Aren't primes too restrictive?

To me, it sounds like having a prime, fixed focal lenght, would be too cumbersome and impractical. Unless you are shooting a portrait in a studio, where you have the camera on a tripod and a chair for the client, both fixed interms of the space in between, you would always want to use the zoom to frame the shot.

Am I wrong? If you have a prime and use it anything else other than studio portrait photography, can you share your experience and thoughts on this matter?

If my reasoning is correct, who would need a 135 or 200 prime, which obviously cannot be used for portraits? One might say that landscapes might in a way look like portraits but again, even with mountains, I am assuming you would still want to frame your picture. Besides, you can hardly use yoour feet to zoom in case of the mountains because to change the view for mountain you would probably need to walk miles.

What do you think?

MALI

It's a matter of opinion. You are going to get plenty of them with this thread I would imagine. I learned to take pictures with a prime lens. So for me it's not an issue.

I switched to zoom lens when I bought my first EOS camera. I still have it, it's a 28-105. When I picked up my 300d I used it for a while then bought some better zooms. I just missed my prime lenses I guess because when I bought my cheap little 50 1.8 I was hooked. Worse than L fever. I plan on buying a few more before I am done.

I have used use my 70-200 for portraits, and I liked it. I tend to pick a focal length and stay there anyway though.

I wouldn't usually reach for a telephoto lens for a landscape, but you are right about having to walk for miles to frame up some shots. Nothing wrong with zoom lenses in my opinion, I just like primes better. Less to think about.

Try putting your 24-70 at 24mm then walking until you are framed up at the same crop you would have been at 70mm. It's not really that much walking for most subjects, large landscapes excluded of course.

[EDIT] one add on... primes usually do better in low light than zooms.

Zoom lenses are sold in combination with the largest slice (by far) of the global digital camera market so your premise must be spot on...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

restrictive? yes, they never let me go out after the street lights come on, nor do they let me stay up to watch the 6 million dollar man

as many have said, you can easily your feet to compose and zoom, and with the pixel density of todays digitals, you have plenty of room for cropping, if necessary. primes are soo much sharper that it's sometimes painful to put the zoom back on. combine that with the AF speed, and they are hard to beat. one thing i really enjoy about primes is that they are fixed. i have many shots where i've been forced to compose the best i can, and upon review, they are remarkable compared to what i would have done with a zoom. screw the rules, man!!! the 85mm 1.8, 135 f2, and sigma 15mm fish have provided me with some extremely satisfying results, so i almost always have them with me. sometimes i purposely leave the zooms at home on a trip, just to see what i come up with.

I think it depends on what you want to do. For walk around a zoom is probably best. But then try carrying a 50 and 85 and you might think differently. I have a 50, 85 and 135 manual takumar lenses. I can get most with that. But its not a easy as a 18-125 I have.

If I do protraits then the 50 is great. Remember in a portrait you want to blur the background to draw attention to the subject. This mean large aperature. So a 50/1.8 is better than my 18-125 which is f4 at 50.

I grew up with primes on my 35mm SLR's and only had one zoom which I didn't use a lot.

I then switched to digital a number of years ago and had a prime lens with that and then switched to a point and shoot which had a zoom. In fact it also had macro. I was in heaven. I loved it. I had all the lenses I wanted in that one camera. It was perfect until I tried to do some things with it where I needed faster lenses. So, I switched to digital SLR, my 20D.

I love it and don't look back too much but I do miss the all in one point and shoot somewhat but I absolutely love the 20D so here I am.

I like zooms because with a prime I have to use my feet to frame if you know what I mean. With a zoom I can change it and frame the shot standing still. Pretty neat, eh?
But, primes do offer faster lens and that's good too so it's a dilemma for sure.

I do like putting my 50 on and shooting with it because of it's quality but I still like the 17-85 because of it's zoom. I can get it all, except for the real long lens, with it.

I would like to get a dedicated macro around 100mm. That would be a fine addition and a prime at that!!!

