bkwaters

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Ok,
Final word.
All one needs is a 50mm F1.4 Lens.
All the rest are wants.

BebuLamar

That what I bought for my first camera back in 1977. A Nikon F2AS and a 50mm f/1.4 lens all for a mere $750. I had it for 7 years until someone stole it from me in 1984.

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

I have several primes all from Nikon some dating back many decades. In particular I use the short primes 20/24mm for things like the milky way and landscape and beach scenes. Also I use fixed micro lenses. But I also have a few zooms and particularly like their 16/35. My favorite of all of them is a decades old ai, 105mm, f4 micro.

Typically when traveling I use an Oly, rather than Nikons, and two of their pro zoom lenses. Seems a good outfit for me and cuts weight and bulk dramatically.

I think it all comes down to what you like to shoot under what conditions and what you’re comfortable with. They both have their place, at least for me. A couple years ago I went on vacation in Louisiana and intentionally only took a Nikon body and the 24mm prime. Enjoyed myself and got some images I was thoroughly pleased with. No gator shots though! Seemed a good experiment. Each to their own.

Bill_de Loc: US

When I switched from Pentax to Nikon I bought 2 F100 bodies, one black for black and white film and one chrome for color. My first 3 lenses were 24mm F/2.8, 50mm F/1.4 and 105mm F/2.8 macro. The bodies are long gone but I still have and sometimes use all three lenses. Other lenses have come and gone, but I just can't let go of these first three. Crazy?

---

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Without knowing exactly and specifically what kind of work any photographer is going to do, what their approach to doing that work as to style and technique, and what their requirements are for their finished product, I could not even venture a guess or try to advise them on what lenses or anything else to put in the kit. The last time I did that successfully was in the Army where I had to train rookie photography specialists on precisely what they needed to pack their kits to do clearly defined work according to strict methodologies. I told them exactly what lenses to use as to focal length, speed, settings, and even the Government specification number assigned to those particular pieces of equipment and exactly how and when to use them. This ain't the army!

Here is what I can tell y'all:

In the olden days prime lenses, generally speaking, outperformed most zoom lenses as to sharpness, lack of aberrations, etc. Some zooms performed better at cerin focal lengths and or at various apertures. Nowadays, I am sure there are zooms that can outperform many of their prime ancestors. Good zooms are going to be expensive. All zooms are not created equally, there are different makes, different focal length ranges, and different speeds.

Lens choices also have to do with how much gear you need, are willing to carry, or can carry. Obviously, zooms are more convenient- you can carry less and change focal lengths quickly without having to juggle different lenses and bodies. Most of this is simple logic and common sense to most photographers.

I can talk optics and lens performance statistics 'till the cows come home but my approach is somewhat different. My theory is that each lens has its own "personality" and produces a certain "look" as to sharpness, softness, perspective at various distances, depth of field or lack thereof, "bokeh" shape and quality, and optical performance as to contrast, flare susceptibility, and even the waypoint light sources are rendered when a long exposure is employed. When I want a certain look or ambiance for a certain subject. I grab the lens that will do the work.

There are certain prime lenses, as to brands, focal lengths, speed, and models that are time-honored for specific jobs and effects. Some lenses have become kinda "industry standards" in the focal length and applications, Some faster lenses are especially suited where pleasing and unique "bokeh" is desired. There are some primes that are specifically designed for that purpose in portraiture and other impressionistic styles of photography.

Fast lenses are also handy in very low light where you want o use a low ISO setting to minimize noise or use shorter faster shutter speeds for hand-held operation. I don't know of any f/1.0 or f/.95 zoom lenses but there are primes in those ranges.

I don't know about any of y'all but I am not a lens collector. I won't buy a lens just for the sake of owning it. Your choice of lenses should be based on application, specific needs, and YOUR working methods, imagination, and creativity.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Yes, I still have my FD 50mm f1.4, first and only lens for about a year or so while I saved for another lens.
Privates didn't make much then.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

There was a time when a prime was superior in sharpness to a zoom. Today and especially professional zooms are equal to them in quality. Many photographers use a zoom for macro photography and count me as one of them.
Shooting in low light gives us three choices, raise the ISO speed, use a fast lens or use a flash unit. Reducing noise today is very easy using a denoise program.

When it comes to DOF control primes tend to be faster than zooms but even so a zoom with a f2.8 aperture will do very well in that respect. Is a prime a necessity? I do not think so today, perhaps maybe in special applications.
Talking about the Nikon 28-300 VR zoom, that lens and the 14-24 f2.8 are the only two lenses my retired ophthalmologist use. He has taken them to Africa with a rented 600mm f4 for wildlife and most recently in a tour through the Middle East only his two lenses saw action. He sent me some of the images he made with both lenses and I tell you that using good photographic techniques the images are superb in quality.

ELNikkor

Haven't chosen primes for sharpness in a long time, just I like their small size & weight. If shooting night skies, like the speed & low cost for that speed.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

With todays lens production many zooms are just as sharp as primes. But the real reason for sharp zooms is there versatility in the field.
I use a Sony 200-600 (mainly because Nikon still has not produced one) I digress.
Anyway, at many distances the 200-600 is just as sharp as my Sony 600 prime, especially when you consider you can use Topaz post production to sharpen any image in post now days.
Low light is no longer a big deal with today's high iso handling Mirrorless camera's, again, with DeNoise high iso's are no longer a problem.
No I am not discounting primes, I have many Zeiss primes for my Sony including one of my favorites, the 40 mm Zeiss f2 Batis lens, it does close up work like no other lens I have ever owned.
So, I am sure the argument will continue about primes vs. zooms.
Zooms sure have come a long way since my Nikon 43-86 f3.5 lens.

anotherview Loc: California

So I've read, years ago: "Today and especially professional zooms are equal to them [primes] in quality."

My experience tells me so as well. In fact, I can do almost all my photography with a 24-105mm zoom lens.

Given an effective composition, a good exposure, an interesting subject, and a clear intention, a zoom lens will produce a worthy photograph.

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

Ten frames limit per post? Why not jus list them?

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

Many of those who suggest fast primes are no longer needed are not indoor sport shooters. The zooms can’t compete with the extra stop or more of light or focus speed that primes offer.
For most other shooting, I find the sharpness issue is hardly noticeable between my 24-70 / 70-200 zooms vs. a prime equivalent.

BebuLamar

Do you still have the chrome F100 body? It's a rarity.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

I own a 50mm 1.8 that I purchased four years ago to when my granddaughter was born. Could not use flash with a newborn. Haven’t used it since. My zooms start at 2.8 or 3.5 and are much more convenient for my uses with flash or no flash.