Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
How much better is a prime?
Page <prev 2 of 7 next> last>>
Apr 14, 2016 08:50:36   #
boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
 
Linckinn wrote:
I have never used primes, always preferring the ability to compose and crop in camera with zooms. However I am contemplating one for my Sony a6000, specifically the 20 mm which would be like 32 with Sony's 1.6 crop. We are going on an Alaska cruise, and I am thinking most of my landscape/scenery shots will be wide open, so why not the extra sharpness of a prime.

One hears how much better prime lenses are than zooms, but then also how zooms have gotten so good they are almost the same. The image quality from the a6000 is already excellent, so it is hard to believe a major improvement. I would hate spend $250 and then use it twice and never again because it is no better. Conversely, I would happily pay 3 times that much for significantly improved image quality.

Thanks for your help. Generalities would be fine; answers need not be specific to this equipment.
I have never used primes, always preferring the ab... (show quote)


This is purely my opinion. But for landscapes the single best piece of gear is a first class tripod. As landscape doesn't move, lens speed is not a consideration either.

Reply
Apr 14, 2016 08:51:37   #
TucsonCoyote Loc: Tucson AZ
 
Linckinn wrote:
......................We are going on an Alaska cruise, and I am thinking most of my landscape/scenery shots will be wide open, so why not the extra sharpness of a prime.
.............

I do hope that what you mean by "wide open" refers to a zoom lens that would be set to shortest focal length ......not that you would use your lens with wide open aperture, that would be a mistake with landscape ! :XD:
......a few other posters kick you in the knees about this part of your post but you didn't flinch ....I noticed ! 8-)

Reply
Apr 14, 2016 09:12:55   #
GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan
 
Linckinn wrote:
I have never used primes, always preferring the ability to compose and crop in camera with zooms. ...

We are going on an Alaska cruise, and I am thinking most of my landscape/scenery shots will be wide open, so why not the extra sharpness of a prime.

...
Thanks for your help. Generalities would be fine; answers need not be specific to this equipment.


Why not just rent one for the trip and see how you like them?

If you're going to be in a slight hurry, a zoom will be better since your feet will need to act as a zoom with the prime. Time will normally not be on your side to do things like that.

Reply
 
 
Apr 14, 2016 09:22:19   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
boberic wrote:
This is purely my opinion. But for landscapes the single best piece of gear is a first class tripod. As landscape doesn't move, lens speed is not a consideration either.


Lens speed CAN become a factor if the sweetest aperture on the lens is smaller than the aperture where diffraction limiting of sharpness sets in with the sensor in use. It is unlikely to be an issue unless you are using a very slow, long telephoto or zoom to capture a distant landscape scene. In that case, you find several constraints narrowly limiting what you can do well — maximum aperture vs. sweet aperture vs. sensor size vs. depth of field vs. shutter speed vs. tripod weight vs. price/cost...

Reply
Apr 14, 2016 10:50:39   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
rmalarz wrote:
Prime over zoom was a good adage at one point in time. That led me to having a number of prime lenses and no zooms. However, design, manufacturing, and computers being used in all phases of both of those areas have led to little difference visual difference between the images produced by both.

If one needs thousands of dollars of specialized test equipment to see the slight difference in image quality between prime and zoom lenses, virtually, there isn't any.
--Bob

I use only prime on my D800e...
35mm (landscape)
105mm (Macro)
135mm (Portrait)
I wish there was a 85mm made for landscape (Stitching) but I have not found one.

I have a 'walk-around' zoom on my D300. I almost never uses it...

Advantage of prime lenses over zoom?
- They are built for a single purpose and work wonder if used in optimal conditions.
- They force one to compose carefully, select the correct point of view by moving around, basically pay much more attention to details. A zoom, while convenient, does not incite toward exploring the possibilities.

Of course this is a point of view that few will agree with but for me a prime lens is more than a 'lens' but a tool that forces me to pay more attention to my surrounding.

And yes, I have just about 5k sunk onto lenses.

Reply
Apr 14, 2016 11:19:09   #
Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA
 
Thanks, everybody. Wonderful comments and advice, which greatly extends my thinking on the matter. Sounds like I shouldn't bother in this price/quality range unless, as was suggested, I get a very wide angle not covered by the zoom. I will look. Otherwise, either go way up in quality or I am unlikely to see any difference.

Tripod good suggestion, although with space limited and time off the ship not under my control, I might pass. Also, I did mean lens zoomed to shortest focal length, not wide open aperture; sorry for the incorrect usage.

Again thanks. How great to have a forum like this.

