I'm starting to like primes more than zoom

Primes are addictive. You have been warned

Do consider the 28/1.8, 50/1.4mm and 100/2.8 as very good combo.

Jam.radonc wrote in post #11497882
Primes are addictive. You have been warned

Do consider the 28/1.8, 50/1.4mm and 100/2.8 as very good combo.

many gaps there though.. fill them in with zooms... HAHAHHAA

Welcome to the club I just switched all my zooms out for the trinity primes and don't regret it a sec!

Jam.radonc wrote in post #11497882
Primes are addictive. You have been warned

Do consider the 28/1.8, 50/1.4mm and 100/2.8 as very good combo.

Actually I was thinking the 35mm f/2?

I want to take a good family portrait Saturday. I was debating on buying the 35 today in preperation for that. Good call? Or would the 18-55 do just as well?

chugger93 wrote in post #11498007
Actually I was thinking the 35mm f/2?

I want to take a good family portrait Saturday. I was debating on buying the 35 today in preperation for that. Good call? Or would the 18-55 do just as well?

Depends on the lighting .

If you're shooting family portraits then you'll probably want to stop down anyways to get everyone in focus. The 35 at f/2 won't be any more help for this since you won't be shooting at that aperture. The 18-55 should be ok for it but now you're just getting into personal preference.

I love my 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, but I love my 16-35/2.8 II as much as the primes. Way happier with the zoom than I would be with 3 different primes to cover that area.

Ah, it all started for me with that nifty fifty...

I completely agree with the new quality zooms being really really good. For a pro, lenses are rather tools of trade and his/her usage dictates what lenses are needed. For hobbyists, its different somewhat. They choose their lenses based on their liking more often than not. So horses for courses.

With quality lenses, you won't go wrong either way. For me though, I like primes more...

Whatever lens you choose, make sure it's f/2.8 or faster. Not only for better low light practicality, but also for thiner depth of field, high-precision AF and brighter viewfinder.

Sounds more like you're falling in love with glass capable of large apertures than you are of primes specifically (though there is definitely some overlap there)

Well, to get back on subject...

I love primes. I first started buying them to have backups for my zooms. Having all the focal lengths covered twice is really important for me, especially when I am shooting a wedding. That being said, I didnt want to buy two of the exact same lenses...boring! So I started picking up primes, and going the "cheap prime" way before I go for the big boys.

I love my selection, 28mm (probably gets the least use) 50mm f1.4 (getting the most use right now) 85mm 1.8, 135mm f2. I find myself carrying around my primes more than my zooms, except during the ceremony when I run 11-16, 24-70, and 70-200mm.

I gave up all of my zooms for primes. I may get a cheapy zoom for snaps, but for anything else, I like primes. I found over a long period that most of my work ends up being in the 35 or 50 range, with another good chunk below 24. I didn't use telephotos much, nor macro. So I got three extremely high quality primes, with close focus properties. Trust me (or should I say, "I feel") they have better image quality than zooms...a few zooms get close, but they also (generally) have a lot of distortions etc.

...and yes I had a lot of "L" zooms, etc. etc. - they're generally excellent, but my primes more so...

Ok posts have been cleaned up.


Play nice or you don't get to play at all.

I would have no problem to go all Prime if Canon put IS on those longer than 50mm. I have shaky hands and I shoot low light without tripoid.

nonick wrote in post #11498286
I would have no problem to go all Prime if Canon put IS on those longer than 50mm. I have a shaky hand and I shoot low light without tripoid.

Wow, good thing you have the only copy in the world of the 24-70L IS.

Primes are O.K... I cut my teeth on primes and still used them as long as the zooms were not adequate for my needs. The first zoom for a still camera which I tried was a 43-86mm Nikkor of mid-1960's vintage and that lens was absolutely terrible.

I later tried a Canon zoom of the late 1970's and although better than the original Nikkor that I tested, was not up to the quality of the primes of that era. I did not try another zoom until I uses the EF and EFS lenses.

Top-line zoom lenses of today, such as the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS offer enough quality for all but the most intense pixel peepers. The advantage to a zoom as I see it, is that I can most always frame my image just about exactly the way I desire and only infrequently need to crop to any degree.

BTW: I shoot with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras and have a focal range of 17-200mm at my finger tips without changing lenses (I don't miss the 55-70mm gap). I would never even think of using primes without a second camera, except when I am shooting macros using my 90mm f/2.8 Tamron.

The Nifty Fifty gained its fame because it was a low cost alternative that beat the pants off the original 18-55mm non-IS Canon kit lens. It was faster and had better IQ. However, I have not carried my 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I lens since I began shooting with the 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom. The 17-55mm (IMO) is actually a better low light glass than the 50mm f/1.8.

I do use primes for my longest lenses. However, I would like a zoom of 200-400mm which incorporated a constant f/4 (at least) aperture and which also was equipped with the latest IS capability and a sliding lens hood. The last is not a deal breaker but, I love the sliding hoods on my 300mm and 400mm primes.