# I love Primes.



## RLPhoto (Aug 23, 2012)

I love Primes. Do you? 

The more I use them, The more I'm glad I used my budget on them. ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 24, 2012)

Examples of why primes are awesome are 24L, 85L, 135L, 200L, 300 f/2.8L, 400 f/2.8L


----------



## Bosman (Aug 24, 2012)

When i can accept that i won't have every focal length covered and just shoot and compose well in a fixed way it actually liberates you. Lets not forget the L glass colors! 8)


----------



## mdm041 (Aug 24, 2012)

I'm slowly moving away from my zooms and towards primes. I find I usually use a zoom at either the wide end or the long end so why not just get a prime and get a sharper image...the 85 1.2L is calling my name.


----------



## CharlieB (Aug 24, 2012)

This past Saturday, I spent about two hours comparing my 28/1.8 versus the 24-105L.

When you shoot the 28/1.8 at f/4, you get sharper corners, better corner contrast, better flare control, less CA by a huge amount, and from what I can tell... pixel peeping.... at least the same sharpness and contrast and "snap" in the center regions, as compared with the 24-105L. Done with a 5d2.

So, it doesn't have to be L glass to be really good. And granted, the 24-105 is not really to die for in image quality either (though mine is very impressive on the long end).

I can also say, that my 300/4L (non-IS) is as sharp, contrasty and snappy as my 50/1.4, assuming the 50 is stopped down to at least 2.8

The L glass is spectacular though... I'm lusting for a 35/1.4, but I'll probably succumb to a 16-35/2.8 instead.


----------



## risc32 (Aug 24, 2012)

sweet, first to vote against primes. they have their advantages sure. i have a couple, but i'll take a zoom. Sure they are small, and light(until you get a few of them), but barring the long teles they are at the very least matched, usually beaten in IQ by zooms(the L variety). for all of you out there with zooms that want to be liberated, i can come over to your house free of charge and epoxy your zoom lens in your preferred focal length.(provided it's within your zoom's focal length range) I'll even do weird custom stuff like 80mm, 140mm, or even 103mm, whatever you need. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying zooming all over the place is a replacement for moving closer or further away from your subject. All the distances and angles play a large role in the final results.
really though, obviously sure they work great for a great many photographers, I'm just not that guy.


----------



## risc32 (Aug 24, 2012)

now this is a silly turn of events.
hey, charlie, II just so happen to have a 16-35 that i think needs a new owner, as i'm strongly considering replacing it with a......24mm. yup.


----------



## trygved (Aug 24, 2012)

Purchased every cheap prime a person could want.
Sold those cheap primes and got a 24-105L.
Of course the low light performance is not there, but being able to reframe the shot quickly has been more helpful to my photography. Seeing the mix of focal lengths is refreshing, and I loathe the idea of toting around additional lenses to accomplish that.
I don't question the quality of primes, but the shooting style is not for me.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Aug 24, 2012)

I'm with you RLPhoto. I love my primes and use them daily for most anything. The only time I use my zooms obviously is for sports: 70-200 II, 70-300L and 100-400L.


----------



## @!ex (Aug 24, 2012)

Bosman said:


> When i can accept that i won't have every focal length covered and just shoot and compose well in a fixed way it actually liberates you. Lets not forget the L glass colors! 8)



Couldn't have said it better


----------



## fotografiasi (Aug 24, 2012)

I use the Canon 28 1.8 and 85 1.8 on Canon 5D III and I am very happy with the result. Previously I used Canon 50D with Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM and like the results from 3.5 up. Now I happy with the result of those primes from 2.2 up. Besides that I use the canon 70-200 2.8 is ii. I shoot mostly weddings


----------



## drummstikk (Aug 24, 2012)

I love fixed lenses (I've retired my sermon on why most of them aren't "prime"), but don't own any. The 135 2.0 and 300 2.8 are frequent rentals, however. I do feel non-zooms get a little over-romanticized, though. They put a lot of extra weight on both your bag and your credit card without getting you a huge advantage in terms of image quality compared to a quality zoom, UNLESS you work in low light a lot, or are REALLY into shallow depth of field, or any of the obvious range narrow use cases. 