One thing that I can think of is: if you only use your zoom to frame your subject from where you are, then you are choosing a focal length based on convenience, not based on your vision for the photograph. In my opinion, that's a sure-fire way to end up with pretty mediocre photographs a lot of the time. When I first started, I did that as well. Now what I do is more like this: for large objects, I move to where the play between the subject and other leading elements combine for the best composition, then choose the focal length that will isolate that composition (perspective has everything to do with distance, not focal length, so I find the perspective I want and choose the FL best suited to the shot). This is similar to what you're saying, but that's just choosing the correct focal length for the shot...what zooms are for. OR, for smaller subjects, or for wide-angle shots, I find the foreground subject and background I want, and I look at combinations of focal length and movement changes so that I get the most pleasing view....(for instance, if I have flowers at the front, with mountains behind, too wide makes the mountains too small to have impact, too long makes the flowers not jump out as the leading subject).

Of course, there are instances where you can't move, and you want to frame a shot a certain way, so you zoom to frame. Or there are areas where the focal length doesn't matter because there's just one subject you want to isolate (such as with sports, isolated people or wildlife portraits (with no play in the background). However, any situation where you've got play between foreground and background requires much more thought to the focal length and perspective you want to use.

Essentially, use a focal length because it allows you to get the framing / perspective / balance between elements, not because you don't want to move.

All that is now out of the way: To zoom vs. prime, it's really about what you're shooting, and the time you have. If you need to switch focal lengths often while on a shoot, a zoom is obviously the best choice. If you need fast lenses, primes are often the only way to do it. Also, optical quality tends to be higher with primes. If I could afford a good compliment of zooms / primes in each focal length, I would, but I'm not there yet. The 35 f/1.4L is calling to me (though I will probably get the 35 f/2 until I can stash away some cash). I use my 50 f/1.8 all the time, yes, mostly for portraits, but not only for studio type setups...it's very easy to frame the subject by walking a bit.

To the contrary, often zooms are too restrictive as f2.8 is too slow. Time to get that f1.4 on the body.

Primes being restrictive ?
Not at all. Think about it. In the pre-ZOOM-Lens days for film SLRs. Were shots [taken MOSTLY by Prime Lenses mounted on SLR film cameras] restrictive in ANY way ? Where old-days Photographers restricted in their art work ?

No, I don't think so....

for most people i would say yes. my first SLR was a canon AE-1.

i had three lenses....28mm, 50mm and 80mm. back then zooms were crappy.

today i don't see the need for primes unless i am shooting in low light.

ed rader

The 135 and 200 prime are both excellent portrait lenses, provided your studio is large enough to take a bit of distance. Plus, they are sharper than any zoom which is what you want when doing portraits.

P.

Different Strokes for differnt fokes...

I like primes, love primes, dont have many.. Since i need the practicality of a zoom...

Primes in low light will OWN a zoom any day. (if its a fast one, and they are generally sharper)

The one exception is the 70-200 L lens

Its almost too hard to find a prime that is sharper.

Exactly...

I prefer zooms for the type of photography i´m doing. But that´s just me.

ED

My prime lenses give me the sharp edge that my non-primes don't. While I am happy to have a couple of zooms, it is the primes that I usually use the most and get the most satisfaction from.

Here we go again. The obvious technical advantages of primes, sharper, lighter, cheaper, faster, minimal distortion against the zooms convineience. Many of the L-zooms are effectively as sharp the the primes however.

One thing often overlooked is the effect on the way you work. Primes make you think more about what you are doing. You tend to pre-visulise the image and then select the right lens.

Zooms allow to operate faster but this is not always an advantage as you may consider what you do less.

Another couple of factors I find when using zooms is I sometimes miss a shot becuse I am fiddling with the zoom setting, with a prime I just focus and shoot and crop later if needed. Another factor is I am more reluctent to change lenses with a zoom for some reason and try and get away with using the lens I have mounted.

Note that most good zooms only cover a 2 to 2.5 focal ratio. I studied the prime lens changes I made I note I would change zoom lense nearly as much. This is for a 1.6 crop camera. The zoom ranges for full frame I think fit better but it is still an issue.

You may miss shots with a prime but will with a zoom anyway. It is no help when you need a tele to shoot that rare bird that just landed next to you when you have a wide angle zoom fitted.

The above "soft factors" are all personal OK.

One has to say for casual shots out with the family and holiday shots etc a zoom saves a bit of friction with your non-photogrpher companions.