Camera Labs

Why are people just so fond of prime lenses. Personally, I just get annoyed with them.

I have a cropped frame Canon body. As primary lenses I use the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 as well as the 10-22mm (As you can see, I like to shoot at wide focal lengths or wide open . At some point I bought the Canon 50mm f1.4, mainly to shoot in low light and also because I was curious about having a prime lens, since they are so highly regarded. After a while I found the focal length of the 50mm a bit too long and also bought a Sigma 30mm f1.4. In two years I have hardly used these primes. I sometimes give them a try, but usually get annoyed and switch back to the zooms.

The advantages of prime lenses are as far as I understand:
- Better optical quality compared to zoom lenses
- Small size and weight
- Relatively cheap
- Bright
- Makes you think about composition and just looks right

I find the optical quality of the primes not thaaat good compared to the zooms I have, especially wide open. Pictures usually look quite soft and only become sharp from f2 or f2.8 onwards. So this goes against the main advantage of these lenses – the wide aperture – if you have to avoid it to get good results.

I guess with an L lens the optical quality would be better, but then the advantages of size, weight and price don’t hold true, because the L alternatives are quite hefty in these respects.

On top of being quite soft wide open, it is also incredibly difficult to get the main object in the picture sharp at f1.4, because the depth of field is so shallow. The shallow depth of field gives of course nice creative options, but in many situations - such as people in low light - I find it hard to take good/sharp pictures.


Some people seem to like the fixed focal length, because it makes them think more about composition. I can understand that point, but every so often I find myself in situations, where I can’t get close enough or can’t step back further, and then I get annoyed to have the prime on the camera.


Why would you prefer a prime lens over something like the 17-55 f2.8. It is also bright, on top of that has image stabilization, excellent image quality and gives you more options for composition.
The only time I really use the 30mm is on days like Christmas, when I try to take pictures of people in very low light.

I’m curious to hear other opinions, since usually you only read good things about primes. Is there anybody else, who struggles with them?

_________________
Canon EOS 550D
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Sigma 30mm f/1.4

You may it sound like soft images are always bad. Not everybody seeks pin-sharp images you can set your watch to. I'm not advocating things like Instagram (I refuse to use it) but sometimes softness in an image can be a good thing. Those who want as shallow a DoF as possible but are happy to sacrifice some sharpness could benefit from the primes.


That's a text book case of "your mileage may vary". You're probably not in those situations often enough where the limitations of a prime in terms of a fixed focal length cease to be a factor.


If money were no object, I wouldn't argue with that comment. The 17-55 f/2.8 is a cracking lens but it is twice as expensive as the 50mm f/1.4 for the sake of argument.

Image stabilisation isn't necessarily a deal maker. Those are in situations where those who shoot at a high shutter speed won't benefit from IS.

_________________
Bodies: Canon EOS 550D w/ Magic Lantern
Lenses: Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX f/2.8, Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Accessories: YongNuo Speedlite YN-468 Flash, Neewer Macro LED Ring Light, Meike Battery Grip, YongNuo RF-602 Wireless Flash Trigger & Receiver YongNuo WR-128 Wireless Remote Control

Hey, I love my 35 f/2 and it is supper sharp. I can tell real quick on any of my photos which were with my 35 vs any of my others. Maybe it is a cost thing because I know I will not be able to afford that 17-55 f/2.8 anytime soon, but it is on my wish list I will probably be getting either the 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8 for photos of my new baby still in the oven I haven't decided yet. Also, look at portrait shooters. They generally have more flexibility of movement and composition than when you are walking around shooting.

_________________
Mike "The Squirrel"
Canon 550D | Canon EF 35mm 1:2 | Canon 50 f/1.8 II | Sigma 18-125mm DC OS | Tamron SP 70-300mm Di VC USD | Canon 430EX II
Military Issued Canon 40D | Canon 55-250mm IS

I shoot weddings with all primes... I don't even have a zoom lens compatible with my 5D2

I will tell you, there are a lot of times in a wedding day where I do wish I could zoom out or in just slightly, but it just forces me to think that much further ahead, plan my shots accordingly, and as my photographer boss says, "Set yourself up for success." This means selecting the right field of view, the right positioning, and the right settings.

