Comments on: Prime lenses, and why you need one

By: Vishal

Vishal — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:23:29 +0000

I was using zooms for the first month or so after I started, but I always found myself wishing I had more light and better sharpness. After buying my first prime, my current set stands at
EF 28mm f/2.8 - lovely for APS-C sized sensors.
EF 35mm f/2.0 - brighter than the 28 but at the cost of a narrower AOV
EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk I - my wide portrait lens and sharper than the currently available Mk II
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - standard portrait lens, possibly my sharpest lens
EF 135mm f/2.8 SF - I love softfocus and this lens also great for narrow portraits
I can’t stop and I’ll be adding the following lenses as soon as I can
EF 100mm f/2.0 USM
EF 24mm f/2.8
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
I use only two zooms these days - the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and the Canon EF 100-300mm f/5.6 mostly because getting the focal lengths covered by those two with the kind of aperture that I like would be too expensive.

By: lezarderose

lezarderose — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:41:07 +0000

And what about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ? I have the canon 50mm 1.8 but I’d like to change…

By: mildendomedia

mildendomedia — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:44:06 +0000

Have to say I agree with this; the Canon f1.8/50mm lens is great, both for portraits (really nice shallow depth of field effects). I’ve also combined mine with some extension tubes for macro shots, it works surprisingly well.

Really versatile; should definitely be on a canon user’s shopping list.

By: Green Data

Green Data — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:38:31 +0000

I have an Olympus E400, and unfortunately Zuiko do not produce fast and cheap prime lenses, nor any other 4/3’s compatible producer.

By: Ed Perchick

Ed Perchick — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:07:14 +0000

Spot on - although the 50mm is the cheapest primes, the others cost several times what you’d pay for a consumer zoom - in the Canon line up, the 85mm f/1.8 is awesome - even better than the 50mm lenses (aside from the 50mm f/1.2 L), and you’d have to spend many times its value to get a prime lens that betters it on image quality. There aren’t any zooms that better it on image quality

By: Cory Johnson

Cory Johnson — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:20:43 +0000

If a person really *understands* the physics and optics of photography, then they would know having a prime lens, or two, is necessary. It’s all fine and dandy using a combination lens, but there’s a degree of degradation, as well as certain side affects of using different focal lengths.
I work with both types of lens, I like the flexibility. Because honestly there are instances where I just cannot get close enough with a prime lens. But … using a prime lens means I have to physically move; I find myself getting lazy using combinations lens.
For my Canon EOS Rebel I have an 80-200mm 4.5, but the 50mm 1.8 allows me to shoot very low light conditions and the sharpness is incredible!
On my Pentax ME Super (the thing is a tank! it’s like the Energizer bunny, it just keeps on going!) my combination lens are: 28-80 w/ macro @ 3.5; 80-200 @ 4.5 so I’m pretty well covered for a lot of things. But when I want sharpness I use a Pentax/Takumar 135 @ 2.8. However, I have one more prime lens for my Pentax ….. when I want to shoot something far away, and I mean really far away, I have a Sigma 600mm mirror lens @ f8. It’s pretty damn impressive! The lens virtually dwarfs the camera body! When I put that baby on the camera, I sure get looks from people :) However, a tripod is *absolutely* necessary because the smallest vibration is magnified, so I use a Manfrotto. And then when something is really, really far away, I put a 2X doubler on it! So now I’m shooting @ 1200mm! When I use that lens I don’t even touch the camera when I take a picture, I use a cable release, because even pressing the shutter will shake the camera. Digital cameras don’t stand a chance against that! :)

cory photographique
http://www.coryjohnson.net

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:57:12 +0000

I have a Nikon 50 1.8 that with my D200 is like my old 85 1.8 I used as my main lens in my film days only sharper. 2 weeks ago I found a clean Nikon 105 f 2.8 macro [pre VR version]. WOW is that sharp.

I have been debating this change back to primes for a while and the more I read, the more I think I should.

By: matt

matt — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 04:21:54 +0000

My 50mm f1.8 came in the mail today! next up is the 85 f1.8

By: matt

matt — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 03:22:37 +0000

I just ordered my second prime, the canon 50mm F1/8, my next prime will be the 85mm 1.8.

By: nate

nate — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:07:15 +0000

as a side note, canon did make an EF mount 50mm 1.0, it sells for a mere 3500-4000usd on ebay

By: nate

nate — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:35:12 +0000

or even better, fit an 85mm 1.8 on your 1.6x dslr and have a monster fast 135mm equivalent. whoo hoo! i think the 85mm should be everyones first “expensive lens” (though at 350usd, it not the most expensive lens by a long shot)

By: Brian Larter

Brian Larter — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:15:55 +0000

I have a 50mm f/1.8 as well and it spends more time on my camera then all the other lenses in my arsenal combined.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 22:51:44 +0000

I agree with every one above. I have the 50 1.4 and it is a beautifull lens. Sharp Sharp Sharp! next prime is the 85. Can’t wait.

