Prime or Zoom?

[winjeel]

Had I been given a Nikon as a graduation present when I graduated high school, I would probably flaunt my Nikon lenses as proudly as I flaunt my "OMG! Look at me!" white attention whore Canon L lens

To each his own

Have you seen the new Sony 70-400mm G? Remember "G" is the Sony / Minolta designation for a professional lens, and originally G was for 'gold'! Now THAT'S ostentatious!


(btw, the new 70-400mm G is silver in colour! Not white, or black, but silver!!!) :confused:

 

[WGibsonPhotography]

Have you seen the new Sony 70-400mm G? Remember "G" is the Sony / Minolta designation for a professional lens, and originally G was for 'gold'! Now THAT'S ostentatious!


(btw, the new 70-400mm G is silver in colour! Not white, or black, but silver!!!) :confused:

I havent seen it. I'll go look it up and check it out. Doesnt Sony have white lenses? I guess I'll find out after a google search

I used to have a silver 28-90mm lens for my Canon. It was the silver version of the kit lens that came with the K2 (which is also silver, or mine is silver. PErhaps there are some black ones. I really have no clue :/ )

The white/silver pro lenses just scream out "steal me!" or at least that what I think every time I see a white canon lens (including mine, every time I open the bag)

 

[winjeel]

Despite how ostentatious a white lens is, it's still useful, I think (but I don't have one, so I don't really know. Consider point one here, Fourteen Tips for Photographing in Public (in the post 9/11 world).

 

[unohuu]

...
It's interesting to see that most people have a twenty-something, a fifty-ish, and another one before 100mm. But no one has a really wide angle? If did get one, it'd be the Sigma 12-24. Seems really good, but I don't have a use for it... yet.

I do have zooms: Tokina 12-24mm; Tokina 20-35mm; Nikkor 80-200mm. I bought the wide zooms because I don't use WA often for people shots.

 

[elekm]

When possible, I like to use smaller camera bodies and (physically) smaller lenses. I don't like to draw attention to myself with my camera equipment.

 

[pnance]

It's interesting to see that most people have a twenty-something, a fifty-ish, and another one before 100mm. But no one has a really wide angle? If did get one, it'd be the Sigma 12-24. Seems really good, but I don't have a use for it... yet.

Let's see, I have at 20, 16(fisheye), 15 and 12mm.

Paul

 

[archphoto]

I use a 14-28mm as my prime lens, other zooms: 28-85mm and 80-300mm.
Single lengh lenses I use on MF and LF.

Peter

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

primes only (almost - I have an ancient 80-200 for those situations where I can't zoom with my feet).

Wider than "twenty-something": 15mm, 16mm Fisheye. 17mm, 18mm 19mm

Minimal kit:
18/19/20/21mm + 35mm + 85/90/105mm

Expansion to minimal kit:
15mm + 180/200mm

 

[nyoung]

I have two pretty good zooms.
BUT, as I grew up in the days of all zooms being bad and slow, my shooting style is so ingrained in the fixed lens mode that when I use a zoom it is usually zoomed all the way out or in. Thus no real reason to carry the zoom instead of the fixed focal length.
Normal kit for me is 20/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 105/2.5, 180/2.8

 

[winjeel]

primes only (almost - I have an ancient 80-200 for those situations where I can't zoom with my feet).

Wider than "twenty-something": 15mm, 16mm Fisheye. 17mm, 18mm 19mm

Minimal kit:
18/19/20/21mm + 35mm + 85/90/105mm

Expansion to minimal kit:
15mm + 180/200mm

Quite a range. It begs the question, what are they all used for?

...
Normal kit for me is 20/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 105/2.5, 180/2.8

Nice range. What brand(s)?

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Quite a range. It begs the question, what are they all used for?

The reason for so many FLs so close to each other (e.g. 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21mm) is different systems.

What I use them for? Everything!

 

[harrygrey382]

Normal kit for me is 20/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 105/2.5, 180/2.8

yeah nice, if those are AIS Nikkors - VERY nice!

I'm a bit green, but personally I prefer fixed lengths because I findbeing able to instantly change the focal length is too much to think about and I either spend too long or miss the shot. Fixed lengths fix this variable

 

[Paul Jenkin]

When I started taking photos in 1974, I had one 50mm lens for my Edixa to which I saved up and eventually added a cruddy 'Prinzflex' 300mm f5.6. I progressed into the 1980's with Olympus OM kit and eventually bought a 35-70mm to go with the 28mm, 50mm and 100mm primes.

In the early 80's, I was 'seduced by the dork side' and swapped to the Canon A1 / FD lenses and, apart from a 28mm and 50mm, all my lenses were zooms - some Canon and some Tamron Adaptall 2.

Quality is all that I've ever been after and, unless a zoom has offered me respectable sharpness, colour and contrast, I wouldn't touch it. I am quite adept at 'zooming with my feet' and would rather do that (falling off mountains excepted) than accept poor end result for the sake of convenience.

Via a number of other systems and formats, I now find myself with a Nikon F100 and the following Nikkors: 24mm/f2.8, 35mm/f2.0, 50mm/f1.8 and 85mm/f1.8. I use the same lenses on my D700. This film and digital set up is very portable and to be recommended for anyone who isn't anti-digital.