You said your 50 was too long - I'd agree, it can be really limiting in terms of field of view on a crop camera, and your subjects can lose their context pretty quickly if you are working in too limited a space where you can't back up more. If that's the case, make a switch to your 30mm and you should have a bit more breathing room. This happens to me a lot in crowded reception halls. I might be fine to be shooting my 85mm when I'm positioned at the edge of the dance floor for candids, but when I'm in the thick of the guests in the back tables, I'm dealing with maybe a few feet of (literal) wiggle room between chairs... time for the 50 to come out.

I don't necessarily look down on zoom-users, as I'd *love* to be able to go from wide to tele in half a second from time to time, but I tend to get my head into the shooting mode better when I'm locked into one focal length. You really have to sit down and play with the lens for a while to learn it's strengths, weaknesses, and when it may or may not be appropriate to use. I have a 135mm lens that sits in my bag for 80% of the day (even though it's one of my favourites) simply because it's only truly helpful to my cause during a formal portrait session. Same goes for engagement photo shoots - I'll only use it when I *really* want to compress a background or do some hardcore subject isolation.

I don't know what you shoot in particular, so a general-purpose zoom lens probably works best for you, for your purposes. However, if I was limited to f/2.8 most of the time, I'd probably pull my hair out. I tend to stop down to f/2.8 a lot, but when it gets dark, I know I have up to 2 stops of aperture to play with.

Rorschach brought up a good point about wanting everything tack-sharp all the time. You might be disappointed with your results for a few reasons... for one thing (like you mentioned), it's tough to nail focus at 1.8 or 1.4. I can, and do consistently, but after practicing a LOT over the last 4 years, and I also shoot a LOT. Law of Averages says you'll nail focus at 1.8 in at least one in a decent burst of 4-5 shots (which is what I do when I shoot at those apertures). If you want more safety, stop down and you get some greater insurance of a sharp shot (light-permitting).

Image Stabilization would be a lovely addition to any of my lenses, but technique can let you get away with shots at less than 1/focal length shutter speeds. I shot a closeup of the ring exchange at the last wedding with my 135 at 1/80th (normally I'd use 1/160th at least) and in a burst of 5 shots I got three pin-sharp ones. Pretty decent amount there.

Ultimately primes vs zooms comes down to how, what, and when you shoot what you do. If zooms work for you, then that's awesome! I am thinking personally about getting a used 24-70/2.8L in the next 6 months as a backup and walkaround lens but I'll still grab my 35/50/85/135s when I want to do serious shooting. Primes work for what I do, I like that I know the focal lengths, and lack of choice makes me a better photographer... but your mileage may vary

_________________
Canon EOS 5D MkII | Canon EOS 7D | Canon Digital Rebel XSi | EF 35mm f/1.4L | EF 50mm f/1.8 II | EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM | EF 135mm f/2L | EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS | 580EX II | LumoPro LP-120

My Flickr

Keep in mind that with a 50mm at f1.4, depending on how far away the person is, it's possible that, for example, his/her nose could be in focus and his/her ears, not. So maybe your pics are in good, sharp focus, just not the whole pic/person/subject.

If you want more DoF you can stop down, assuming there's enough light. But if there isn't enough light, you can choose between opening up the lens and having parts of the image be soft due to less DoF or increasing ISO (and having the whole pic be soft due to having to increase NR or just having the whole pic be noisy) or decreasing shutter speed (and having a soft pic due to motion blur--IS doesn't help when the person/subject moves). Whereas a lens with a max aperture of f2.8 will only give you the latter two options.



Keep in mind that "composition" isn't only about framing (the subject)--as noted above, physically repositioning the camera (i.e. changing the distance to the subject) also affects DoF. It also changes the background as compared to keeping the camera stationary and zooming with the lens.



For me personally, I don't need anything that wide, nor do I need IS. But I do need something longer and brighter, which is why I use a 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 100m f2 and 135mm f2. (And there isn't a 35-135mm f2 EF(-S) lens that I know of.)

Mark

I have a mixture depending on what I'm shooting. 3 zooms and 3 primes, so I don't sit in any camp. I've got everything covered, apart from the 200mm f2 I want (I day it will be mine!)