Shooting with a fixed lens is an excellent creative exercise for photographers of all skill levels. A while back, I was evaluating the utility of the 85mm focal length for a possible lens purchase and gaffer taped my 24-105 at that focal setting. You can do this at any time with any zoom to get a feel for it. 

Give me a couple of good zooms for day-to-day work, but if I hit the lottery. . .


----------



## Mick (Aug 24, 2012)

Whilst I love big primes and the ability to blow backgrounds with big appetures on small primes they are a pain outside. Changing lenss missing shots etc. If you do get it right though they do give amazing bokeh, all of them.

But, the latest L zooms are just as sharp. I've got a 70-200 mk2 and 70-300 4-5.6 L. I'm totally blown away by the sharpness, colors and tones. I miss nothing, they are so well sealed I can go out in a rain storm and they work perfectly. Primes have their place for that different special shot but for me I'm zooms all the way now. Oh and I've tried the 14mm prime against a 16-35mk2. I can't tell any difference when printed at a2. They look identicle except the prime does look a bit wider and 2mm does actually make a big difference.


----------



## LostArk (Aug 24, 2012)

Ladies and gentlemen of the CanonRumors forum and photographers all around the globe, it is with great humility I accept the nobel prize for my discovery of the grand unifying equation of photography. 

Zooms : Primes : : JPEG : RAW


----------



## gferdinandsen (Aug 24, 2012)

I like my 50 f/1.2; but would never get rid of the 24-70. While I am amazed at the number of shots at or near 24, 28, 35, or 50mm; I love the flexability to shoot at 43mm without haveing to do post processing to crop out the unwanted noise/garbage. I travel a lot, and for my money it's not worth changing lenses often. I'll use my 50 indoors and when I am tripodded up, but otherwise +1 for zooms.


----------



## kalmiya (Aug 24, 2012)

risc32 said:


> i can come over to your house free of charge and epoxy your zoom lens in your preferred focal length.(provided it's within your zoom's focal length range) I'll even do weird custom stuff like 80mm, 140mm, or even 103mm, whatever you need. Don't get me wrong.



Amazing... can you also do it the other way around (prime to zoom)?


----------



## risc32 (Aug 24, 2012)

nope. sorry, i've done a bit of research on this and it seems that with a prime lens you are going to have to live will whatever angle of view your lens provides.


----------



## gferdinandsen (Aug 24, 2012)

risc32 said:


> nope. sorry, i've done a bit of research on this and it seems that with a prime lens you are going to have to live will whatever angle of view your lens provides.



lol, does not take much research!


----------



## willis (Aug 24, 2012)

Primes to my taste are 35mm F1.4L - 50mm F1.4 - 85mm F1.2L II.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 24, 2012)

Why isnt there an option for liking both! There is room for both most certainly! I like using both.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 24, 2012)

tomscott said:


> Why isnt there an option for liking both! There is room for both most certainly! I like using both.



You love primes or you don't, how much simpler can a poll be?


----------



## hawkins132 (Aug 24, 2012)

I love primes. I actually only own 1 zoom: 16-35 f2.8L. My primes are: 35 f1.4L, 50 f1.2L, Sigma 85 f1.4L, 100 f2.8 Macro L, 135 f2 L.

I shoot weddings with 1 camera with the 16-35, the other with the 35 f1.4L, or another prime.


----------



## rpt (Aug 24, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Why isnt there an option for liking both! There is room for both most certainly! I like using both.
> ...


Get rid of the second option...
Even simpler...


----------



## KyleSTL (Aug 24, 2012)

I love my primes. I do wish I had a full frame camera, though, because I would enjoy 35 more than my current 135 (with crop). The other two FLs overlap on either system (56 and 80 with crop, 50 and 85 without). The smaller depth of field would also be fun to take advantage of. That's not to say I haven't taken good pictures with them, or have not enjoyed using them, but 'the grass is always greener...'


----------



## distant.star (Aug 24, 2012)

.
I like a good lens.

Whatever one gets the current job done is the one I love best for now.

