Does anyone just use Primes?

I'm new to DSLR's. I recently bought an XTi/400D with a 50 1.8.
I like it alot. It's so sharp! I want all of my lenses to be this sharp.

My main photographic needs are low light indoor portraits and landscapes.

I'm thinking about getting a Tamron 17-50 2.8 within a couple of weeks unless I hear a better idea.

Is it possible to live without a zoom? Maybe buy a WA prime and a longer telephoto prime to go with my 50mm? I know it would be alot more expensive.

You can work with just primes. I did that for several months. It teaches you slow down and think and see and compose. It is a truly great education and never forget it when you pick up a zoom. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a very nice buy and personally I would rather cover the wide end with a zoom. Makes a very nice walkaround too. Sigma 17-70mm DC is also a very good option.

It is possible to live without a zoom - I did it with MF film equipment for over 30 years. You just have to get used to a lot of lens changes, and the possibility of missing a shot.

Now that I've converted to digital, I'm spoiled rotten with my 5D and 24 - 105L

There was a time where most of us only used primes because the quality of zooms was horrible. My first zoom was for my Oly OM-1 and images from it were soft and dull ... and it was far from being the worst zoom available at the time.

Zooms have come a long, long way.

You've got that right Bob! Some of the really low end end manufacturers back in the '70's and '80's made what we referred to as the silky smooth breakaway zoom.

The machining tolerances of the focusing and zooming threads were so sloppy that the factory would pack them with extra grease to '"take up the slack." This made for a super smooth "action" until the lubricant either evaporated or leaked out. You were then left with a very wobbly lens. Torque it a little too much or just generally stress it and you could end up with 2 lenses .

Bob_A wrote in post #2186706
......Zooms have come a long, long way.

Bob_A wrote in post #2186706
There was a time where most of us only used primes because the quality of zooms was horrible. My first zoom was for my Oly OM-1 and images from it were soft and dull ... and it was far from being the worst zoom available at the time.

Zooms have come a long, long way.

was this when you were doing cave paintings. Kodak Ektarock? :


I shoot all zooms for my work. I have 1 zoom for a beater body I keep at the restaurant.

I swear by them, others swear at them. I couldn't survive with just primes - but obviously this is a personal thing. I put a zoom on my A-1 in 1981 and that was it for me.


Glenn NK

The fast primes are easier to focus, especially indoors.
It's also easier to use a flash in manual mode with a prime since the guide number doesn't change with a fixed focal lenght lens. I'm also thinking about that Tamron, but my kit lens works good if I can get away with high f stops.

i have one zoom the 17/40 because it's dof will cover any faults or lack of sharpness it may have at the range it cover's ,my other 6 lense's are prime's I prefer them although i may buy another zoom to fill a gap and the convineance it offer's between the 70-200 range.
its only for prop aircraft / helicopter's but 70-200 f2.8is L fits the bill better than anything .
Rob.

I'd shoot with nothing but primes. They're faster, lighter and smaller - and have better IQ. The reality is that zooms have indeed come a long way and it's hard to argue the convenience. Travel photography is hard when you're always switching lenses and you try to keep it to a minimum in mixed crowds so a zoom is great. Around town, at the park or in the studio primes aren't so bad at all. Depends on what you shoot, really - and your own style.

This thread really brings back (bad) memories. My old Makinon manual focus zoom would cause the split image to simply go black in low light. My Canon 50 1.4 was a "real" lens.

Just Be wrote in post #2186691
I'm new to DSLR's. I recently bought an XTi/400D with a 50 1.8.
I like it alot. It's so sharp! I want all of my lenses to be this sharp.

My main photographic needs are low light indoor portraits and landscapes.

I'm thinking about getting a Tamron 17-50 2.8 within a couple of weeks unless I hear a better idea.

Is it possible to live without a zoom? Maybe buy a WA prime and a longer telephoto prime to go with my 50mm? I know it would be alot more expensive.

I prefer primes

yup I dooo

Well. I have only primes, thought I started with just the kit lens. Didn't like that I had to use the flash do often, so I sold it and splurged on the 50mm f/1.4. Wow, f/1.4, this stuff is great, every lens should be like this! Next, I needed some reach. I looked at the 200mm f/2.8 and thought it was great. I considered the 70-200mm zoom, but my bank account did. I figure anything between 50mm and 200mm, I'll have to walk around a bit or crop. Next, I wanted ultrawide. Really really wide. So I picked up the 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. Throw in a set of extension tubes and that seems to be all I can justify buying given that this is just a hobby for me.

Just Be wrote in post #2186691
Is it possible to live without a zoom? Maybe buy a WA prime and a longer telephoto prime to go with my 50mm? I know it would be alot more expensive.

I love my primes. It's not often that I use my zoom lenses, it all really depends on how you shoot and what your subject matter is. If you had the need for various focal lengths often two cameras or a good zoom would be the way to go.

The Tamrom is a good general zoom to have. Then you could surround yourself with the correct primes to fit whatever you wish to do.