Primes - are they worth it?

vspector wrote in post #15078426
What would posting my tamron shots prove? The 50 clearly works for you but it wasn't practical for me. too narrow indoors and bokeh a bit harsh. this lens is a great value, but i don't like it, and a lot of people agree.

That you are not arguing just for arguements sake. Instead of quoting or posting a link to some review, actually show your point of how the Tamron betters the sub $500 primes. The bokeh at f/4 from the 50 f/1.8 is just as good, even better than your Tamron unless you can provide one of your shots to prove otherwise.

vspector wrote in post #15078426
So which tests are we supposed to believe? photozone also confirms this.

Again with trying to prove something by stating "I read it here so it must be true".

vspector wrote in post #15078426
To be honest i'm not sure but i'm trying primes and my photos so far have not really been much different with them than the zoom. The sigma had really nice bokeh but it was softer. Just not worth the additional 340 bucks for me.

Not to come off as sounding to harsh, but I alluded to the fact in an earlier posting here that your skill is holding you back from getting the most out of whatever primes you have tried. Zooms are most likely your best bet for what you shoot so you should focus your attention there and not get frustrated by justifying the price of a prime.

I think that my future response for all such threads will be, "if you have to ask 'is it worth it?', you probably don't understand enough for it to be worth it."

Thorrulz wrote in post #15078608
That you are not arguing just for arguements sake. Instead of quoting or posting a link to some review, actually show your point of how the Tamron betters the sub $500 primes. The bokeh at f/4 from the 50 f/1.8 is just as good, even better than your Tamron unless you can provide one of your shots to prove otherwise.



Again with trying to prove something by stating "I read it here so it must be true".

Not to come off as sounding to harsh, but I alluded to the fact in an earlier posting here that your skill is holding you back from getting the most out of whatever primes you have tried. Zooms are most likely your best bet for what you shoot so you should focus your attention there and not get frustrated by justifying the price of a prime.

the bokeh from the 50 1.8 is not as good at f4. its harsh at all apertures. tamron has 7 blades versus the 5. you can't just compare a photo from me and a photo from you and say which one is better because there will be tons of other different variables.

Apparently you never owned the tamron lens so why are you arguing this? And if you don't believe TDP, photozone, and what other users have witnessed, then there is absolutely nothing anyone can say to change your mind.

If you think i don't have enough skill to maximize the use of a prime then say so (really i dont mind, my feelings aren't as fragile as some of the prime lens users on this thread), but don't argue that 1 lens is better than another when expert analysis from multiple sources is suggesting otherwise. that really doesnt help your cause.

WhyFi wrote in post #15078706
I think that my future response for all such threads will be, "if you have to ask 'is it worth it?', you probably don't understand enough for it to be worth it."

perhaps you might want to read something other than just the title of the thread.

vspector wrote in post #15078917
perhaps you might want to read something other than just the title of the thread.

Oh, that was certainly with your comments in mind.

vspector wrote in post #15078917
the bokeh from the 50 1.8 is not as good at f4. its harsh at all apertures. tamron has 7 blades versus the 5.

"Expert" reviews are great, I read them all the time before making a purchase. But keep in mind that these people have these lenses in their hands for a day or two. They're paid to review as many lenses as possible and formulate an opinion on them based on shooting brick walls or lines on a chart in just a few hours or days. Numbers, specifications, and reviews don't give a complete picture of a lens.

Take for example your constant criticism of the 50mm f/1.8's bokeh and sharpness at 1.8. Most expert reviews have to say about bokeh is the number of aperture blades. The number of aperture blades can give you an idea of how bokeh turns out but the fact is that is that bokeh does not depend only on the aperture blade.

The only REAL test for bokeh is to take the two lenses and shoot them side by side and look at the photo.

Did you know that bokeh also depends on the aperture setting? Reviewers hardly ever tell you that. Many lenses will have nervous bokeh wide open - harsh lines at highlights and such - BUT, with the same lenses bokeh will smooth out as you stop it down just 1 stop! However, OTHER lenses have bokeh that does not improve or only improves slightly when stopped down.

The 35mm f/2 has nervous bokeh at f/2, but is pretty damn smooth at f/2.8. The 135mm f/2 has smooth bokeh at almost all F-stops. How do I know this? Because I owned both of these lenses and shot hundreds of pictures with both of them. You will never find this on any "expert review" with numbers and test charts.

