How did *you* choose your primes?

Capabilities of the glass for portrature and low light performance in weddings... 85mm f/1.2L II.

GL

I had used Nikkor MF primes for 40 years and have become used to focusing in Nikon's direction...all other lenses focus in the opposite direction....
So I have stayed with Nikon...manual focusing is hard enough as it is without mixing lenses with opposite focusing directions...
...as for which I've bought...
...when they fall in my lap at prices I can afford (my budgeted maximum for "toys" is $100), I buy them all, play with them, compare them to what I've already got and then pass the duplicates on to friends (at my cost)...or to ebayers for a profit...

Used a Canon F-1 and FD 50mm f1.4 for decades. Going digital tried zooms, but missed the primes. For telephoto borrowed a 70-300 and found I shot almost always at 200 on my 40D, so got a 200 f2.8L and was wowed. Then got an 85 f1.8 and love it (after a canon service for calibration). Next up will be a Sigma 30mm f1.4 to return back to the feel I had with the F-1 (which I still occassionally shoot with). I'm mixing "L" glass and others and have been very happy so far.

Really depends what/how/where you shoot. When I had a crop I bought an 85 for portrait work, indoors and out..... since then I have acquired the 135 and 300 and some MF wider lenses and shoot FF. The rest are zooms.

The 85/135 combo works well for me shooting concerts. The 85 has found new life on a FF, shooting people/portraits outdoors. I prefer the focal length over the 135 for that since i tend to shoot in landscape mode. When I had a crop, it was mostly portrait orientation. I find myself forcing to frame shots with the 135.... subject shooter distance is uncomfortably long for me, especially in uncontrolled environments. I like to be closer to my subject(s) making it easier to direct them.

So how/where/what you shoot should dictate the lenses and/or focal lengths you could put to best use. Then select the best lens that you can afford that will allow you to get the shots you want.

A beautifully rendered, super sharp image of a brick wall or Aunt Katie doing the dishes, when all is said and done, is probably still a boring picture. Don't get too caught up in the gear.

I first go by focal length then IQ/speed. Which is the 35L will be my next purchase

bohdank wrote in post #10885408
A beautifully rendered, super sharp image of a brick wall or Aunt Katie doing the dishes, when all is said and done, is probably still a boring picture. Don't get too caught up in the gear.

Obviously you've never met my Aunt Katie!

What is she wearing

While not all prime, I have 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and 135 2.0 for my APS-C. Love them all. Now thinking of something wider when I have some loose cash. At semi-pro (or better, semi-amateur) level: FL is first, speed of 1.4 or better is next, cost/IQ third ("best" may be overkill), build is last . I use fast lenses mostly indoors; or outdoors in good weather. If I damage one of the modestly priced primes, I can buy another and still be better off that having bought the pro primes. Oh yes, FF compatibility is also a minor issue (when I'm dreaming).

The logic needs be modified by reality, of course - I had to settle for the miserably slow 135 2.0 .

If all were available I choose a set by going horizontal angle of view of one prime becomes the vertical angle of view of the next prime in the line up. It makes deciding if I should change lenses fairly simple. This is roughly only, what is available does play a rather crucial factor.

I just bought a 135L.

I chose it primarily for the excellent image and build quality. It excels at portraits (which I will use immediately) and at sports (especially with teleconverters) for when my kids are older.

On top of that, it is a steal IMO at about $1K new, or as low as $800 used.

Got the 50mm because everyone an their mom's recommend it as a good starting point.

Actually don't like it because it feels like a weird focal length on a crop. It is not long enough for portrait and no short enough for groups. So I got the Sigma 24mm. But it is really big and chunky and slow to focus, so maybe I should've got the 30mm perhaps.

Finally get a 5D and after that, all of the sudden the 50mm isn't so bad.

Weird experience with primes for me.

To use the 50 on a crop for portraits you need to step it down a bit and step back.

But I will agree... its a weird length but I like it for medium distance stuff just because of speed.

I like that focal length (85) a LOT for full/half body shots, landscape orientation on a FF...or 50mm on a crop.

Way back when.... When I bought my two Nikon F bodies and lenses to go with them, I started with the 50mm because it's the "normal" focal length for the 24mm X 36mm format. I wanted wider and longer, so I chose 28mm, 105mm, and 300mm to go along with the 50mm. Note the approximate 2:1 steps between the first three. This let me have the best compromises in focal length choices without spending a fortune and carrying a ton of lenses all over the place.

The 300mm was the affordable compromise for a long lens for the auto racing photography that I was doing a lot of back in those days.