Thinking of going all primes - am I crazy?

I'm happy to say that I'm travelling more and more these days. Currently, I take my 24-70II, my 50L and my 135L.

I generally use the wide end of the zoom for architecture, landscapes, and landmarks, the 50L for creative shots, and the 135L for street portraits.

I'm wondering if I can add some additional creative options by getting a faster wide-angle (24L) and leaving the zoom at home?

I just wonder if this makes any sense to anyone, or if I'm just crazy and looking to make my life more difficult? I guess I'm wondering if the added creativity that comes with shallow DoF is a good trade-off for a handy, high quality zoom (even if it is a bit boring DoF wise).

Here's some examples of what I captured on my last trip to Amsterdam... to give you an idea...

24mm f/8 (24-70II)...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CNjc​YQ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Dd4J​NC

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CNkd​us

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ChT1​LY

I wouod hate to give up the ability to change perspective via the zoom, especially for travel.

I shoot with primes almost exclusively. I have zooms, but I rarely make any use of them. I'd say it really comes down to two benefits: the variability of focal length and availability of wider aperture. To date these two are still mutually exclusive. And I tend to prefer the latter. There are other ways to manage perspective than zoom. Feet will work almost always. Cropping does the same in post which zooming does on site. And stitching (the "brenizer method") allows for wider angle view with longer primes (and nicer perspective too). For travel and photowalks I notice myself using mostly either a 50/1.4 and 85/1.4.

Seems to me you're already going primes: the 50L and 135L. So it would only mean swapping the 24-70mm for a 24L. All you have to ask yourself is how often you actually use the full range of the 24-70 (instead of just shooting at the wide end).


I had one of these a million years ago when I was a student!! It was ancient when I bought it for next to nothing, but it was great. Sure brings back memories...

Here's some examples of what I captured on my last trip to Amsterdam... to give you an idea...
50mm f/1.2 (50L)...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Dd4J​NC Untitled by VirtualRain, on Flickr

I travel a lot and for me zooms are the go for a variety of reasons. There are many times when you are a tourist you don't want to walk around with all three primes in your bag - and if you do it is slow and clumsy to change lenses on a camera when you are in the middle of a street and trying to juggle other things. Quite often you can be in front of a local street performer and then you turn around and need a different focal length to shoot something on the other side of the street.

Other times you cannot zoom with your feet - eg on a bridge, in a crowd or on the edge of water.

The quality zooms now equal or in a lot of cases outperform prime lenses. The trick is to get a mix in your bag that allow you flexibility but not weigh you down. My preference is to use a mix of zooms and primes - maybe a 16-35 F4, 24-70 F4 and something a little longer, 70 -300. I might add a fast 50 (1.4 or 1.8) to round it all off.

If I am doing a particular job then that is a different story - either the 85, 135 or 200 for portraiture work but in this case you have time to change the lens and set it up again. For landscape the same theory applies - primes with a tripod with time to set it all up.

Just my 2c worth

Nah, not crazy at all; it's a learning experience. You won't know until you commit and execute that having an all-prime setup is right for you and the type of photography you want to do. You'll also get a better idea of what focal lengths you prefer more, and that can help you structure your lineup going forward.

I went through the same exercise back when I had first started photography. Sold all zooms and went with the "holy trinity" 35/85/135 for a few months, and basically got sick of having to frequently switch lenses. That, and I discovered that the 35 and 85mm focal lengths weren't ideal for me, and the 135L was rather limited for my type of photography. So, another upheaval had me selling that lineup and going with a 24/50/70-200 setup. I wouldn't have figured this out had I not "sampled" the different prime lenses.

Since then I have added more lenses, and sit at a nice balance of versatility and artistic capability (4 zooms, 3 primes). Wouldn't think of going with "just zooms" or "just primes" anymore because they all serve a purpose.

I'm most likely to leave my primes home when I travel. My go to travel kit is 5D + 24-105, while everything else including my three primes sit at home.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17900297
I'm most likely to leave my primes home when I travel. My go to travel kit is 5D + 24-105, while everything else including my three primes sit at home.

+1 on this.

