ALL PRIMES

Looking to buy a dslr and was reading about how important the lenses are. (thanks to all for that info!!) And while I was reading noticed that primes take a clearer picture and are cheaper, just not convenient. since I am starting off i thought my fisrt lense should be the 55mm f/1.8. It takes good pictures and really cheap. As for other primes im still studying but will probably take portrait and sport photos the most. What do you think of having a collection of lenses that are mostly prime? I understand the hassle of carrying this around but im pretty used to having to carry a bunch of stuff around anyways so I really dont think i will be bothered by that. Of course I could be wrong haha

I would prioritize getting at least one good quality zoom lens that covers a range from wide to short telephoto first unless you are very experienced and know exactly what you want.

Primes are nice when there is a specific focal length that you need covered with a fast lens, or as a path to a sharp performer at a single focal length on a budget (like for portraits).

You will not really be able to cover a zooms functionality with primes for less money, even sticking to mid-grade primes. Having a 28mm, 50mm and 85mm prime set instead of the 24-70L will not be cheaper and will be less convenient. The 24-70 is probably optically better than many of the older mid-grade primes within the focal length such as the 28/1.8, 35/2, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4. A lot of writing that suggests primes as a cheaper option to great IQ came before zooms got to be as good as they are. Top quality zoom lenses like the 17-55, 24-70, 24-105 and 70-200 have IQ better than the non-L prime lenses.

The primes I own are all for specific purposes, and when I use them the main thing I am after is an aperture faster than what I can get with my zooms. I would rarely grab my 50/1.4 and shoot it at f/8 because the 24-105 is its equal in IQ and a heck of a lot more convenient.

I suggest you start with one or two quality zooms. They make great zooms theses days. Then you'll have a very good idea of just what primes to get later.

Since you already have two get zoom replies I will add a prime thought.

You may not be thinking all wrong.

1. The 50 is not very expensive (if you think it is don't start getting into photography) so if you make a mistake it will not be a costly one (many filters cost more).

2. It is light weight and fast (wide aperture) and will get you started especially for portraits on a crop body. This will let you know where you want to go in terms of focal length just as well as a zoom.

3. In my own experience learning to photograph with zooms is harder not easier. Zoom is just one more variable in a process where enough is already variable.

As far as quality sure primes are great but zooms are as well. Although it will take something above the lower zooms to challenge the quality from a decent prime.

I have a mixture of zooms and primes and use most of them in different situations. I started my DSLR era very sensibly: XTi, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 macro and 24-105/4L. I should have stayed with these for at least a year to find out what I really liked to shot and thus what I really needed. However, I quickly had 9 lenses. Classic case of GAS (gear acquisition syndrome)!

My suggestion is to get 1 or 2 lenses (prime or zoom) and use them a lot. Get to know your photographic self, then other lens/body decisions become easier.

I would suggest the Sigma 30mm on a crop. The key now is to develop that photographer's eye. That is, develop the ability to see images in the world around you and then compose a photograph not just take a snapshot. I realize this may all seem wishy washy but I've found it to be true.

I agree with JefferyG... One good zoom as a general purpose lens like the 28-105 or 24-70... Then check which focal lengths you use mostly by checking the exif, and if you need to, get the appropriate faster primes...

I use a program called "Exposure Plot":

http://www.cpr.demon.n​l/prog_plotf.html

....which is incredibly helpful for determining what focal lengths you primarly shoot at. It doesn't read Canon RAW, so I convert everything at lowest quality possible to a separate folder, and then analyze with the program. It tells you what ranges you use via a 3Dchart. After shooting for a few years with zooms, I began to realize what ranges I really stayed at for how I like to shoot. For example, my activity between 17mm and 50mm was through the charts, fairly equal for all focal lengths in that range, with 17mm used a bit more than the others (an indication I may need to get something wider). This told me I am a zoom nut in semi-wide to standard zoom range(17-50) and if did not have a zoom there I would be changing lenses constantly. However, when I looked at my telephoto zoom lengths, I saw I rarely, rarely used the range of 100-299, and used 300mm 99% of the time. So that told me I needed as good of quality as I could afford at 300mm. 70mm also showed up alot in my focal plots, but that's only because I had on a 70-300. I would have rather taken many of those shots at 50mm. So that's how I came to fine tune my current setup.

