The Advantage of using Prime Lenses

[sidd finch]

A very interesting point of view regarding the advantages of using a prime lense.

Photography is an active art form. Its goal is to bring the viewer into a situation in an affecting and visceral way. You can't do that if you're just standing in one spot. But that's just what you'll end up doing if you need to operate a zoom lens.

On the other hand, a prime lens – one with a fixed focal length that can not zoom – will make you a better photographer. That's because it forces you to "zoom with your feet," or move closer to your subject for close-ups and scuttle backward to go wide.

Prime lenses also tend to be much cheaper than comparable zoom lenses. Without moving parts, all the money goes toward great optics.

http://www.businessinsider.com/great-ph ... ?r=UK&IR=T

I think I have inadvertently come to this understanding by choosing cameras that do not have a zoom function.

Sidd

[Ron Hunter]

Thanks Sidd. There are pros/cons to prime approach or zoom approach. I wish I had gone the prime route instead of getting two overly expensive zoom lenses. But I've got them now and I can't imagine taking a loss to sell them for primes, so I think I'll stick with zooms for now.

I did get a 12mm prime to fly on my GH4/Pilotfly. It is nice and sharp!

[Bob]

I have to disagree with the premise of that article!

Prime lenses can be wonderful things, but they will not automatically make you a better photographer. A zoom lens can also be a wonderful thing, and using one won't automatically make you a worse photographer. The lens doesn't compose the photo, you, the photographer, do that. If you want to be a better photographer you need to do three things: 1) Learn technique. Know how your equipment works and how the choice of shutter speed, f stop, ISO, and focal length affect your photos. 2) Learn composition. Know what makes a great shot great and how to have the photo tell the story you are presenting. And, 3) Practice, Practice, Practice.

There are things that prime lenses excel at such as wide f stops for shallow depth of field and bokeh. But, his examples didn't depend on those things. All the examples in the article could have been done equally well with either a prime lens or a zoom lens. A zoom lens could have easily been set to the same focal length as his prime lens and used to take the same photograph. What he's really doing is making a case for shooting close.

[TreeTopsRanch]

Zoom lenses sure come in handy when birding.

[sidd finch]

I don't think it should be a Prime vs Zomm because I think there is room for both styles. What I did take away was that the writer was encouraging the photographer to get as involved as possible to take better pictures. I would most certainly use a zoom lens if I was taking pictures of a bear.

Sidd

[momoffduty]

I love primes! I am used to zooming with my feet that I forget about the zoom in the Sony compact camera. I purchased the 17-55 2.8 and have rarely used it. After much researching, I thought that lens would be better than my primes. Even at 2.8 it is no where near the sharpness of my primes. On my crop 70D I use a 28mm for inside photos and the 50mm for outside photos. For video I like the 40mm. I've been thinking about selling the 17-55 lens or trade in when I am ready to upgrade to FF. I wish now I would have gotten one of the Sigma Art lens series.

Primes vs zooms really depends on what you like to shoot. Weight of a lens is also a factor for me.

[Kent Frost]

Keep in mind that the lowest f-stop is the least sharp setting of a lens. The better comparisons usually come at around f/5.6 to f/16.

[momoffduty]

Keep in mind that the lowest f-stop is the least sharp setting of a lens. The better comparisons usually come at around f/5.6 to f/16.

Kent, that is worth noting! I reread my post and what I wanted to convey is that the lens with a max aperture of 2.8 is better than a kit lens with a max aperture of 4.5, for example. It seems to me that primes are generally sharper than zooms. But it may depend on what lenses you are comparing. An L series would have an advantage.

[Bob]

...It seems to me that primes are generally sharper than zooms. But it may depend on what lenses you are comparing.

That's definitely the case. "Back in the day", zooms were typically quite a bit softer than prime lenses. That's no longer the case. Modern zooms can be quite sharp, especially the highest quality ones. But, they can also be soft. It can vary a lot between manufacturers and even between models from the same manufacturer. You need to check the specs and reviews. Primes can vary quite a bit too. You just can't assume a lens will be sharp because it's a prime. The softest lens I've ever owned was a prime.

Generally, lenses will be softest at widest aperture and increase in sharpness as they are stopped down. Most have a sweet spot just before the point where the lens becomes diffraction limited. But, some lenses are designed to be sharp wide open or stopped down 1 stop. For APS-C cameras (crop factors 1.5 or 1.6), lenses are diffraction limited at about f/16 and above. For those cameras, using f stops beyond f/11 will reduce the focal plane sharpness, but stopping down can increase depth of field which can be useful. Everything's a compromise. Oh, and don't expect to be able to get the full sharpness your lens is capable of unless you are using a tripod and remote shutter release with the mirror locked in the up position. One more thing, the image will be sharpest in the center and fall off as you move to the edge.

Prime lenses are simpler to design and manufacture. If you want to shoot wide open at f/2 or less, you'll be much better off getting a prime. The prime will likely have less aberration and will be much less expensive than a zoom of the same maximum aperture.

The Canon L series are great professional level lenses.

[momoffduty]

Very good info Bob! Good to know about crops and going over f/11. From what I understand, getting a good exposure benefits sharpness. A book I picked up last year has been very helpful. I think I paid around $30. It is now up to $80 for paperback and Kindle is $20.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/032175 ... ge_o05_s00