Primes - are they worth it?

Dasani wrote in post #15080346
^^^ 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.

The OP is more comfortable in relying on a particular type of lens. In this case it wood be a photographer that prefers zooms over primes. His original question that prefaced all the following replys, "Primes - are they worth it?" has been refined to sub $500 lens only.

Many posters on here, myself included have attempted to help explain to the benefits of why a prime costs as much as it does but are rebutted with why his Tamron is better than whatever prime we mention to him. In a nutshell if an individual doesn't know how to use their equipment or what the specific tools purpose is designed for, then they need to do more research before asking such a question.

Not trying to sound to harsh to the OP but they really should stick to their comfort zone because it sounds as though a prime will just frustrate them until they learn how and why it's best suited for a specific type of photography.

Good luck to the OP and good shooting.

I think the most outrageous threads seem to survive the longest.....

Are primes worth it

It's like still trying to convince yourself a retirement plan isn't worth it....

I have a similar question.... Why buy a dslr when my iPhone takes pictures :p

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?

First off, the Tamron 17-50 I owned had a little better than average sharpness, decent color rendition and terrible bokeh when stopped down. The AF was incredibly loud, slow and it hunted without a very high contrast subject, which is to say often. I personally prefer the IQ and AF of the 50mm f/1.8 II to the Tamron. So my answer to your question is that every sub-$500 prime is better.

Btw, there are many things that make a lens "better" besides IQ. AF accuracy and speed, ergonomics, max aperture, etc, etc.

jerbear00 wrote in post #15080954
I think the most outrageous threads seem to survive the longest.....

Are primes worth it

It's like still trying to convince yourself a retirement plan isn't worth it....

Read the whole post, not just the subject. And very poor analogy

twoshadows wrote in post #15080990
First off, the Tamron 17-50 I owned had a little better than average sharpness, decent color rendition and terrible bokeh when stopped down. The AF was incredibly loud, slow and it hunted without a very high contrast subject, which is to say often. I personally prefer the IQ and AF of the 50mm f/1.8 II to the Tamron. So my answer to your question is that every sub-$500 prime is better.

Btw, there are many things that make a lens "better" besides IQ. AF accuracy and speed, ergonomics, max aperture, etc, etc.

I've never seem worse AF than on the nifty fifty, i'm sure lurkers would agree. As to the iq, you can easily tell from the sample photo pages which lens is better...

Any one else think that labeling your own post as "book worthy" is definitely not:

vspector wrote in post #15081129
Read the whole post, not just the subject. And very poor analogy

I've never seem worse AF than on the nifty fifty, i'm sure lurkers would agree. As to the iq, you can easily tell from the sample photo pages which lens is better...

I put AF at ABOUT the same level on the Nifty Fifty and the Tammy 17-50 non VC. They'll both generally hunt in low light, with the Tamron REALLY going from MFD to Infinity multiple times. Coupled with that loud motor, it sounds like Robocop is bearing down on you! Pop-up flash notwithstanding to help with AF, these two will hunt and hunt before getting focus. As for IQ, well, I don't know...I'm guessing at this point, I would have to give it to the Tamron, overall. I like the color-rendition better, but sometimes, my old Tamron felt almost TOO saturated.

That said, as I, and many other people have said. If you don't find the benefit of primes, then do not use them, it's really as simple as that.

vspector wrote in post #15081129
I've never seem worse AF than on the nifty fifty, i'm sure lurkers would agree. As to the iq, you can easily tell from the sample photo pages which lens is better...

You should know by now that I like primes more than zooms. Also, just to throw more fuel to this fire, I prefered the 30mm prime to the 17-55mm zoom... that's not based on any expert review... it's based on my own experience with both lenses and the images they produced. Expert reviews will say the 17-55 surpasses your Tamron

FEChariot wrote in post #15081140
Any one else think that labeling your own post as "book worthy" is definitely not:

Sarcasm... Never figured out how to convey it....

FYI... I read the post... Most it I just got bored. I am just trolling along.

My point was that the OP reminds me of a fish swimming up stream when everyone else disagrees with your point of view. Perks to you for sticking to it.

jerbear00 wrote in post #15081270
FYI... I read the post... Most it I just got bored. I am just trolling along.

My point was that the OP reminds me of a fish swimming up stream when everyone else disagrees with your point of view. Perks to you for sticking to it.

Actually, I think there's a bit of herd mentality here. If people try to be a little more broadminded, they could get past the reactive zoom versus prime discussion on the surface and actually see that the OP was/is just asking for advice.

^ +1

vspector wrote in post #15081129
Read the whole post, not just the subject. And very poor analogy

I've never seem worse AF than on the nifty fifty, i'm sure lurkers would agree. As to the iq, you can easily tell from the sample photo pages which lens is better...

I think I might have a solution for why you haven't had the success with primes you would have liked to have achieved. Primes are far less forgiving at the larger apertures, with lack of proper technique at locking and holding focus by the camera and user.

Now before you take that as a slight, bear in mind that if you are shooting with an entry level 550d/tamron zoom combo that is fine. But the primes really shine when you place them on a camera that can focus and track on a professional level after you have the experience to do so. It does take practice and a steady hand so don't be discouraged. The pics I posted earlier in this thread are but a sample of what you can accomplish with practice.

Thorrulz wrote in post #15081341
I think I might have a solution for why you haven't had the success with primes you would have liked to have achieved. Primes are far less forgiving at the larger apertures, with lack of proper technique at locking and holding focus by the camera and user.

Now before you take that as a slight, bear in mind that if you are shooting with an entry level 550d/tamron zoom combo that is fine. But the primes really shine when you place them on a camera that can focus and track on a professional level after you have the experience to do so. It does take practice and a steady hand so don't be discouraged. The pics I posted earlier in this thread are but a sample of what you can accomplish with practice.

Is there an improvement from t2i to 7d? I thought they use the same sensor?
I do need more practice but its not that i'm unable to shoot at 1.4, just not always my style which kind of negates that advantage

vspector wrote in post #15081401
Is there an improvement from t2i to 7d? I thought they use the same sensor?
I do need more practice but its not that i'm unable to shoot at 1.4, just not always my style which kind of negates that advantage

Same sensor, vastly different AF.

As for your price range, as a walkaround prime, nothing really can beat the Sigma 30mm f1.4 for me. That is/was a great lens and I love how it renders images in the OOF areas.
As for things other than in your focal range, trying the 85 is a great idea. The images from the 85 look nice, usually. Just watch for CA.