Shooting nothing but primes, any regrets?

It is my new years resolution to start using some primes (50 and 85) and learn to use them. That being said, you would have to pry the 24-105 and 100-400 out of my bag and my hands. I travel a fair bit and these two zooms always make the trip.

I started shooting with primes only in the 1970's.. I only really started shooting with zooms when I went over to DSLRs in 1999.. I'm now shooting mainly with primes again..

ed rader wrote in post #11565684
he already coverted from nikon to canon. for some photography is about massive gear churning.

ed rader

This. For some shots there may be technical reasons some lens is not capable of making a shot (wrong focal length, too slow).

But when a type of lens makes you 'happy' as a category it's probably just gear lust / churn-n-burn.

I've considered shooting all primes. They're small and compact enough so it's easy to carry around, and plus the IQ is generally better than zooms. You should keep at least one zoom lens though, since they are nice to have in some situations.

I only have primes. And it's great.

Need to spice up the ol' camera bag, eh? Try role-playing with your current lenses.

npham858 wrote in post #11567249
I've considered shooting all primes. They're small and compact enough so it's easy to carry around, and plus the IQ is generally better than zooms. You should keep at least one zoom lens though, since they are nice to have in some situations.

Everyone says primes are small and light...but to cover the range of a zoom, the equivalent in primes usually is much more bulkier and heavier. For instance, try to replace the 24-105 zoom range with primes.

Yes, a single prime is usually less bulkier and weighs less than a zoom, but don't forget if you just go out with that one prime, you are stuck at that focal length.

Zooms give you much more flexibility at a cost of a stop or two. However, zooms quite often make up the stops by incorporating stabalization which in certain situations is very handy.

Hogloff wrote in post #11568070
Everyone says primes are small and light...but to cover the range of a zoom, the equivalent in primes usually is much more bulkier and heavier. For instance, try to replace the 24-105 zoom range with primes.

Yes, a single prime is usually less bulkier and weighs less than a zoom, but don't forget if you just go out with that one prime, you are stuck at that focal length.

Zooms give you much more flexibility at a cost of a stop or two. However, zooms quite often make up the stops by incorporating stabalization which in certain situations is very handy.

Its not about covering all the range its about finding focal lengths that match the way you see. Lenses that match your vision. I only own 4 lenses but they are really good lenses and they are lenses that match my vision.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #11570369
Its not about covering all the range its about finding focal lengths that match the way you see. Lenses that match your vision. I only own 4 lenses but they are really good lenses and they are lenses that match my vision.

Yes, as with all gear issues, what you shoot will dictate what lenses are 'best'. If you're shooting portraits, primes are likely to work out rather well for you. If you're shooting landscapes, perspective and alignments may dictate a focal length that you can't hit with the primes you have. The gear should follow the vision, not the other way around.

I like primes better overall for the bokeh. I'm a bokehoholic.

But if I'm walking around the city and need a good walkaround lens, I love my 17-55. I dont want to have to keep reaching into my bag and changing lenses every 3 minutes I see something differnet I want to shoot.

So they both share space in my bag. Both have their place.

No regrets here. Love my 50L/135L combo

I did the prime only thing for a while, I couldn't find enough benefits to stick with it though. I'm so impressed by my 24-70 that to shoot with only primes seems insane now. Looking at the 24-70 samples thread was what got me to try the Zoom route. If I need really Low Light performance or an extremely shallow DOF, I'll grab a prime. But for 90% of my shots, I find f/2.8 to be more than adequate... and the colors/bokeh to be as good as the best primes out there. If I really want to get creative with Focus, I'd sooner pick up a TS-E than a Prime. To me Primes are great for non-flash low light photography... but all the other advantages were kind of a moot point.

Just my opinion

I still have a couple of zooms, but do 98% of my work with primes. Wouldn't have it any other way.

If you switch to primes only you may want to consider a switch back to Canon from Nikon; you just can't beat a Canon L prime.

I started long time ago with a A1+FD85L1.2 in 1985 ... I went end of 2008 to 5DMKII + 50F1.4 + 70-200F4 .....

Then I bought a 135L+24LII for low light situations (I hate direct flash, but I love night shots).

I was using 90% of the time the 135L and 24L1.4II et no more the zoom..

I was thinking that 70-300DOIS would be more comfortable than the 70-200F4... but still I didn't use that zoom so much. I sold the 70-300DOIS and the 50F1.4 and bought a 85L1.2II ..

I don't think one day of 2010, I missed the zooms ... Actually, 24L+85L+ zuiko500/8 is my favourit "light and pocketable" walkaround combo. anyway I wouldn't be able to cover such range with any zooms.

I will probably sell one day my 135L and 300L to buy a 200L2.0 . But, I don't think I will buy a 70-200L2.8II ..