Without reiterating the above, which are all valid points, I'll add something else into the mix. Street photography, environmental candids etc - you don't want a large form factor when you're walking about. Try pointing a 24-70 f2.8 with hood in a crowded street and you will attract plenty of attention. Try a 70-200mm f2.8 and it'll be even worse. Slap a 35mm or 50mm on board and you're instantly a lot less noticeable.

My first prime was a 35mm and I initially used it on a crop sensor. I found that a little limiting in terms of field of view for me. On a FF body now it gets a lot more use. Having said that, my 50mm on FF now gets a lot more use as I've developed some different styles over the past year or so. 50mm on a crop would definitely be too limiting for me unless I was shooting portraits and didn't want to much of the environment thrown in. But it all depends on how you 'see' as to whether you like a certain focal length or not. Anything considered and I'll reach for my prime lenses - anything where action is fast moving and I need zippier focus and I'll generally go for my 2.8 zooms

Image quality - a lens designed to cover one focal length will generally out perform a lens designed to cover a range of focal lengths. Obviously, if you're comparing a pro f2.8 zoom to a cheaper prime, this isn't necessarily the case, but is a general rule. Also, some primes are soft wide open - some are really sharp. Most will be sharper at f2.8 than a pro zoom, if that's your thing.

One last thing is robustness. There's less to go wrong, generally speaking. I have one lens with VR, and that doesn't work now. All my other lenses don't have it and I just don't need it or want it. Your needs may vary, but for what I'm shooting it's not needed. If I'm shooting people who aren't moving then I can get away with 1/60th with good technique on my 85mm, otherwise I'm generally at 1/100th plus. I'd prefer high ISO capability any day over VR at shorter focal lengths - 200mm and upwards would be a different story though

I'd recommend you stick with it

- Better optical quality it is, less Color fringing (Chromatic Aberration)

- There are a lot of primes that are small yes... especially for Leica... but not the Super / Telephoto ones for canon.

- Primes arent all that cheap though. well Voigtlander and Sigma is fairly cheap though.

though cheap primes dont really have that great optical quality if u compare it to an "L" zoom lens.

well f/2.8 is more of a standard aperture for me, its not super bright like f/1.2 or f1/.4. Though I do love the BOKEHLICIOUS photos I get from those

I dont really struggle with my primes since I have ranges all the way from 12mm to 300mm... though at work I would go out with 3 primes and 1 zoom (well only have 1 zoom).

But when I do my street photography I usually just go out with my 35mm 1.4 and 12mm 5.6 primes.

though what I usually do is have one body using a zoom and the other using a prime.

_________________
http://www.AnderssonPhoto.com
Cameras: Leica M8, Nikon FE-2, Canon EOS 1D Mark IV, 5D Mark II, 40D
Lenses: Voigtländer Nokton Classic 35mm 1.4, Ultra Wide Heliar 12mm 5.6 ASPH II, Nikkor AI-S 28mm 2.8, Canon 24-70 2.8L, 85mm 1.2L II, 300mm 2.8L IS, TS-E 45mm 2.8, Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro
Canon 1.4x/2X TC II, Canon 580EX II X2, Gitzo + Manfrotto.
Wishlist: Leica Monochrom, Summilux 50 ASPH, Voigtlander 35mm 1.2 ASPH II

At work, I bring two 7D camera bodies, and keep an EF-S 10-22mm on one, and a 100mm 2.8L Macro on the other. I like to have a 35mm or 50mm with me, too, but very rarely bother to change lenses. So, I am neither all-prime, nor all-zoom. This is for evidentiary photography as a police patrol officer, using my personally-owned equipment.

On my own time, with a cropped-frame Canon camera, I generally prefer to pick one lens, for my anticipated needs that day, and usually select a prime, but sometimes the 10-22mm, or an EF 28-135mm lens that was packed as the kit zoom with my first 7D. If I select the 10-22mm, I am a bit more likely to hedge my bets by also bringing a small prime, but rarely seem to actually change lenses when out and about. When carrying my "full-frame" 5D, I generally select a prime; I cannot recall using my 28-135mm on the 5D, except for a brief trial period at home.

I have noticed that the primes I favor for walk-about photography of people are 35mm for cropped-frame, and 40mm to 50mm for full-frame. These are rather close to the normal human-perceived field of view. I rarely find myself having to step back when composing an image with them, except for a group photo. There have certainly been times I wished to have been able to zoom-out, and could not, but there remains the option of cropping.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

as nice as the 17-55 is , bokeh isn`t its strength. Its great for low light applications, portrait at a pinch, but too short and poor bokeh. But great for video its close enough to parfocal.
For me for general purpose lens.