We are just trying to convince you why we think primes are awesome, even the ones below $500, with our real world experiences. If you don't believe us because you want to stick to your expert reviews and numbers, then fine. If you want to actually prove it with your own experience, then post some comparison photos.

But don't try to convince us that these primes suck or aren't worth it compared to your Tamron without backup photos. We've tried the primes and the zooms and we know how good they are in our hands. We'll be over here making great photos with our 'not-worth-it' primes then. There are differences between "people who like cameras/lenses" and photographers (but they aren't mutually exclusive categories). I can see why some people might say some primes "aren't worth it" on paper compared to zooms but the final photograph of these primes proves that sentiment wrong.

vspector wrote in post #15078917
the bokeh from the 50 1.8 is not as good at f4. its harsh at all apertures. tamron has 7 blades versus the 5. you can't just compare a photo from me and a photo from you and say which one is better because there will be tons of other different variables.

Apparently you never owned the tamron lens so why are you arguing this? And if you don't believe TDP, photozone, and what other users have witnessed, then there is absolutely nothing anyone can say to change your mind.

If you think i don't have enough skill to maximize the use of a prime then say so (really i dont mind, my feelings aren't as fragile as some of the prime lens users on this thread), but don't argue that 1 lens is better than another when expert analysis from multiple sources is suggesting otherwise. that really doesnt help your cause.

perhaps you might want to read something other than just the title of the thread.

I never once read a test chart or care to understand how to read them. I buy my lens and do a real world test. If I like the result, then it's a keeper. I find primes like the Canon 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 85mm f/1.8 to be very sharp. If you find it any different, that's fine. I think it's mute point we all try to convince the other person that we are right. I always believe that people should shoot with what ever lens they think it's best for them. If you like your Tamron, by all mean keep shooting with it. Does it matter what anyone else think? I love my Primes. I only have one zoom, the 24-70L and it's hardly ever get use. It's a very sharp and contrasting lens but I prefer the result of my Primes. That's just me.

vspector wrote in post #15065715
I've flirted with the idea of using primes, but have yet to find one that is well, worth it.
Just sold my Sigma 30 1.4 because I don't get much more use out of it over my Tamron and couldnt justify the price. I did recognize some scenarios particularly with baby photos where the tamron is inedaquate, but 95% of the time its just fine, if not better.
I still want to get a prime bu i want it to actually be worth the annoying swapping of the lenses, plus the additional $$.
Obviously there are some L lenses that will blow my tamron IQ away, but you can't compare a $450 lens to a $1400 + lens. Lets talk just the sub $500-600 range.

Does anyone have a suggestion? I've grown to really admire the 85 1.8 results, should i try that one? I'm not super impressed with the Sigma 30 and the user samples on the site for the canon 50 1.4 seem even less impressive.

advice?

I have 28mm 3.5mm old Olympus prime on my Rebel which is most used lens on this camera.
Most, even fast, primes are small compare to zooms and have better sharpness.
So, better IQ in smaller package. No zoom is also, somehow, liberating to frame it right.

The only problem with primes on Rebel, where are not so many to choose from.
Due to big crop factor classic 50mm primes (something like twenty of them in 60-600$ price range) are almost useless on Rebels. 35mm FF analog lens even more difficult to find, not to mention UWA for croppers.

So, for me 28-30mm prime on Rebel is good enough as general purpose lens.
And 90-100 macro is perfect for macro also.

But, if you want to taste real benefit of many different primes in -600$ range - FF only.

Inherent in all of this discussion is a pretty big flaw in the argument. Much of the discussion has been about the Tamron versus a few budget primes. Let's assume that the Tamron, true to all the expert reviews, beats every prime lens under $800 in terms of sharpness, color rendition, distortion, etc. You still can't use that result and answer the question, "Are primes worth it?" The OP is trying to use some very specific comparisons to answer a very general and broad question. You can't use the Tamron and attribute its "superiority" to every zoom versus prime discussion.

kf095 wrote in post #15079670
I have 28mm 3.5mm old Olympus prime on my Rebel which is most used lens on this camera.
Most, even fast, primes are small compare to zooms and have better sharpness.
So, better IQ in smaller package. No zoom is also, somehow, liberating to frame it right.

