ole sarg Loc: south florida

I agree. I used only a 50mm as a combat photographer because that is all we were issued. Would have liked to have had a zoom..... Maybe a 28 - 85.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

When I'm out in the field doing serious shooting I carry 2 rigs. One with a 300 2.8 and the other with 70-200 2.8. I find sometimes my subjects are just too close for the 300 and switch quickly to the other.

Bear

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

For most of us the advantage you get by having the flexability of a zoom far outweighs any benifit you may get with a possible increase in sharpness with a prime. True, you can't get a 1.4 zoom but a 2.8 will get what you want most of the time. I am not saying primes are bad or not worth the money, but with the cost of the L-series lens you get more bang-for-the buck with a L-zoom than a L-prime.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

In what sense?

Cheers,

R.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Surley you have to agree a zoom is more versital than a prime. Don't get me wrong, primes are worth the money if you need what they offer, but money is an issue for most of us and for my money the zoom is a better value all the way around. Unless there is a specific need for a specific characteristic of a prime, ie very low apature value, fish-eye, macro, shallow DOF or such, I would rather haul around one zoom instead of 2-3 primes.

Using friend's primes and my zooms, I have taken a lot of comparison shots of the same subject then printed at 24x36. I cannot see a difference and I would be willing to bet money most people would not be able to either.

Unless you blow-up to great detail or look with a magnifier, there is no difference in the quality of the print between a prime or zoom.

unclebe1 Loc: NYC & Wellington, FL

I have to admit that for many years I enjoyed the versatility of zoom lenses. I still use a 28-135 mm f/4-4.5 Minolta. It is a great lens. However, I have now added a 24 f/1.8 and an 85 f/1.4 and have to say that for portraiture and plain ol' family pics, these two primes are my choices. The 85mm is an astounding piece of glass which, although expensive, has actually reinvigorated my photography. The improvement, especially in available light photos is like night and day. Granted, I was going from an f/4 to a 1.4. If I had been using a 24-70 f/2.8 for all these years, or if I had chosen to buy the 24-70 f2.8 instead of the 85, I might not have been as wowed by the 85, but those weren't the paths chosen...and I'm not sorry.
At the end of the day, though, it's not the tools that make the difference between snapshooter and a photographer. In the hands of a skilled craftsman, both will produce phenomenal images. You just have to know how to coax the best out of them.

randymoe

I grew up shooting MF 50mm f1.7 on film. In the nineties I starting getting modern with kit zooms and AF cameras. Later I moved into digital and forgot film. Bought FF digital and Pro quality 17-35mm f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. Snapping away, something just didn't feel right. I had good gear but my ingrained shooting style was ignored. I bought a used 50mm f1.4. I sold the Pro zooms.

I don't miss them. I am not a pro sports shooter nor a journalist. I shoot for my own pleasure. I vastly prefer the field of view with FF 50mm to any other format. It is how I "see' the world through a lens. I prefer to zoom with my feet. I am not under professional pressure to capture the shot.

I shoot with about 5 different cameras out of a possible 17. Now that I am moving into medium and large format film, I am setting my gear up with 50mm equivalent lenses. It makes things simple. I have eliminated an option I don't care about.

What I really like is high ISO digital with a fast normal prime lens. We can now shoot in near dark conditions. Very cool. I frequently used my D700 at 6400 ISO with 50mm f1.4 to shoot inside people events in dark areas. The D700 is gone. The lens is not.

Now I await a D800 and I plan to primarily use it with that same 50mm and a 28mm. I am saving for a replacement DC 135mm f2.0 which I consider a great prime Nikon lens.

I am not buying any more zooms.

I just checked my D7000 shutter count, in one year it has only 1131 actuations. I am deliberately trying to make each shot count, just as I do with the film I shoot, where I may take a week to shoot a120 roll.

This Bull walks slowly down the hill...

ole sarg Loc: south florida

IMO - We children of the 60s, 70s, and 80s do see the world through the 50mm lens and we see the world wide with a 35mm lens and we see far with the 135mm and if we had a few dollars, shot portraits with an 85 or 90 mm. We walk up to our subject and shoot close, we avoid flash and shoot in dark places with little depth of field and aperture open. WE find grain or noise adding a sense of film noir. Our gear is in many ways simple. We take our time and do little multiple frame shooting. I find this type of photography fun. I hate toting a tripod or mono pod and a 4 pound telephoto lens.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

I guess that's where we differ. Yes, a zoom is more versatile, but to me, it is 'jack of all trades, master of none'. In other words, you can take a wider range of pictures, but it's harder to take them well, because the lens is bigger, slower, slower-handling, more obtrusive...

Several of the others between your last post and this one have made eloquent arguments for primes; I can only echo them.

Cheers,

R.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I sold all of my zooms.

I find that primes cause me to give more thought to what I'm about to photograph and how to frame it.

Also, I love faster lenses and unless one is willing to shell out big bucks....you aren't going to get a fast zoom lens that's quality.

I found that primes were the best way to go "fast" and sharp.


Having a zoom lens made me lazy as a photographer.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Primes do have there place but try to shoot fast moving sports or wildlife on the run and see which works best.

I do not consider myself a "lazy" photographer because I use zooms.

Anyway, in the end it is what works for each of us so "to each his own" as the saying goes.

I have said my piece, I am done.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Highlight: absolutely. But (a) there's more to photography than sports and and wildlife and (b) many of the greatest sports and wildlife pictures ever taken were made with primes. This comes back to being in the right place at the right time, which you can do more easily if you understand your subject.

There's an old saying in natural history photography: "biologist first, photographer second." Much the same is true of sports. If you haven't participated yourself, preferably at a reasonably high level, you don't know where you need to be, or when. Unless, of course, you've shot a LOT of pictures of the sport in question.

It's at least as much a question of your personality, and of the way you see, as of which lens you use.

Cheers,

R.

Dave T

I've never understood why, when this subject comes up people seem to get defensive and/or offended. And sad to say it's most often the zoom users who take offense.

One respondent above said zooms made him a lazy photographer, not everyone who uses them. Immediately someone gets bent out of shape and says he's not lazy and stomps away in a huff.

It was just an opinion, explaining why one guy chose primes. Certainly not a commentary on every owner of a zoom lens in the world. Good grief!

Dave