That's why I have a camera that allows me to use different lenses.


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 24, 2012)

As you can see from my sig I pretty much shoot exclusively with primes. The only zoom I have left is the old 16-35mm but with the ZE 21 on top of the 14mm it doesn't get much use anymore, but I do appreciate it's versatility. If all zooms performed like the 70-200 II I may consider ditching at least some of my primes, but unfortunately they dont..


----------



## risc32 (Aug 24, 2012)

the research wasn't to intensive. it maybe took 2 hrs with google's help, but then i think i got a handle on it. it's just weird.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Aug 24, 2012)

(disclaimer: skip to the bottom for my point)

the first bit of advice I ever got before I even purchased my first DSLR was to ditch the kit lens and buy prime lenses. I was all for it for a while. I got the 50mm 1.4 and eventually the 35mm 1.4L (which I use for my video work). BTW I'm on a 60D. Just before I purchased the 35L, I thought, "man, this is really gonna upgrade my photos". In a way, it did. Colors are awesome with this lens, control over DOF in video and stills is awesome, and on a crop, I feel it's a great all around focal length for my photography. I had the expectation that having an aperture this large would solve all my low light problems but unfortunately it didn't. I still feel the strain on my 60D and it's high ISO noise limits. This forced me to look at my technique and eventually learn more/better ways to use my flash(es) (onboard, 430ex ii, and 600ex-rt). When flashes are used well, I can get pictures to look more like the way I see them in my head but the metering in my camera is now useless. My shadows are more interesting and I feel like I can create "moods" with my pictures using bounce flash and some OCF tricks. If I'm using a flash, I don't need as wide of an aperture that primes offer so I went back to my 24-105L. Maybe this will all change again when I upgrade to a full frame camera.

My point: my primes don't completely solve my low light woes (at least on my 60D) but they offer very narrow DOF if I need it. For portraits, they are great but I still like using primes with a couple flashes. I'd rather walk around with the flexibility of my 24-105 zoom and a flash or two.


----------



## DanielG. (Aug 24, 2012)

Primes are great; until you travel in Africa with lots of sand and dust and wind and simply can't change lenses when you want.
There's a tool for every situation and while traveling I prefere L zooms. Primes when I'm in a more controlled environment or for low light.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 24, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I love Primes. Do you?
> 
> The more I use them, The more I'm glad I used my budget on them. ;D



I'm going to wait & try the new 24-70 mrk II before buying some primes. I love my 70-200 f2.8 IS II. If the new mrk II is good as 70-200 or better, then no prime needed for me.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 24, 2012)

Primes are what I used in the 70's because the zoom lenses sucked.


----------



## AJ (Aug 25, 2012)

I love primes. I love zooms. Each has their purpose, and which I'll use depends on my subject and mood. Glass is good, whether prime or zoom.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Aug 25, 2012)

There are lenses that I love that happen to be primes. The first two that spring to mind are the TS-E 24 II and the 400 f/2.8, but there're plenty others. The 180 macro, for example, is awesome for passport-style head shots, in addition to everything else it's awesome at.

There are, of course, situations where a prime would be a royal pain in the ass. I'm not a wedding photographer by any stretch of the imagination, but I did just play "Uncle Bob" at my niece's wedding, and I can't imagine using anything other than the 24-105 for the reception. (I'd definitely want primes for the ceremony and portraits, though.) Well...granted, I can imagine having enough experience at shooting wedding receptions to know how to do it well with primes, but even then I strongly suspect I'd still prefer a zoom.

Horses for courses and all that....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## distant.star (Aug 25, 2012)

.
Interesting perspective. I hadn't thought of that, but thinking back to the seventies, I can't remember even having a zoom. Can't think of anyone who used one either.

Times sure have changed. I've been sitting here processing some stuff shot through an EF-S 15-85 and I'm stunned by the sharpness of some of them. No 35mm in the seventies would have produced such work.




Bob Howland said:


> Primes are what I used in the 70's because the zoom lenses sucked.