By: Alecu

Alecu — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:36:20 +0000

Just sold my 50mm f1.8 (too many cuts on my eyes from it’s sharpness :P).

50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8 are on their way from BH. I hesitated to get the 85mm f1.2, but the financial factor finaly took it’s toll.

the 50mm f1.8 should be in everyone’s bag. Over the roof quality/price ratio.

By: brendan walker

brendan walker — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 04:34:23 +0000

i’ll talk prime lenses untill some zaned mofo banishes them from the earth, huge fan of them, purely from a “getting closer is photography” standpoint.

By: Guilherme Zuhlke O'Connor

Guilherme Zuhlke O'Connor — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:03:55 +0000

I don’t have a prime for my Nikon D70 :-( But instead I have a Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 attached to a Praktica MTL3 that used t be my father’s.

I don’t use it for a long time now, because I’m not much into film anymore, but I used it along with the Nikon N50 I had some years ago with Sigma zoom lenses attached, and the quality of such a lens is absurd.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:34:14 +0000

I currently do not own a single zoom lens, and I haven’t looked back since selling off the last one. I have Nikon’s 10.5mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, and Tamron’s 90mm f2.8 macro. On my D200, with the 1.5x crop factor, the 24mm is a great walking-around lens, I leave it on the camera by default unless I’m doing something special.

The 50mm and the 90mm are both brilliant for different types of portraiture (50mm works well for ‘head and shoulders’ shots where the 90mm is good for really tight headshots). And then the fisheye is just fun for when I’m fooling around.

By: pieter

pieter — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:15:39 +0000

the “nifty fifty” is indeed one of my favorite lenses. especially for my concert shots.

By: Jeremy Curry

Jeremy Curry — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:58:03 +0000

Just got a 50mm f/1.8 for my new Rebel XT, and at first wasn’t happy that I couldn’t zoom. I warmed up to it pretty fast though, it seems to take clear pictures, and does much better under low light than the kit lens. Any suggestions though on a macro lens?? I was checking out the LensBabies, but not sure - don’t think macro is their specialty… Though I’m not sure if I’m up to buying another lens at this point - but could easily be coerced into buying a nice macro lens.

By: Donncha O Caoimh

Donncha O Caoimh — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:45:34 +0000

I have the 50mm f1.8 too but the crop factor on my 20D makes it so narrow it’s ruined for the street photography I like. Have you tried Canon’s 35mm f2? That’d give you a “normal” FOV on smaller sensors..

By: Haje Jan Kamps

Haje Jan Kamps — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:40:40 +0000

There’s also a comparison between the f/1.8 and the f/1.4 here!

By: Haje Jan Kamps

Haje Jan Kamps — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:39:58 +0000

It may be worth noting, by the way, that if you are looking for the 50mm, that it is worth going on eBay or similar and getting the 50mm f/1.8 mk1 lens. You can get one of these for about the same price as the current offering (the mk2), but the mk1 is made of metal, and is generally sturdier. Image quality is the same, but I trust metal over plastic any day of the week.

If you want ultrasonic motors, you’re looking at the 50mm f/1.4 which is a lot more expensive. You don’t get that much better sharpness or brightness out of the f/1.4 than the f/1.8, but you do get an USM motor (= quicker, quieter autofocus), and better overall build quality.

By: Andrew Ferguson

Andrew Ferguson — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:35:36 +0000

I have the 50mm f/1.8 as well and it’s one of the best investments I’ve made. I once shot for almost four months before it ever occurred to me to take it off the body and try a different lens.

Plus it’s a challenge to yourself to frame your shots without using zoom.

By: Brian Auer

Brian Auer — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:50:56 +0000

Interesting stuff, and I think you’ve made a good point. But the fact of the matter is that most consumers don’t care if their photos aren’t sharp as a tack. Most of today’s digital photographers getting into the dSLR market “grew up” photographically with the P&S cameras over the last 5 years. Zoom was a standard thing, so it’s natural to have them expect a zoom on their big new camera.

I’ll admit it, I have a couple of zooms and my first lens (just over a year ago) was a zoom — but it wasn’t the kit lens. I opted for a higher quality lens, and I’m glad I did. I now also have a prime lens (though it’s a macro), but there is a difference between that and my zoom.

And it DOES have a different “zen-like” feeling to it compared to using a zoom.

By: Anna

Anna — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:33:59 +0000

I have a 50mm prime lens - the cheapest Canon one you can buy and it spends more time attached to my camera than any of the other, more expensive lenses in my bag.

At f5.6 or so it is ludicrously sharp, it’s great for portraits and the shallow depth of field it gives tends to create the loveliest bokeh. Plus I can take hand held pictures by candlelight and get away with it. What more could you want from a lens? I love it to death. About half the pictures in my photo gallery were taken with it.