Primes......I think I'm hooked.

I think if you calmly explain to your wife just how majestic and beautiful f2 can be on a longer focal length, she'll welcome the new addition to your home with open arms.

Anthon wrote in post #14659450
I think every serious photographer will prefer primes.
It's not even about IQ, it's about how you take pictures. With zoom you are tempted to just randomly set your focal distance and just shoot shoot shoot till your finger feels numb.
Primes make you think!

Having wide aperture also makes everything look stunning.

I'm a manual prime guy all the way. I would use AF zooms, only if I would need convenience - event photography and stuff like that, where being "correct" is more important than being creative.

Also, you can find some pretty damn good primes at garage sales etc for a price of a flash card.

you sound like a noob with your preaching. I'm sure most paid wedding photogs understand how to compose with a zoom, and dont need lessons about how primes make them work. With the time you spend "working" for the shot, you may very well miss the shot, unless you are using multiple bodies.

Primes are great in a way, but I dont have any issues using BOTH primes and zooms. In comfortable/familiar places, I may take a prime. For unknowns, a zoom easily. I'm not pimpin two bodies, so zoom it is. It would be pretty bothersome to pack two bodies to the farmer's market, and since I'll be shooting stopped down anyhow, there's no need to pack two primes on two bodies.

Anthon wrote in post #14659450
I think every serious photographer will prefer primes.

Lolz...ORLY? I know of a few "serious" news and wedding photographers who may disagree with you...

Was just reading today that Canon released two new primes that have IS. I shoot both stills and video with my 2 camera bodies and for the price I'm considering picking up one of these.
24mm 2.8 IS
28mm 2.8 IS

nightcat wrote in post #14662364
I think if you calmly explain to your wife just how majestic and beautiful f2 can be on a longer focal length, she'll welcome the new addition to your home with open arms.

She just turned 71....NOTHING is welcome in our home just yet.

alann wrote in post #14662656
She just turned 71....NOTHING is welcome in our home just yet.

high strung 22 year olds like myself... others in their 70's... I love this forum, diversity is great.

The 85 1.8 should be your next prime and focuses allot like the 135. From there you are going to have to dig deep into your pocket to get something GREAT in the 30-50mm range.

I'm a fan of both. I tend to use my zoom's when I'm out and about shooting for fun (park or zoo with my family). When I'm shooting in a more controlled environment (studio), low light, or the shot calls for a REALLY shallow depth of field, I stick with the primes.

I also suffer from really shaky hands from a car accident my senior year of high school (now 32) so I really prefer zooms with IS.

There's a place for both types in your bag. I did shoot primes only for a year to just get better with my compositions.

My first lens was a 28/2.8 Cosina.... that was 30-odd years ago. I traded it for a 35-70/3.6 and it was a mistake.... so yes, I feel the allure of primes.

However, the new generation of zooms are the equal of many primes. My 70/200 II is very neary as sharp as a 135/2 (both at f/2.8). With the 1.4x III is nearly the equal of the 300/4. I fully expect the new 24-70 to run rings around many primes.

So those who love the slow methodical technique seem to be getting squeezed between ultra-sharp zooms, sensors that can't really see light from a f/1.8 cone and Zeiss-like bokeh. Progress is sometimes rather depressing.

I hate zooms - I don't have any in my normal kit. I pack a 70-200 for weddings but rarely use it

Primes are awesome, but zooms have their place. The versatility just can't be matched. Example:

The other night I got to take photos at a fashion show; all I knew is I would be shooting a fashion show: didn't know lighting or distance to stage I'd be at. I brought my 24L, 50L, and 70-200 2.8 II. What lens ended up being most used? 70-200. I got full body shots at 70mm, and waste up at 200mm. f/2.8 was adequate for the lighting, though I was pushing ISO 6400 on the 5D3. The shots turned out super sharp at f/2.8, the AF was fast, focal lengths were perfect. The 70-200 killed it!

I know, cool story, bro... Sure, I could have brought every single prime in the lineup and gotten great shots, but then I'd be switching lenses and missing moments. It's much better to concentrate on getting the shot than worrying about juggling glass.

Yeah, zooms certainly suck.

I used to use zooms exclusively until I realized that I used all my zooms as if they were primes (at each end of the focal range but never in between) It all comes down to perspective and DOF control. I still have the EF-S 17-55, just because it is so freaking good.

Mark-B wrote in post #14661340
The same could be said for a tripod. The key factor is to stop and think instead of point & shoot. Learn good composition and take the time to apply that knowledge to real world shooting.

Excellent point. I've often said that nothing will improve your photos more, than using a tripod.

Improved photo's by a tripod? In my opinion absolutely not. Only when you get exposures longer than 1/80. I really can't see any reason you are getting more creativity by using a tripod. You can't put your tripod everywhere so you could miss the spot where you want to take the picture exactly.

Please explain me why a tripod will improve your photo's? I am curious. With a tripod you almost can't take spontaneous pictures.