 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2006Prime vs Zoom
I'm a bit worried that I might have become addicted to primes. I'm pretty new to digital slr photography and have been happily using my 18-70 kit lens for the last 6 months which was bundled with my d70s. I recently raided my savings and replaced the kit lens with the 17-55/2.8 and am very impressed with this lens, but I also purchased a couple of primes, the 85/1.4 and the 50/1.4 and I'm now feeling guilty as the primes have been on my camera far more than the zoom! I can see that a working pro doing things like weddings or photojournalism will need the zoom, wheras the hobby photographer may well be happier with the primes as there is not the pressure to get shots, and the thing that really impresses me with the primes is the simplicity of the design and the light weight for what they will do. Compared with the zoom I'm hardly aware of the lens on the camera as it's so light, especially the 50mm. Another thing I like about the primes is that it makes you think a lot more about composition as you have to choose your shot based on the lens rather than seeing something you like and framing with the zoom. I can see myself now wanting to gradually get the full set of primes but this could get very expensive. Cheers - Adrian www.boliston.co.uk > I'm a bit worried that I might have become addicted to primes. I'm pretty > new to digital slr photography and have been happily using my 18-70 kit lens [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > myself now wanting to gradually get the full set of primes but this could > get very expensive. Nothing to feel guilty about. In general prime lenses are a great buy and if you are going to work in low light they are just about a must. I am slowly, very slowly, building my collection of prime lenses. The 50mm f/1.8 was so inexpensive it was hard to pass up, but with a crop factor of 1.6 is somewhat limited when shooting indoors. I have just ordered a 28mm f/2.8, which should do fairly well for indoor shooting. Next will either be the 100mm f/2 or the 100mm macro f/2.8. I also use Zoom lenses because often I simply don't have the time to change lenses. When I am shooting image that I am later going to stitch I much prefer prime lenes, which is another big reason for the 28mm lens, this is a very good focal length when stitching to go to exterme wide angle. Currently I mostly stitch using my 50mm but this if often just a bit long. Scott > I'm a bit worried that I might have become addicted to primes. I'm pretty > new to digital slr photography and have been happily using my 18-70 kit lens [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > myself now wanting to gradually get the full set of primes but this could > get very expensive. Perspective control always requires that you change position so it is a moot point whether you have zoom or prime. To get the shot as you envision it you have to be at the right point in space. Once there a prime is the best lens to have. I prefer primes for creative photography and zooms for any time there will be a lot of people about and in the shots. Cheers, Alan  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Perspective control always requires that you change position so it is a > moot point whether you have zoom or prime. To get the shot as you > envision it you have to be at the right point in space. Once there a > prime is the best lens to have. > > I prefer primes for creative photography and zooms for any time there > will be a lot of people about and in the shots. And sometime there is not enough time to even think about changing lenses. This shoot was taken at 178mm http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/70177794 and 4 seconds later this shot was taken at 64mm http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/70177798 And there were two shots taken between those two. Sometime life comes at you pretty fast and you just don't have time to do all the careful setup you might want to do. Scott > I'm a bit worried that I might have become addicted to primes. I'm > pretty new to digital slr photography and have been happily using my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a couple of primes, the 85/1.4 and the 50/1.4 and I'm now feeling > guilty as the primes have been on my camera far more than the zoom! Needn't worry. The primes you got are really nice. I like my 85/1.4 and 50/1.4 as well. I prefer natural light photography, when possible, and find these two lenses a true joy. Plus, the bokeh on the 85 is killer. The 17-55 is a nice lens and you should enjoy it, but you'll find the primes more satisfying to use. Add the 28mm f/1.4 to your bag and you will be throwing away the 17-55. Rita [] > I can see myself now > wanting to gradually get the full set of primes but this could get > very expensive. > Cheers - Adrian www.boliston.co.uk Is it a co-incidence that some manufacturers of DSLRs have stopped extending their high-end non-SLR cameras - the ones they can't sell a range of lenses for? Almost giving the camera bodies away! <G> David > [] >> I can see myself now [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > extending their high-end non-SLR cameras - the ones they can't sell a > range of lenses for? Almost giving the camera bodies away! <G> If they start selling bodies for little profit in the hope they will make money on glass then this must benefit those new to dslr as they get the basic body for peanuts and add glass when they can afford it. The d50 has got to be a bargain for someone getting into dslr photography, which teamed with the basic 50/1.8 will produce top class photos for *very* little outlay. > I'm a bit worried that I might have become addicted to primes. I'm pretty > new to digital slr photography and have been happily using my 18-70 kit lens [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 50/1.4 and I'm now feeling guilty as the primes have been on my camera far > more than the zoom! Adrian-- I'm right there with you. I started out with zooms, but as my interest (and ability) increased, I became more and more interested in primes. I shoot with Canon, and I began with the 50 f/1.4 about a year ago. When I first got it, I loved it. But for some reason, I kind of forgot about it. A month or two ago, I "rediscovered" it, prompting me to buy the 85 f/1.8. The 85 is a fantastic lens, and quite a good buy for what one gets. My experience with these ultimately led me to the 135 f/2L. I had read all the reviews and, dare I say it, exaltations about this lens. After using it, I have to say I am a convert. It is simply a fantastic lens. With primes, I feel I get better color, saturation, and sharpness (all well discussed pluses for primes). But I also feel I have grown more active with my photography. Using primes forces me to consider each shot more actively in regard to composition, framing, and over-all "initial completeness." It has been a wonderful journey. I still like my 70-200 f/4L, I still love my 24-70 f/2.8L, and I still adore my 16-35 f/2.8L, but my new primes have given me a fresh perspective on photography. I find more and more opportunities to use them, and I am enjoying exploring their potential--and my own. --John On 17-Nov-06 17:22:15, My Bokeh said >I still like my 70-200 f/4L, I still love my 24-70 f/2.8L, and I still >adore my 16-35 f/2.8L, but my new primes have given me a fresh >perspective on photography. No John, perspective is only changed by viewpoint, not by focal length! Sorry, couldn't resist, when I was photographic assistant in the early eighties, one of the old and wise Photographers always used to bang on about that. :) All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM) I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html "My Bokeh" <mybokeh@gmail.com> wrote in message > I'm right there with you. I started out with zooms, but as my interest > (and ability) increased, I became more and more interested in primes. Photographers tend to prefer one over the other, according to author Brian Bower. I agree. I use a couple of zooms only to fill in the gaps if I require a particular focal length that I don't have in primes. I know that primes slow down the photographer (having to change lenses rather than simply twist the zoom ring), but slowing down has made me a better photographer. Adrian, I'm quite impressed with some of your photographs. I also have the D70s camera with the following lenses. 50/1.8 35-70/2.8 80-200/2.8 If you ever get a chance to try out the 80-200/2.8, I think that you will be impressed with it. I am considering to purchase the 17-35/2.8 and the 105micro/2.8 but decisions, decisions... -------------------------------- > I'm a bit worried that I might have become addicted to primes. I'm pretty > new to digital slr photography and have been happily using my 18-70 kit lens [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Cheers - Adrian www.boliston.co.uk |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.