The only problem with primes on Rebel, where are not so many to choose from.
Due to big crop factor classic 50mm primes (something like twenty of them in 60-600$ price range) are almost useless on Rebels. 35mm FF analog lens even more difficult to find, not to mention UWA for croppers.

So, for me 28-30mm prime on Rebel is good enough as general purpose lens.
And 90-100 macro is perfect for macro also.

But, if you want to taste real benefit of many different primes in -600$ range - FF only.

I'm starting to think so too. the 85 1.8 will be the next one i try.

Nathan wrote in post #15079672
Inherent in all of this discussion is a pretty big flaw in the argument. Much of the discussion has been about the Tamron versus a few budget primes. Let's assume that the Tamron, true to all the expert reviews, beats every prime lens under $800 in terms of sharpness, color rendition, distortion, etc. You still can't use that result and answer the question, "Are primes worth it?" The OP is trying to use some very specific comparisons to answer a very general and broad question. You can't use the Tamron and attribute its "superiority" to every zoom versus prime discussion.

I'm not at all trying to do that.
The question i'm asking is which prime is a significant step up over my specific lens. that is all. I didn't mean to spark a debate over prime vs zoom. I understand some users blast me with my comment because their $1000 prime is better than the tamron... i would certainly hope it is.

Maybe the topic was a poor choice of words, or maybe some didnt read my actual question.

vspector wrote in post #15079685
The question i'm asking is which prime is a significant step up over my specific lens. that is all. I didn't mean to spark a debate over prime vs zoom. I understand some users blast me with my comment because their $1000 prime is better than the tamron... i would certainly hope it is.

Maybe the topic was a poor choice of words, or maybe some didnt read my actual question.

Oh, if that's the case... then I suppose the follow up questions ought to be whether you are looking for a replacement for your Tamron and therefore a prime (or two) within that zoom range?

Nathan wrote in post #15079724
Oh, if that's the case... then I suppose the follow up questions ought to be whether you are looking for a replacement for your Tamron and therefore a prime (or two) within that zoom range?

i'm not sure, the tamron is no slouch in IQ so i don't know if i can find a worthwile replacement within my budget for that focal length. plus i enjoy the versatility. I prefer the long end of my tamron so if there was something like a 50 - 85 that doesn't carry the L price tag, i would definitely consider it. I'll consider something below that too but i'm not going to change for a marginal improvement (which is what i thought the sig 30 was)

A lens is like a dress. It depends on the type of body you have, the way you use it, and the occasion. And you must ask yourself, what benefits you get flirting with it on.

vspector wrote in post #15079747
i'm not sure, the tamron is no slouch in IQ so i don't know if i can find a worthwile replacement within my budget for that focal length. plus i enjoy the versatility. I prefer the long end of my tamron so if there was something like a 50 - 85 that doesn't carry the L price tag, i would definitely consider it. I'll consider something below that too but i'm not going to change for a marginal improvement (which is what i thought the sig 30 was)

It sounds to me like you're already happy with your Tamron, both for image quality and for convenience of focal lengths. A prime within that range is not going to change your mind.

I suppose what you're really wrestling with is whether to buy a longer focal length zoom versus a longer prime lens. If this is the case, I'd refrain from making comparisons with your current Tamron because it's a moot comparison. You could do your research and compare IQ of lenses within your budget. That said... there are lots of portrait photographers who love the 70-200/2.8 lenses and others who swear by the 85, 135 and/or 200 primes. It's a matter of taste and style.

Are primes worth it? Yes. Are zooms worth it? Yes.

snake0ape wrote in post #15079748
A lens is like a dress. It depends on the type of body you have, the way you use it, and the occasion. And you must ask yourself, what benefits you get flirting with it on.

I like that!

+1 on the dress analogy

WhyFi wrote in post #15078706
I think that my future response for all such threads will be, "if you have to ask 'is it worth it?', you probably don't understand enough for it to be worth it."

^^^ this, period. I followed this thread the first day OP posted the question and thought to myself: It's not gonna be worth it when you have to ask is it worth it!

Sorry OP, i'm not rude but you can search the pictures in lens' sample thread and see the diff yourself, talking a thousand words is not gonna do anything unless you take it into action. There're reasons why primes are more expensive than zooms while it doesn't have the flexibilities of the zooms.