Reply
Apr 14, 2016 12:39:52   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Linckinn wrote:
I have never used primes, always preferring the ability to compose and crop in camera with zooms. However I am contemplating one for my Sony a6000, specifically the 20 mm which would be like 32 with Sony's 1.6 crop. We are going on an Alaska cruise, and I am thinking most of my landscape/scenery shots will be wide open, so why not the extra sharpness of a prime.

One hears how much better prime lenses are than zooms, but then also how zooms have gotten so good they are almost the same. The image quality from the a6000 is already excellent, so it is hard to believe a major improvement. I would hate spend $250 and then use it twice and never again because it is no better. Conversely, I would happily pay 3 times that much for significantly improved image quality.

Thanks for your help. Generalities would be fine; answers need not be specific to this equipment.
I have never used primes, always preferring the ab... (show quote)


A couple of things. Primes are not necessarily better, though most are intended for use on a full frame camera, so on a cropped camera you will likely see more uniform sharpness across the field and less CA, vignetting and other aberrations. This is a very broad generalization.

I have primes and zooms. I use them interchangeably. I would offer $1000 if they could tell which lens produced what image.

Alaska cruise - bone up on your pano shooting and stitching technique. You won't regret it. You might if you use too wide a lens, as everything will appear to be 2,000 miles away.:)

Reply
 
 
Apr 14, 2016 12:52:47   #
Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA
 
Thank you Gene51, that is a great thought. I have not done much pano, but my wife is quite good at it. We will both practice up.

Reply
Apr 14, 2016 13:25:08   #
Leitz Loc: Solms
 
Linckinn wrote:
...I am thinking most of my landscape/scenery shots will be wide open, so why not the extra sharpness of a prime.
Also, I did mean lens zoomed to shortest focal length, not wide open aperture...


:?: :?: :?:

Reply
Apr 14, 2016 15:02:01   #
GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan
 
burkphoto wrote:
Lens speed CAN become a factor if the sweetest aperture on the lens is smaller than the aperture where diffraction limiting of sharpness sets in with the sensor in use. It is unlikely to be an issue unless you are using a very slow, long telephoto or zoom to capture a distant landscape scene. In that case, you find several constraints narrowly limiting what you can do well — maximum aperture vs. sweet aperture vs. sensor size vs. depth of field vs. shutter speed vs. tripod weight vs. price/cost...
Lens speed CAN become a factor if the sweetest ape... (show quote)


I knew that, (ie: sweet spot), but never considered it. Thanks for reminding me!

Reply
Apr 14, 2016 15:15:29   #
Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.
 
Rongnongno wrote:

I wish there was a 85mm made for landscape (Stitching) but I have not found one.


I just resurrected a old Nikkor manual focus 85 f/1.8 for just that purpose. The lens is about 45-50 years old and had to be modified (at a nominal cost) to work with a current Nikon. I have only been able to take test shots with it so far but it sure is looking very promising.

Reply
 
 
Apr 14, 2016 15:24:36   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
Rich1939 wrote:
I just resurrected a old Nikkor manual focus 85 f/1.8 for just that purpose. The lens is about 45-50 years old and had to be modified (at a nominal cost) to work with a current Nikon. I have only been able to take test shots with it so far but it sure is looking very promising.

Can you keep me informed on your progress?

Reply
Apr 14, 2016 16:06:09   #
Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.
 
Rongnongno wrote:
Can you keep e informed on your progress?


Sure thing.

Reply
Apr 14, 2016 16:23:23   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
Rich1939 wrote:
Sure thing.

Thank you.

Reply
Apr 15, 2016 05:28:34   #
David Morrison
 
Linckinn wrote:
I have never used primes, always preferring the ability to compose and crop in camera with zooms. However I am contemplating one for my Sony a6000, specifically the 20 mm which would be like 32 with Sony's 1.6 crop. We are going on an Alaska cruise, and I am thinking most of my landscape/scenery shots will be wide open, so why not the extra sharpness of a prime.

One hears how much better prime lenses are than zooms, but then also how zooms have gotten so good they are almost the same. The image quality from the a6000 is already excellent, so it is hard to believe a major improvement. I would hate spend $250 and then use it twice and never again because it is no better. Conversely, I would happily pay 3 times that much for significantly improved image quality.

Thanks for your help. Generalities would be fine; answers need not be specific to this equipment.
I have never used primes, always preferring the ab... (show quote)

Linckinn,
After I purchased the a6000, which came only with the kit 16-55, I bought the 60mm sigma and sigma 30mm prime lenses-- both f2.8. These come made in the Sony E mount ( no adapter needed )and are actually quite good-- check out reviews on these. There is also a 19mm which I don't have yet.The focus peaking enables very sharp shots when needed, but the auto-focus is very good with these. Both these lenses would cost not much over $300 for both !! which makes them very good value---good luck--D.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 7 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
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.