I own 6 lenses. Half are primes but whenever I travel I have the same setup as Jeffrey: 5D + 24-105. I have just found myself in too many situations where if I didn't have that variable focal length I'd be kicking myself over missed opportunities. Travelling on the go you often don't have the luxury of time or position to place yourself in the perfect spot for the desired shot that a prime may require.

That being said I will use my primes for special situations or projects when I have the time. The 35L f/1.4 gets used the most, followed by the 135L f/2 and 85 f/1.8.

That's the craziest thing I have ever heard!

In the days of film, limited to ISO 400, I found that fast primes were often essential to getting shots in some settings where artificial light added by me was undesireable. However, with digital speeds up in the 4-digit or 5-digit ISOs, that need for fast lenses is so much less essential!

Zooms have the flexibility of getting precisely the framing of a shot that you want, at a specific camera position. You can't do that with primes.

As for 'perspective', you can get the same 'perspective' with primes as with zooms...35mm is 35mm whether zoom or prime, 135mm is 135mm whether zoom or prime, but to try to capture a specific 'perspective' your camera position is much more predetermined and limited by focal length with primes than when shooting with zooms.

I find fast primes essential for light weight and compactness (...zooms are so much larger and heavier in comparison). They have their place, they have their benefits. The same can be said about zooms, they have their place, they have their benefit...my main gripe about zooms is the max aperture limitation, and even with fast ISO digital cameras they are constrained by the use of higher and noisier ISO.

two of my most recent trips, I went all primes and one zoom (AUS), then went all primes (grand canyon). I do have a 24-70 2.8, 24-105, 70-400 for zooms.

restaurant outings, 24 f2.8 + 55 f1.8 + A7rii is a fairly small setup. 6D/5D + 50 stm, not much bigger. I can go smaller, but content with the size.

I can travel all primes and have focal lengths varying from 12mm - 200mm with a few fast lenses in between.

Wilt wrote in post #17900472
In the days of film, limited to ISO 400, I found that fast primes were often essential to getting shots in some settings where artificial light added by me was undesireable. However, with digital speeds up in the 4-digit or 5-digit ISOs, that need for fast lenses is so much less essential!

Zooms have the flexibility of getting precisely the framing of a shot that you want, at a specific camera position. You can't do that with primes.

As for 'perspective', you can get the same 'perspective' with primes as with zooms...35mm is 35mm whether zoom or prime, 135mm is 135mm whether zoom or prime, but to try to capture a specific 'perspective' your camera position is much more predetermined and limited by focal length with primes than when shooting with zooms.

I find fast primes essential for light weight and compactness (...zooms are so much larger and heavier in comparison). They have their place, they have their benefits. The same can be said about zooms, they have their place, they have their benefit...my main gripe about zooms is the max aperture limitation, and even with fast ISO digital cameras they are constrained by the use of higher and noisier ISO.

But a zoom can allow you to change perspective. By that I mean if you have a foreground element you want to enhance you can move closer with a wider lens and make it more prominent, conversely you can back up and keep the same distance framing and deemphasize the foreground element. A zoom gives you more creative flexibility.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17900638
But a zoom can allow you to change perspective. By that I mean if you have a foreground element you want to enhance you can move closer with a wider lens and make it more prominent, conversely you can back up and keep the same distance framing and deemphasize the foreground element. A zoom gives you more creative flexibility.

Agreed. The only down side to a zoom is the unavailability of the faster apertures. I can't imagine not having a zoom lens while on travel if it was anything but a purpose photography trip.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17900297
I'm most likely to leave my primes home when I travel. My go to travel kit is 5D + 24-105, while everything else including my three primes sit at home.

Interestingly, that's how I use to travel... I used a Blackrapid with my 5D and 24-105 permanently attached. However, I found I couldn't get creative with that lens. Except at night with a tripod doing long exposures, everything looked like a snap shot. Once I started packing a couple of primes, I felt I could get more interesting photos with the subject isolation that wide apertures provide... something I just couldn't do with an f/4 or even my f/2.8 zoom.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Aduj​1c

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qJ3a​Uv

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pa6f​TP

where's all the 85L shots?!