----------



## smithy (Aug 25, 2012)

I suppose, given the types of replies we're seeing in this thread making comparisons with zooms (which is not the apparent intent of the poll - which doesn't mention zooms at all), a better set of questions would be:

Do you prefer primes?
Do you prefer zooms?
No preference.


----------



## distant.star (Aug 25, 2012)

.
On the other hand, it doesn't mention lenses either.

Maybe he's asking about prime numbers? I think they're pretty special.

Or prime rib? Never had it.

I guess zoom lenses were just conspicuous by their absence.






smithy said:


> I suppose, given the types of replies we're seeing in this thread making comparisons with zooms (which is not the apparent intent of the poll - which doesn't mention zooms at all), a better set of questions would be:
> 
> Do you prefer primes?
> Do you prefer zooms?
> No preference.


----------



## Rick Massie (Aug 25, 2012)

It's a mix of both, for sure. Primes are great because they tend to have wider apertures at a more affordable price. Wide apertures are important to a lot of my work. However, my 70-200 is great, and I'd never want to part with it.

But if I had to choose, I'd go a kit full of primes, since I have 3 bodies, I can still have some flexibility with focal length without swapping lenses if I need to. And I doubt I'll ever see any f2.0 or faster zooms!


----------



## smithy (Aug 25, 2012)

distant.star said:


> On the other hand, it doesn't mention lenses either.
> 
> Maybe he's asking about prime numbers? I think they're pretty special.
> 
> ...


Hahah yes, perhaps... I just took what the OP said on page two of this thread as my starting point...



RLPhoto said:


> You love primes or you don't, how much simpler can a poll be?


----------



## 2n10 (Aug 26, 2012)

I am new to the DSLR side and am quite used to zooming from P&S cameras. I intentionally purchased the 100 macro with my kitted camera because macro fit my shooting needs. I found it to have other uses and love it for that. I got a 50 f/1.4 for low light use and use it quite a bit indoors. 

I find I actually love any lens that gives me a great shot in whatever situation I intend to use it. 

Indoors I think primes are better in my twisted thoughts because they are faster and there is less space to cover so "zooming with your feet" is just fine to me, and zooms are better outdoors but these are just generalized as I have lots of learning to do with a DSLR.


----------



## marek.sykora (Aug 26, 2012)

I use primes for following reasons:

- size and weight, cheaper filters (ND still necessary)
- big aperture = more lights for AF and viewfinder
- price
- easier to setup microadjustment

I own 28/1.8 and 85/1.8, both are excellent when fine tuned by microadjustment. Currenty waiting for 50/1.4 IS.

I dream about some lightweight zoom for EF-S with IS for video, e.g. 17-55/4.

17-55 is probably very good, but:
- too heavy
- too big lens hood
- too expensive


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Aug 27, 2012)

marek.sykora said:


> I use primes for following reasons:
> 
> - size and weight, cheaper filters (ND still necessary)
> - big aperture = more lights for AF and viewfinder
> ...



Erm...Canon's best primes are the biggest, heaviest, and most expensive lenses in the lineup. And the fastest of the supertelephotos is only f/2.8. The top of the heap is f/5.6.

The 35 f/1.4 and the 24-105 are easy to mistrake for each other at a quick glance if you squint.

And, except for the Plastic Fantastic, Canon's cheapest lenses are the consumer zooms.

What I'm getting at isn't that primes or zooms are inherently superior, but rather that all lenses are compromises. We all want a TS-E 12-1200 f/0.8 L IS AF, and we want it to be the size and weight of the Shorty McForty, and we want it to cost as much as the Plastic Fantastic. Even Canon wants to sell us that lens. Of course, none of us will ever see it on the shelf....

Cheers

b&


----------



## marek.sykora (Aug 27, 2012)

Right, L-primes are very expensive and heavy, fortunately cheaper siblings are good enough. They are special pieces of glass for special purposes, e.g. 50/1.2L, is definitely better at lot apertures than 50/1.4, the 1.4 is not good at f/2.0, the L is. At f/4.0 all primes are superb and compared to common zooms.