I'd start with a couple zooms, shoot alot, then use Explosure Plot to see where most of my shots are, then look at the shots and see if I like the ones for a given range. Then I would start picking out primes.

elitejp wrote in post #5119934
Looking to buy a dslr and was reading about how important the lenses are. (thanks to all for that info!!) And while I was reading noticed that primes take a clearer picture and are cheaper, just not convenient. since I am starting off i thought my fisrt lense should be the 55mm f/1.8. It takes good pictures and really cheap. As for other primes im still studying but will probably take portrait and sport photos the most. What do you think of having a collection of lenses that are mostly prime? I understand the hassle of carrying this around but im pretty used to having to carry a bunch of stuff around anyways so I really dont think i will be bothered by that. Of course I could be wrong haha

since your experience seems to be all theory at this point i would suggest you get a lens -- any lens prime or zoom -- and start shooting.

eventually you'll figure out what you need and that will probably change a few times too !

good luck!

ed rader

Try both and see what suits you. I shoot basically only with primes, but for specific reasons.

Do NOT go all prime because you think the IQ is superior, that is a dumb reason (even though it may be true, the difference is negligible to most) - some of these zooms made today are superb. The reasons to go prime are (and if you don't understand why you'd want all of these, primes might not be the way to go):

- Faster
- Lighter
- Faster
- Generally cheaper (some notable exceptions here )
- Faster
- The strange theoretical 'composition' advantage, which I think is very real for a newbie, not so much for an experienced photographer. Primes force you to work harder to 'see', frame, move and compose at first.

Think about it this way. For the same price, you can get either:
- 28 1.8/30 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8/100 2
- Or a 24-105 IS L

For me, package 1 is far more attractive. I find primes more versatile, and I never miss the shot shooting with fast primes. I've missed shots using slower zooms before though, and so don't use them anymore (with 1 exception). For many others, package 2 would be more attractive and more versatile. To each their own.

A couple of lenses I have used and like that don't cost too much...

Canon EF 21-35 f3.5/4.5 - this is a great little lens, very light and sharp.

Canon EF 135 f2.8 SF - this lens is equivalent to a 200mm f2.8 on a crop body, a very useful spec, and very reasonably priced. Comes with optional (and sometimes useful) soft focus facility.

Also excellent, though not cheap, is the EF 85 f1.8

cheers
Phil

As Perry mentioned, the main thing that primes provide is aperture/speed. My first lens that I added to my kit lens was the 50mm 1.4. One main reason. I shoot a lot in my dark living room with available light. In aperture, a 1.4 lets in double the light of 1.8, 4 times the light of f/2, etc. So as you can imagine, the difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 is quite large (2.8 usually being the largest aperture available on most good zooms). This is really where you will see a prime excel. When you need the largest possible amount of light let in because of poor light situations. I am in the camp of telling you to get a good zoom lens and then a prime to cover those really tough lighting situations.

get a good zoom first. there are many different types of photography for you to explore with your new camera, don't handicap yourself right off the bat.

TaDa wrote in post #5122447
As Perry mentioned, the main thing that primes provide is aperture/speed. My first lens that I added to my kit lens was the 50mm 1.4. One main reason. I shoot a lot in my dark living room with available light. In aperture, a 1.4 lets in double the light of 1.8, 4 times the light of f/2, etc. So as you can imagine, the difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 is quite large (2.8 usually being the largest aperture available on most good zooms). This is really where you will see a prime excel. When you need the largest possible amount of light let in because of poor light situations. I am in the camp of telling you to get a good zoom lens and then a prime to cover those really tough lighting situations.

1.4 to 1.8 is 2/3 stop 1.4 to 2 is one stop (twice the light) four times the light is two stops 1.4 to 2.8. Multiple/divide by the square root of 2 for the f-stops sequence.

I would suggest getting a 50 f/1.8 if you're new to photography. It's a little on the long end on the crop body, but it's a cheap entry to seeing if the convenience of zoom will outweigh the desire for speed.

Get your toes wet, and see how it works for you. If you find it too limiting, you can step up to a nice zoom. a 24-70L is damn nice, but a tank. A 17-55 is great, but that is a lot of dough (I'm not pro, I'm a poor hobbyist ). Neither will work if you're shooting basketball (not well anyway, IMO).

I have all primes, but mostly because I'm a DOF freak, I love shots near wide open. I do want a 24-105L, I'm just not sure if I can justify the cost for an f/4 lens since I mostly shoot inside. Tamron needs to remake their 28-75 to a 24-70 and find some sort of USM for their lenses