I also have OM1 and OM2n, with 24mm/f2.8, 50mm/f1.4, 100mm/f2.8 and 75-150mm/f4.0. I'll probably end up trading the 75-150mm/f4.0 for a 200mm/f4.0 or something with a bit more reach. My Bronica SQ-B kit has 3 'PS' primes (40mm, 80mm and 150mm) as I've never seen or used any of their zooms.

 

[phelger]

hi there,
I used to work with a 35mm Nikon system, mostly zoom lenses, but I got disappointed by all the dull and uncontrasty pictures i made. So one day took the big leap to Leica MP, have now 35, 50 75 and 90mm Leica lenses and, it does not take a second to see the difference in my prints (a typical "before" and "after" ad!). I like unohuu's zoom technique "with my feet" - it takes more time but gives better results. In my opinion, the zoom is justified only in case of reporter-style photography where speed is essential.
Anyway, good luck winjeel.
peter
P.S. I did'nt know the use of "prime" for a lens; and don't either know what is an "SFL" or an "SRT".

 

[firecracker]

I can just live with 35mm and 50mm lenses for the rest of my life if I really really have to.

But I guess not yet.

 

[nyoung]

Normal kit for me is 20/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 105/2.5, 180/2.8

All Nikons, some AF-D, some AI, some AIS, some in multiple forms.

Been shooting, buying and trading this stuff since 1981. I once had so many 50/1.8s - because every used camera I picked up had one on it - that I started giving them away to my students so that they could spend their money on 28s and 180s.

 

[nicefor88]

As you all know, zoom lenses are either bulky and too heavy when opening at f2.8 or "dark" when f4 or worse is their max aperture.
Zoom with our feet, that's right. Fixed focal lenses are good enough, I would say and they open from f1.4 (not including the equally bulky lenses having a larger aperture). I don't like zooms, they bring all kind of quality problems. If they don't they cost too much money...
:rolleyes:

 

[clayne]

Zoom lens city? Get a rope. (some of you will catch that reference)

I hate to say it, but zooms are a complete waste of time for quality photographic output that is consistent. No, I don't mean that from a fidelity, sharpness, or contrast standpoint - that is optics. I'm talking about actual good photography that depends on you "thinking within the lens." Even zooming with one's feet is a strong simplification of a much stronger property: you're thinking within the focal length and you're visualizing within those constraints.

The other huge advantage of FFLs are the fact that perspective is consistent across context (or sub-contexts) of a given set of photographs. This lends the viewer a subjective, but very important, feel for a consistent vision and approach when they view the photographs after. I'm not saying only use one lens, but what I am saying is within the context of a given project, story, etc. allow for the optical side of things to be consistent enough such that it's no longer noticeable nor disrupts the feel of "closeness" with a subject.

Also, prime lens force closeness the constructive way. It shows in both the subject's appearance and one's own approach to photography over time.

 

[Q.G.]

I don't think there is a real difference between zoom lenses and fixed focal lenses.
Instead of a zoom, you can pick the lens of the same (or near enough) focal lenght.
And instead of having to get close to your subject, because your lens happens to be, say, a 35 mm, you can put a zoom to 35 mm and get in close as well.
All much the same.

We don't let the lens decide how we tackle a given subject anyway, right?
We decide, and then pick the lens that suits what we want to achieve.
So if i need, say, a 100 mm lens, i'll pick a 100 mm lens. If that is a zoom lens set to 100 or a lens of 100 mm focal length doesn't make a difference, as far as being a 100 mm lens is concerned.

So i think it is in the maximum aperture and optical quality. And nothing else.

 

[Pumal]

The same glass is cheaper if you work with primes.

 

[Q.G.]

The same glass is cheaper if you work with primes.

Still, if you tot up the cost of all the lenses the zoom replaces?

 

[clayne]

Still, if you tot up the cost of all the lenses the zoom replaces?

The zoom lens doesn't outright replace each individual prime, 1:1. If one wanted to keep going with that argument we'd end up with digital vs film.

 

[winjeel]

The cost of my second hand Minolta 28mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.4 still doesn't get halfway to a decent 28-70mm G. I understand what Clayne says, but there are times when your feet cannot carry you close enough from your target, and that also assumes that your target isn't moving (think of parades and festivals). I think it does depend on what works for you.

 

[removed-user-1]

I use prime/sfl lenses because when I bought them, I couldn't afford a really good zoom and really good prime/sfl's were in my budget. A Nikkor 35mm f/2 and 105mm/f2.5 were all I used for a very long time.

I prefer fixed focal length lenses, mostly because the first exposure I had to zoom lenses was the Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5. Actually, I liked that lens a lot until I started blowing my prints up and realized that it was really awful.

I could usually get by with just two lenses, and for a long time I also carried only the Nikkor 35mm f/2 and 105mm f/2.5. These days my tastes have gotten wider and my two lens kit is a 24mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4. However, I do have a Nikon Series E 70-210mm f/4 which I bring if I think I will have to work with distant subject matter. I no longer own any Sigma zoom lenses; it's not that they weren't good, but the Nikkors are better (IMHO).

In medium format, I am finding my wide-angle bias is also present. I currently have the 65mm f/4.5 and the 127mm f/3.8 for my RB67, but I would prefer the wider 50mm f/4.5. I find myself having to back up (reverse-foot-zoom?) too much with the 65mm.

 

[Pumal]

The 50mm lens is my favorite with my RB6X7