----------



## koolman (Aug 27, 2012)

When I shoot for pleasure at my own pace, have the time and quite, and want quality, its always primes. I'll choose a wide, or long, or normal as my "theme" for that shoot, go out, and use my imagination.

When I go to a birthday party and need to grab shots, I'll use a zoom for flexibility. If I'm going on a family trip and never know what I'll need, I'll take along a zoom as well.

For portraits - its always a prime, as the zooms, are not bright enough for natural light, and I do not own a studio.


----------



## M.ST (Aug 27, 2012)

If you want get the best out of your camera use Canon and Zeiss prime lenses.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 27, 2012)

Shouldn't the options be:
I love primes
I love (a) prime
I have no idea what a prime is ;D

Took the 5DmkII out this weekend with the 200mm 2.8 and my 85mm 1.8 to the aquarium with my family.

I hate to sound like the masses, but I really missed IS -- my hands are NOT steady, regardless of how I brace. I really look forward to (someday) having the stabilization be done on the mount and not the lens.


----------



## sandymandy (Aug 27, 2012)

Primes only my way to go


----------



## Bosman (Aug 27, 2012)

dstppy said:


> Shouldn't the options be:
> I love primes
> I love (a) prime
> I have no idea what a prime is ;D
> ...


Um, you can shoot it at 6400 iso and 1/200 sec prob so wheres the shake problem then?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 27, 2012)

Yes, shoot at 1/2000 and believe me, hand shake isn't much an issue. I don't use IS on my 300 f/2.8L I IS lens when mounted on a monopod. No point.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 27, 2012)

I loved the shots I got from the 200mm with a monopod this summer but my son doesn't stand still long enough to bring a lot of equip to places like this though. 

The jellies in the dark was a bit of a challenge. I'm not a fan of cranking the iso too high.

Outside wasn't a big deal since it was really bright so I could move to a faster shutter speed.


----------



## marek.sykora (Aug 27, 2012)

Monopod is a good idea, you can use your unpacked tripod by the same way (my way). I have no experience with IS, currently I'm waiting for 50/1.4 IS to feel the feature myself, I guess it will enjoy it very much.

With my 7D and 85/1.8 and cannot hold longer time than 1/200s, I shoot often indoor in low light when I come home from work and it's quite issue for me. Fortunately I can shot with 28/1.8 using 1/60s and faster.

Back to question. I love taking photos, regardless of used equipment and primes are my wins in point of value/price.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Aug 27, 2012)

Had zooms, 10-22, 17-40, 16-35, 70-200 2.8 with a crop sensor body. Sold all and replaced them with primes shortly after I bought the 5DIII.


----------



## Bosman (Aug 29, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Yes, shoot at 1/2000 and believe me, hand shake isn't much an issue. I don't use IS on my 300 f/2.8L I IS lens when mounted on a monopod. No point.


I always have IS on even on a monopod you shift up down and side to side. I have been using position 2 for panning as my is selection depending on what it is but sometimes position 1, especially if handholding. Depending on the wedding i'll even use a monopod for that too, for the ceremony portraits and toasts.


----------



## Bosman (Aug 29, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> Had zooms, 10-22, 17-40, 16-35, 70-200 2.8 with a crop sensor body. Sold all and replaced them with primes shortly after I bought the 5DIII.


Congrats! I also own the 24LII and 50L, you are going to fall in love with those lenses if you haven't already!


----------



## nicku (Aug 29, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I love Primes. Do you?
> 
> The more I use them, The more I'm glad I used my budget on them. ;D



I use only primes for my work 95%. For landscapes ( i rarely shoot landscapes ) i use zooms. so the vote is for primes


----------



## @!ex (Aug 30, 2012)

nicku said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I love Primes. Do you?
> ...



I shoot landscapes with primes too....


----------



## JohanCruyff (Aug 30, 2012)

I am almost a beginner, and love both kinds [100mm Macro IS L vs 24-105 IS L & 70-200 F/4 IS L].


I must admit that sometimes I only carry the 100mm Macro as a walk around lense (with my 5D classic) even when a macro-photography sesssion is not planned, just because I like its colours, sharpness and bokeh.


----------