I could just about get away with leaving the Sigma 30 on all the time. I don`t use the 50 1.8 much, its a focal length that doesn`t work for me, but the canon 85 1.8 and 100 macro are a joy to use.
Using lenses at 1.4 or 1.8 isn`t something I do a lot of, but its nice option to have. Then 2.8 isn`t enough to capture moving subjects.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 7D, 15-85, Canon 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro, Canon 70-300L IS USM+Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

Personally I'm using a 12-24mm, a 24-105mm and a 100-400mm - a very nice set of zoom lenses. And then I have some special primes for special situations. OK, my 50mm 1.8 II just died so I just have the 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM for portraits and Macro shots but I'm quite happy with my choice. Everyday flexibility: zoom. Special stuff: special lenses.

Oh damned. My 50mm 1.8 annoys me. It's like my 5D Mark III doesn't live cheap equipment - on the day the 5D Mark III arrived my 50mm 1.8 II fell apart and the Nissin Speedlite Di466fell down and now I can just use it on as a slave as I can't put it on a camera again.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466

Hi all,

thanks a lot for your replies. I guess I learned 2 things from this thread:

1. People who use prime lenses may carry several lenses with different focal ranges. With this and a bit of milage there's no problem with getting the desired framing.

2. It is hard to get the focus right hat wide apertures. Maybe I was a bit optimistic at f1.4. Like Plymer says, it may take several shots to get one that nails the focus.

I also noticed another reason, why I didn't get sharp images. It was actually motion blur, I just didn't understand it during that time. I usually shot at aperture priority, leaving iso on auto. In dark light, the camera would choose a shutter speed of 1/50 and try to keep the iso down (instead of choosing a faster shutter speed). However, 1/50 was often not enough to freeze the scene. I've now started to shoot more in manual in these situation, and choose a faster shutter speed. Now I am a lot more happy with the result I get...


Is there actually any good/fast 35mm equivalent for crop frame cameras? I know there is the EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, but there doesn't seem to be a cheaper f1.4 option?

_________________
Canon EOS 550D
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Sigma 30mm f/1.4

The closest alternative that I can think of off hand is the Sigma 20mm f1.8 which is obviously slower, but also closer to 35mm equiv. and maybe half the price of the Canon 24mm f1.4

Mark

Question: "Is there actually any good/fast 35mm equivalent for crop frame cameras? I know there is the EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, but there doesn't seem to be a cheaper f1.4 option?"

I have been considering the new EF 24mm and 28mm 2.8 with Image Stabilization. While f/2.8 may not seem very "fast," unless one really needs extremely shallow depth-of-field, for a specific reason, the Image Stabilization should help make f/2.8 a bit more feasible for hand-held shots in low light. These new lenses have been receiving positive attention, with the 28mm, especially, being well-reviewed on various sites. Moreover, f/2.8, really is a quite wide aperture. Even in low light, I try to stay in the f/2.8 to f5.6 range, unless I really need to open the aperture for a specific reason.

On 28mm versus 24mm, on FF or cropped-frame, one has to be quite careful, when composing the image, to ensure distortion at the edges does not ruin the effect that one wishes to create, when using 24mm. I have noticed 28mm allows a bit more freedom in taking quickly-framed shots, as distortion at the edges is less likely to be an issue. This does not mean I do not like wide lenses; I love my EF-S 10-22mm, for example. Vertical lines, such as buidlings and tree trunks, near the edges, must be carefully considered; holding the camera very, very level is important, unless distortion is OK for that particular shot. ( I owned the older EF 28mm and 24mm, both 2.8, in the past. )

Once again, I do like ultra-wide and wide lenses, but they do magnify my error when I do not hold the camera very, very level.

Hopefully, some of my rambling has been helpful.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

Given that the OP was already having an issue with motion blur, my guess is that a larger aperture would be of more benefit than IS.

Mark

Hallelujah!

IS/VR is NOT the answer, or the requirement in a lot of cases!

On lots of forums people are asking for the next versions of the Nikkor/Canon 24-70mm f2.8 to have VR/IS. Why oh why oh why!