So, what’s all the fuss about Primes?

I’m fairly new to all of this so bear with me. It seems that everywhere I look on the forum I hear talk of Primes and see gear lists full of expensive Prime lenses mixed in with zoom lens that already cover the same focal lengths.
I realize that most Primes are considerably faster than zoom lenses, but is the primary purpose of these lenses to be able to shoot in low light conditions, or is the real Holy Grail to be able to create interesting ethereal background effects, as witnessed in a wonderful previous thread about Bokeh?

I never thought much about backgrounds before I spent a few hours looking at that thread. I always thought photography was primarily about the subject. I guess not.
I can remember shooting with fixed-lens film cameras as a kid and I spent most of my time moving forwards and backwards or moving the subject around to compose the shot, as opposed to a zoom lens, where you just turn the zoom ring to compose.
Is it really worth all the effort? So what’s going on here? Is this going to be one of those things where I have to start cashing in my IRA’s to buy a boatload of these things?
I should say that I noticed that my photos did seem to get more interesting in ways I can’t quite pin down after I bought my first 2.8 zoom. Uh-oh. Maybe I should take up golf.
So, what’s up with Primes?

They generally are faster, sharper and have better bokeh and colours. E.g. good luck finding a lens as good as the 50mm f1.8 II for the same money.

Also, some people feel it means they have to be more creative with their composition and think it out, as they are limited in what they can fit in frame at times.

Well IMHO fixed focal lengths lens(es) seem sharper that zooms. Most folks will have a 24-70mm zoom with a say 50mm or 85mm prime (L or non-L). They will use the prime(s) when the versatily of the zoom is not needed, but the speed, AF, contrast and sharpness of the prime(s) is. Some venues for those with a press pass will have to abide byt the venue's rules in regards of lenses physical dimensions.

Case in point. The 400mm f5.6 prime is *by some* sharper than the 100-400mm zoom. I have the 100-400 zoom that serves me well and have no intentions of getting the 400mm f5.6 (maybe the 400 f2.8 if I pawn the house ). Both lenses provide L IQ, but the 100-400 wins in the versatily dept.

If am not mistaken also most studio work is done with primes, since you can predict how far the subject will be -- Outdoors studio works goes in a similar manner.

Yup, they're generally faster and sharper.

dino8031 wrote in post #4595726
I never thought much about backgrounds before I spent a few hours looking at that thread. I always thought photography was primarily about the subject. I guess not.

Good bokeh has value in regards to the subject as it isolates the subject from its surroundings - through this you can put the focus of the viewer purely on the subject with no other identifiable objects in frame.

I'm heavily a primes shooter - about 50% of what I do is with primes. Sharp wide open, bokeh, more challenging compositionally... Makes me think more about my subject matter. I enjoy them hugely.

dino8031 wrote in post #4595726
I’m fairly new to all of this so bear with me. It seems that everywhere I look on the forum I hear talk of Primes and see gear lists full of expensive Prime lenses mixed in with zoom lens that already cover the same focal lengths.
I realize that most Primes are considerably faster than zoom lenses, but is the primary purpose of these lenses to be able to shoot in low light conditions, or is the real Holy Grail to be able to create interesting ethereal background effects, as witnessed in a wonderful previous thread about Bokeh?

I never thought much about backgrounds before I spent a few hours looking at that thread. I always thought photography was primarily about the subject. I guess not.
I can remember shooting with fixed-lens film cameras as a kid and I spent most of my time moving forwards and backwards or moving the subject around to compose the shot, as opposed to a zoom lens, where you just turn the zoom ring to compose.
Is it really worth all the effort? So what’s going on here? Is this going to be one of those things where I have to start cashing in my IRA’s to buy a boatload of these things?
I should say that I noticed that my photos did seem to get more interesting in ways I can’t quite pin down after I bought my first 2.8 zoom. Uh-oh. Maybe I should take up golf.
So, what’s up with Primes?

All the more reason to try to minimize attention to the background (or foreground) by making it less noticeable and recognizable.

