Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Does One Really Need a Prime Lens
Page 1 of 13 next> last>>
May 13, 2023 13:12:35   #
bkwaters
 
Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?

Reply
May 13, 2023 13:16:28   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
bkwaters wrote:
Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?


No!

---

Reply
May 13, 2023 13:26:01   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
bkwaters wrote:
Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?


Prime for low-light? Depends on the zoom lenses available for use instead? Do you have a $3000 RF 28-70 f/2L as an option over any candidate primes? Do you have any of the typical $2000 f/2.8 24-70 zooms over candidate primes at 24 / 35 / 50mm focal lengths?

You mention portraits, can't you add flash (light) rather than shooting as higher ISO in lower light? That flash is likely cheaper, with better results, over software processing in post.

Prime lenses are typically simpler in both design and construction. They likely cost less in a 1-prime vs 1 super-premium zoom comparison. The prime will also still tend to be visually sharper vs any zoom at the same aperture and focal length, although your super-premium zoom models will make the visual difference difficult to find, if at all.

Only you and your eyes and your finances can decide in May 2023 which is better for your needs.

Reply
 
 
May 13, 2023 13:55:51   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Nope.
bkwaters wrote:
Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?

Reply
May 13, 2023 13:56:24   #
PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA
 
It really depends on your requirements. I don't even have primes, 'tho I did back in my early film days.

Reply
May 13, 2023 14:12:13   #
MT Shooter Loc: Montana
 
bkwaters wrote:
Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?


All my primes are over 300mm with the exception of my 105mm F1.4. The rest of my lenses are zooms as I have found in recent years that the prime advantage in wider lenses has diminished to the point of virtually none at all. My 14-24mm F2.8, 24-70mm F2.8, 70-200mm F2.8, and 120-300mm F2.8 lenses are amazingly sharp. I have found absolutely no variable aperture zooms that can meet the sharpness of quality fixed aperture zooms, they give up too much sharpness and speed to get to their lower price points.
Then again, sharpness depends a lot upon the discriminating eye of the viewer and what they are willing to accept as "sharp".

Reply
May 13, 2023 14:19:58   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
bkwaters wrote:
Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?


There are those who like the out of focus shallow DOF of fast primes.
But getting an f2.8 short prime might be for size and weight saving over the versatility of a similar range zoom.
Bottom line, get what you want and leave the holier than thou attitude that many prime users exhibit or express.
Example I use a zoom for "Street Photography" as I find it infinitely superior to a prime in spite of the hoopla of a prime being required for success in street photography. I have posted some here and most all were with a zoom lens.
Live and let live as far as lenses go.

Reply
 
 
May 13, 2023 14:24:05   #
tramsey Loc: Texas
 
I've shot wild life for more years than I want to think about that entire time I've only had one lens a Nikon 28-300. I didn't notice noise and all the rest until I found UHH. I got Gimp and took care of it. I sold wild life pictures out of a restaurant that a friend of mine owned, had to keep my day job but I sold a few. Now that lens is on my 850 and both have whiskers but I am satisfied and that's the key; are you satisfied with a zoom lens or a prime which ever trips your trigger.

Reply
May 13, 2023 15:52:24   #
bkwaters
 
My original post was too simplistic. Primes are needed for extreme macro, astrophotography, sometimes architectural photography, professional sports photography, underwater photography and special purpose lenses like the Canon RF 600 and 800 fixed aperture models. Environmental portrait photographers love their 35mm f/1.2’s.

But technology has seemingly made the 50mm prime no longer obligatory. My questions should have been, “do you find yourself using your 24 through 100 mm primes less often? If you didn’t own one currently would you buy one now?”

Reply
May 13, 2023 15:59:33   #
BebuLamar
 
bkwaters wrote:
My original post was too simplistic. Primes are needed for extreme macro, astrophotography, sometimes architectural photography, professional sports photography, underwater photography and special purpose lenses like the Canon RF 600 and 800 fixed aperture models. Environmental portrait photographers love their 35mm f/1.2’s.

But technology has seemingly made the 50mm prime no longer obligatory. My questions should have been, “do you find yourself using your 24 through 100 mm primes less often? If you didn’t own one currently would you buy one now?”
My original post was too simplistic. Primes are ne... (show quote)


Yes I am thinking of buying the 35mm f/2 lens. I have the 20 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/2.0, 135 f/2.8.

