Does anyone just use Primes?

I love using my primes, no doubt they give exceptional quality. You also have to learn when to use a prime and when a zoom becomes a more practical choice. The output quality of today's zoom lenses is very good. Now if are a pixel peeper and you want to look at the images at 200% you will find some differences. I have enlarged some shots up to 24X30 from my 1DMKII using the 24-70 lens and I was overjoyed with the results, even from a couple of feet away.

There are times when a zoom is just more practical, when you have to recompose on the fly and you don't have the opportunity to either change lenses or move yourself. I was shooting a world cup downhill race and I was using my 135 f2. I was finding that the racers were not always coming off the jumps in the same spot and you could tell in advance (maybe 20 seconds) of what spot they would be coming off of. The 135 worked well for the one side but on the other side, they were too close. I switched to one of my zoom lenses and was able to get the shots the way I wanted.

While in general the primes will give you the better results do not discount the value of the zoom. In the hands of a good photographer either one will give you results that your customer will like.

Im geting to like primes a lot now.

I have 2 zooms, but they see little to no time on my bodies. The two lenses I use 99% of the time are my Sigma 105mm 2.8 and my Canon 50mm 1.8

Bill

I love primes but hate carrying them around. Zoom comes in handy when you want to travel light. But like everyone says, prime IQ is way better than zoom eventhough some of these new zooms lenses, the IQ is pretty close to a few primes.

I rarely use primes - foot zoom doesn't work for a lot of what I shoot. I started out in the old MF-prime period, but hauling around, and switching between, 28, 50, 135, and 200 is somewhat more tedious than using 2 zooms, especially with 2 bodies.

Jaetie wrote in post #2189119
aerosmith around here uses all primes - and he has a wicked set.

Yep, I use primes 99% of the time. I like the light weight, IQ and wide maximum aperatures. And I find I can really get into a shooting groove with a prime. In a way it helps me to think one FL at a time. Heck, I might go a whole week shooting with nothing but a 135 or a 50 or a 35 or a 100 macro. Of course I'm just a hobbiest so I pay no price for missed shots. And in general, primes lend themselves to a lot of the photgaphy I do: portraits, candids, and flower macros.

Now I did just recently cave in and buy a 70-200/2.8 IS to use on a second body (telephoto on the first body.....prime of course!) while shooting sports. Because I've found I usually find a good spot on the sideline and hunker down. In that case a zoom really helps.

But the 70-200 IS is a beast and I hate walking around with it (my chiropractor loves that lens). I'd much rather walk around with the 135 f/2.0L or the 85 f/1.8.

EDIT: And for those times when I need to travel I find it's really no big deal carrying around three primes in my Lowepro Stealth Reporter 300 AW. In fact even if one of them is the 300/4 there's still room for three more in the bag. The 35L, 85/1.8 and 300/4 make a nice little travel combo for the 5D or 1Ds II....and if I want I can throw in the 50/1.4 or the 24L or the 100 macro for a fourth if need be.

I'm another prime only shooter. Part of it for me is that I'm one of those who got into photography when all zoom lenses really sucked. As a result, I'm really used to shooting primes. It's second nature for me to look at a scene and say "This would look best with the 28", and have it mounted by the time I get there. Another thing I do is shoot based on the lens I have mounted. I tend to move around my subjects quite a bit. So as soon as I've shot a sequence with one lens, I'll take a break and re-evaluate the scene, mount a different length and shoot another sequence. For example, using the 20mm, to take a landscape sequence of a scene, then switching to the 50 or 85 to do a sequence on the details of a scene.

The 'disadvantages' related to the number of lenses one 'must' have and the weight issue are relative to a persons' needs. The 4 lenses in my sig cover 99.9% of everything I shoot (and to be honest I could leave the 85mm at home most of the time). As others have mentioned, the image quality is typically better than zoom lenses (some L series zooms are close to equal), and their speed is phenomenal for low light shooting.

I used zooms but since I got the 35L it stays on most of the time and has made me think more of composing my shots - resulting in better pictures.
Just ordered a 400L f5.6 over the 100-400 for the same reason as well as the fast AF and (generally) agreed on better IQ.

Up until I upgraded the D30 to a 1D2N (and bought new lenses) the 35mm f/2.0 was basically glued to the body... Even though I had a Tamron 28-300mm zoom. The prime was sharper, faster, smaller and cheaper. Now I'm finding that I use the 35mm f/1.4L a lot on the 1D2N - but still not as much as the 24-70mm f/2.8.

I want to use mostly primes, but im afraid if i got rid of all the zooms (kit/24-135) i'll end of regretting it. As most of the pics i take involve moving subjects. We'll see what happens, 3 lenses could be coming my way in a month.

I think I'm about 60% zooms and 40% primes. If my zooms were taken away from me I could make do with my primes, but it would certainly make my photography a bit more difficult. As a previous poster said, there are times when primes are the best choice and other times when zooms are required.

Mark

I want both in my bag of tricks, but I'm more of a zoom guy.

Primes only. Don't even have a WA zoom as of right now. 135L lives on my body, almost exclusively. The only time I don't like the primes is maybe a few moments at a wedding. The 24-70L is great for the cake, garter, flowers and other action stuff. It is a pain sometimes changing lenses, but thats what 2 bodies is for.

I might get the 70-200 f4L again just for the IQ. It's slow, but for outdoor stuff it doesn't matter much. Fact is, I just love the creamy bokeh of primes and that I can shoot outdoors at f2. Longer lenses don't need a larger aperture to get a stronger bokeh. Now that I'm doing more studio lighting, I find myself shooting at f2.8 and smaller.

I just love primes.

I know this sounds stupid, but after using a prime for months, when I put a zoom on the camera - I never remember to zoom. I just compose with whatever the zoom is set on. Sometimes it takes 20 or so shots before I realize that I can change my focal length.
Most of the time I end up with the feeling that I could made just as good a shot with the prime I just took off.

Papaw wrote in post #2193601
I know this sounds stupid, but after using a prime for months, when I put a zoom on the camera - I never remember to zoom. I just compose with whatever the zoom is set on. Sometimes it takes 20 or so shots before I realize that I can change my focal length.

now that's funny, especially so when you only have one prime!