Zuiko
85/1.4 Zeiss
I just love to take my time focusing, composing, zooming with my feet if I can.
In your suggested lineup I'd prolly change the fisheye to something cheaper and Russian. Autofocus in fisheyes is about as useful as fridges to penguins
For the same reason (although to a lesser extent) I'd go zuiko between 21-28mm, use the savings to treat yourself to something truly special
Depends on your shooting, if you are controlling the shooting then you possibly don't need zooms though a 1mm twitch of a zoom can often make all the difference to a composition when you can't move anymore.
If you are shooting things out of your control (street/wedding/PJ) then primes have the quality to possibly make up for the inevitable cropping while being smaller/lighter and having better contrast.
When shooting weddings I use zooms on one body and primes on the other, for me they have different applications. I shoot street with a 50mm and often crop the heck out of the pictures, the sharpness and 13 megapixels of the 5D allow me that luxury. Putting a 24-105L would give me far more versatility in not having to crop but it won't give me f2 when I need to stop movement and it's bleeding huge in comparison.
Two similar pictures shot with the 50mm, first at f2, second at f2.8 and cropped to a 5 megapixel file, I could still print it at 18X12" though.
It all depends on the work being done, which the OP carefully avoided talking about.
If you are doing sports, then zooms are generally the way to go. If you are doing landscapes or architecture or formal portraits, then primes are the way to go.
Why leave out key info when asking questions?
Because so far, I'm only toying with the idea.
No sports whatsoever. They bore me to death so shooting them is not on my wishlist. Landscapes, candid portraits and macro is more of my field. And my kid, naturally... Who is my biggest cause for going with zooms so far.
Then for your purposes, primes are the way to go. I have a mixture of primes and zooms and would love to add more of each, with a bias towards adding more primes.
50mm F/1.4 (keeping the one I've got already)
85mm F/1.8
100mm F/2.8 Macro (keeping the one I've got already)
135mm F/2.0L
That's a pretty packed zone!
Above my 17-50 I have the 100/2 and 200/2.8L. If you need macro, obviously keep the 100/2.8, otherwise switch to the 100/2. In any case, 50 + 100 + 200 + a good TC will serve you well at less cost.
Spyro P. wrote:
Warning: If you're gonna do it make sure you're doing it for the right reasons ( lens lust qualifies as the right reason ). But if your photography is going well at the moment why change camps?
I took it one step further and ditched most of my AF lenses, kept the 35L and 135L just because they're brilliant!
Other than these two I have adapted the following three z's
16/2.8 Zenitar
24/2.8 & 55/1.2 Zuiko
85/1.4 Zeiss
I just love to take my time focusing, composing, zooming with my feet if I can.
In your suggested lineup I'd prolly change the fisheye to something cheaper and Russian. Autofocus in fisheyes is about as useful as fridges to penguins
For the same reason (although to a lesser extent) I'd go zuiko between 21-28mm, use the savings to treat yourself to something truly special
Lens Lust - Oh yeah, you can check that box alright... But I'm quite sure I'm going with AF lenses. When I have time to focus carefully and manually, I can do that (FTM on the USM lenses rock!) but if I'm in a hurry, I need that AF.
And a 5D mk II is on the horizon for me. Probably a year down the road, yes, but I'm getting one. If it turns out to be rubbish, I'll save a ton of money and get the original 5D. Spending a year shooting only primes, forcing myself to compose my shots properly, zooming with my feet and generally getting to know those primes a 5D mk II would not be a bad idea I think. Hmmm... to swap my 40D for a 5D mk I or not.....
markarce wrote:
may i suggest the 35/2 instead of the 28/1.8 from your initial proposition. primes are addicting, yes.
Lineup-in-case-of-primes changed to:
24L
50mm F/1.4
85mm F/1.8
100mm F/2.8 Macro (I use it A LOT for macro)
135L - I have just plain always wanted to get this lens. LOOOOOVE the candid portraits people churn out with this baby on a FF camera. And it's just so small and innocent (= not white) looking. Perfect for street photography.
Kaffemonster wrote:
I can't argue with stuff like that. Brilliant
I was just looking at the numbers, and If I sold my 16-35 and 24-70, I should be able to do this:
24L
keep my 50mm
85 1.8
keep my 100mm
135L
And if I'm lucky - a 15mm fish
When you use the 24-70 what FL do you land on? You may want to think about the 35 to fill the gap between 24 and 50 if you find yourself landing between 24 & 50 on the zoom. OF course the foot zoom can cover that as well
grizz9 wrote:
When you use the 24-70 what FL do you land on? You may want to think about the 35 to fill the gap between 24 and 50 if you find yourself landing between 24 & 50 on the zoom. OF course the foot zoom can cover that as well
My 24-70 is usually either at 24mm or 70mm. Yes, the 35L is nice, but I can crop from 24 to 35, not the other way around. And I do like wideangle...
Isn't there a program that scans through your images and then tells you what focal lengths, apertures etc. you use the most?
Off-topic: Man I love this forum. A GWC from Denmark asks a question and I get helpful, qualified answers from the US, the UK, Norway, the Netherlands, the Philipines, Australia and France. And some jerk from Denmark not following my lens lust. Just kidding, Henrik - See you around
The one thing to remember is that when you crop a 24mm to 35mm (assuming full frame) perspective it doesn't get rid of distortions. 24mm starts to distort people and other objects if they are close.
Aug 27, 2008 at 05:25 AM