Reply
May 13, 2023 16:01:34   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
bkwaters wrote:
My original post was too simplistic. Primes are needed for extreme macro, astrophotography, sometimes architectural photography, professional sports photography, underwater photography and special purpose lenses like the Canon RF 600 and 800 fixed aperture models. Environmental portrait photographers love their 35mm f/1.2’s.

But technology has seemingly made the 50mm prime no longer obligatory. My questions should have been, “do you find yourself using your 24 through 100 mm primes less often? If you didn’t own one currently would you buy one now?”
My original post was too simplistic. Primes are ne... (show quote)


Yes, my 100mm L macro.

Reply
 
 
May 13, 2023 16:05:08   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
bkwaters wrote:
My original post was too simplistic. Primes are needed for extreme macro, astrophotography, sometimes architectural photography, professional sports photography, underwater photography and special purpose lenses like the Canon RF 600 and 800 fixed aperture models. Environmental portrait photographers love their 35mm f/1.2’s.

But technology has seemingly made the 50mm prime no longer obligatory. My questions should have been, “do you find yourself using your 24 through 100 mm primes less often? If you didn’t own one currently would you buy one now?”
My original post was too simplistic. Primes are ne... (show quote)


Primes make you 'think', me at least. What focal length do I think I'll get the most images from, given a planned outing with just one lens? With enough pixel resolution, even a prime a bit too 'short' still yields excellent, screen-filling images from the cropped results. I think too, if you can determine the natural focal length you 'see', you just need a prime that fits that focal length. I use my 35mm more than the 50mm, similar to how I use the 135mm more than the 85mm. I've looked at my Lightroom stats in the past and noted where my images fall when using zoom lenses over these focal lengths. I've note that when not at either of the 70mm or 200mm extremes of this zoom, I'll tend to fall at 135mm. I tend to be at 20mm on a 16-35mm zoom, although I haven't (yet) added a 20mm prime.

Reply
May 13, 2023 16:52:09   #
User ID
 
bkwaters wrote:
Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?

My primes are generally NOT fast, but I would be lost without them. They might be a bit sharper than zooms, but that is of verrrrrrry minor concern to me. I get the same DoF control with an f:4.5 lens or an f:2.0 lens, so no issue there.

UHH only allows ten frames per post, so below is the tip of the iceberg (all FF):

11mm
11mm...
(Download)

60mm
60mm...
(Download)

fast 35mm
fast 35mm...
(Download)

20mm
20mm...
(Download)

fast 65mm
fast 65mm...
(Download)

50mm
50mm...
(Download)

90mm
90mm...
(Download)

250mm
250mm...
(Download)

90, 35, & 15mm
90, 35, & 15mm...
(Download)

200mm
200mm...
(Download)

Reply
May 13, 2023 17:26:37   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
bkwaters wrote:
Fast primes are obviously beneficial for DOF control, such as in portrait photography. But is the “primes are sharper” argument still valid? With the ability of modern cameras to focus in low light and the effectiveness of noise reduction software, does the “primes are needed for low light” argument still hold?


I have a few Nikkor AF-D prime lenses. 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 35mm, 180mm, and 300mm. They are all nice lenses and perform very well. The 180mm f/2.8 is probably my favorite of the group. But I really don't use any of them all that much. The problem is that it's not worth giving up what you have to give up to get the small amount of benefit that comes in return. At f/1.4, the depth of field of the 85mm feels something like the thickness of three sheets of paper.

As for any sharpness improvement over a good-quality zoom, the crowd I run with all sort of agree that the current fascination with sharpness is pretty much like the remodeling fads of ripping up all the carpet and removing all the bathtubs. We're all in favor of properly focused images, but only rarely find acutely sharp images to be attractive or particularly artistic. We feel that concentration on sharpness is compensation for misses on other artistic elements. Can't think of any cases in which a photograph was strong because it was sharp.

Reply
May 13, 2023 17:39:50   #
Orphoto Loc: Oregon
 
The question posed is, are primes needed. Fast answer is, except for noted usages, no.

Secondary question, are primes sharper/better in some ways? No "fast" answer. Compared to nearly all constant aperture zooms, some primes are sharper. From sources I trust the 120-300 nikon is an exception.

I carry a backpack with 18 2.8, 25 1.4, 35 1.4, 55 1.4, 85 1.4, 135 2.0, 300 4pf & 500 pf. I dont carry it far but it represents highest achievable sharpness and optical qualities. If hiking then i revert to the usual zooms.

Am i nuts? Maybe. Is this the appropriate solution for you? Not for me to say.

Reply
Page 1 of 13 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.