Typically, a prime lens will either produce a better resolution, or a larger aperture, sometimes, if you're lucky, both together. Prime lens results are the target zoom designers have to try to get close to, but never reach. Given similar design resources, a zoom will always be worse than the prime.

Please note that does not mean my £50 "Gluglug 100mm xlc UD f/8 special" primewill be better than a Canon L or Nikkor zoom, because the remit and resources behind the design will prevent it.

Using a zoom lens should never mean that the photographer does not explore angles, distances, depth of field considerations etc in just the same way as a prime lens user would. To not do justice to the subject would be criminal.

The only downsides to using primes as I see it is first the extra weight to carry about and secondly the extra cost.

A zoom lens must always be a compromise between competing requirements. A prime lens on the other hand will hopefully be far less so.

Richard

I've used my prime so much I actually find it weird going back to zoom lenses again

If you're doing portraits then primes are nice lenses to have, the 50mm and 85mm especially. If you want a walk-around lens then a zoom's probably more your thing.

Saying that, my friend has a 17-55IS and the image quality is superb, seems on par with the primes but with more versatility. The downside is the price.

dino8031,
Like others said, the primes are usually sharper, smaller, lighter and faster (can even be cheaper). However a zoom is usually much more convenient For me, a lot of Canon zooms give more then enough quality for most of my photos. But there are many times where larger aperture or truly sharper images are needed and the prime usually wins

I don't know about cashing your IRA's, as we don't even know what you have or what you want to shoot?

Faster, sharper, and (often) smaller and lighter too. I shoot primarily low-light action, so fast primes are very much appreciated. I'm happy with my zoom lenses now, so over the next year I'll be working gradually on obtaining the trinity (35L, 85L, 135L). It's also nice to not have to think about zooming, and just concentrate on the overall composition. It's a different way of thinking.

Both are excellent reasons to use primes.

Actually, you are not using your zoom lenses to the best. Composing the shot should involve the photographer moving around with either kind of lens. Perspective depends entirely on where the photographer stands, not on the focal length of the lens.

Once the shot is composed, zoom lenses are handy to frame the shot more accurately and without having to change lenses so much. That's it.

For the convenience of simpler framing with fewer lenses, zoom lenses give up anywhere from 2 to 4 stops. They each have their times for being better selections.

For me, it's primarily about the larger aperture, as I shoot a lot of low light, so being able to go faster than f/2.8 is a big plus in a lot of situations. However, the exceptional image quality is a nice plus, especially with the L primes (my 135L is simply spectacular). There are of course, some things that are really only feasible in primes (true macro lenses, shift lenses), so that's a consideration too.

dino8031 wrote in post #4595726
I always thought photography was primarily about the subject. I guess not.

Nope, it's about subject, light(ing), background, and your own crazy ideas (shooting positions, ... , you name it) - all four are about equally important.

They are smaller, sharper, faster and produce not only more bokeh (at their large apertures), but the bokeh at the same aperture and focal length tends (in general) to look better with a prime than with a zoom because a prime is less complicated. Especially multiple aspherical lens elements in zooms tend to kill bokeh. Primes also tend to suffer less from flare. There are exceptions to everything i mention here, especially considering sharpness. Zooms have come a long way in the past decade-or-so.

Prime photography is a different experience, since you don't have the ability to change your framing while standing in the same position. Every photographer qualifies this differently: zen, easier, cumbersome, old-fashioned, challenging, natural, liberating, logical, intuitive, handicapping, perfection, rudimentary.... so this is something you should try for yourself if you're interested. The easy way to try a prime is the super cheap and very good 50mm F/1.8 lens.

Primes are as everyone said generaly faster and sharper. Play with a few and you'll find yourself useing them whenever possible.

The IQ gap between primes and zooms has closed considerably; in fact the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS USM is sharper than many primes.

Primes really come through with speed though - a very fast zoom would be f/2.8 whereas an f/1.4 prime is two stops faster - that's a lot.

Zooms are convenient, but slow. They also have more elements - sometimes a lot more - so they are heavy - sometimes very heavy.

Everything in life is a trade-off. That's not a complaint - that's a fact.