Back to prime lenses?

[Don Schaeffer]

It find myself migrating away from zoom lenses and back to prime lenses. I think I detect a general trend in that direction. There have been a whole bunch of prime lenses recently released.

I have been buying older film-camera Nikkor lenses on E-bay at low prices. The D40 mounts almost any of them. I enjoy using them manually. In my opinion sharpness is better than it is on zoom lenses. I did buy an old 35-70mm Nikkor for under $25. This is a wonderful lens that lets me use autoexposure on my camera with manual focus.

Has anyone been following a trend toward prime lenses?

[wfooshee]

I don't know about a trend, but my experience, such as it is, has been that primes generally are significantly faster. Modern zooms, for the most part, negate the sharpness and distortion issues that zooms carried around in the 70s, when I started. Except for maximum aperture, that is.

My first SLR was a Canon AE-1, and I had the 50mm f:1.4 prime. I also had a Kiron 70-210 f:4 zoom for it. That thing was huge!!!! It was sharp and clear, no twisting of the image, but it was slightly larger and definitely heavier than the 70-300 VR I've got for my current Nikon. It was f:4 through it's whole range, though, so it was faster than my Nikon lens, so that points out maybe that the compactness of modern zooms is at the expense of (again) speed.

Digging up older lenses to mount is one reason I went with Nikon when I moved to a dSLR. I had Canon lenses from way back, but so what? Can't put them on a Canon dSLR, or even on a Canon auto-focus film camera. (The main reason, though, was that I fell into a steal-it deal from a friend who was upgrading. )

Prime lenses for speed, to my thinking. And for things you know are going to be in place and you can plan around.

What I shoot, though, is not planned. I go out and see what I can see, so I compose in the viewfinder. I probably won't have time to change lenses, and I don't want to carry 2 (or 3) bodies to ensure the "right" lens would be available.

[Levi1990]

I've been finding that I like prime lenses more then I like zooms lately. I have two primes right now and I'm about to order my third one. I found that primes, depending on the lens, are a lot sharper then zooms are. I have a teacher at school that has mostly prime lenses and she says she wouldn't use any others lenses besides her primes.

But I've found myself leaning more twords getting primes then zooms. I have two zooms and they are no where near as sharp as any of my primes. I would much rather have sharp images then multiple zoom lengths.

[Liz]

I invested in the M4/3 system about 2 years ago. Until recently there have not been many sharp prime lenses. However, this past year Olympus came out with the 45mm/f1.8 and the 12mm/f2.0 lenses which are both beautiful lenses - very sharp and fast. Then Panasonic came out with the 25mm/f1.4 which is another fast and very sharp lens - all for the M4/3 system.

I decided to "revise" my equipment, sold a few other lenses and a camera. Now I have a new E-P3 along with the Oly 45mm/1.8, the Panasonic 25mm/f1.4 and 14mm/f2.5. These are just about all I use, especially the 25mm. However, I still use the Olympus 9-18 for wide which is a great zoom.

Liz

[Anbesol]

I always prefer using prime lens when possible, I don't know that I'll ever get another zoom lens as I only need the two ranges I already have. My short-list of 'lens-to-get' is entirely prime lens.

Wfooshee - yes the larger maximum aperture certainly does dictate the size of a lens. Hence why 24-70 f/2.8's are always much larger than the 18-55 kits. At 70mm on the 24-70, the aperture diaphragm needs to be 25mm, but only 9mm on the telephoto end of the 18-55.

[Franglais]

I recently bought a prime lens - the new Nikon 40mm f2.8 Macro DX. Cost me 240 Euros. I compared it with my 1999 28-70 f2.8 pro zoom (cost me about 1500 Euros) I was surprised - the little 40mm is much sharper on the edges. And when I compared it with my 18-200 do-everything zoom - the 40mm is much sharper overall.

However I still use the 18-200 most of the time in the studio:

- for what I need to do the 18-200 is enough. When you're doing a portrait you don't want to see every pore on the person's face
- the 18-200 is much more versatile. If I'm in a workshop with a bunch of other students I can't usually position myself at the right spot for the 40mm.

I think that prime lenses will make a comeback due to progress in the technology:

1. Manufacturers are renewing their line of prime lenses (at last) because with the advances in optics and materials (originally used on zooms) they can now make better, cheaper prime lenses (example: my 40mm)
2. DLRS sensors are getting to such high definition now (24Mpix on APS-C..) that the only way you can get the full resolution out of your sensor is to put the best possible optics in front of it. Either the latest 1500 Euro Pro zoom or else an excellent prime lens, with the camera on a heavy tripod. Whether you actually need that much detail is another question..

[n8]

I enjoy my primes, but some times it's more out of necessity. My 18-200 has been hobbled by a meeting with some concrete, and is finally in for service, but that's left me to rely mostly on my 35mm, using my 60mm only for macro stuff, and occasionally finding a use for my 50. I just recently got a 12-24 fixed f4, and I could see this being one of my most used lenses now, using my 35mm for really low light. I plan on upgrading to the 28-300 eventually, so 90% of my needs will be covered by 3 lenses.

[armando_m]

I really enjoy the primes, very sharp, and awesome in low light, specially the 35mm and 50mm,
with longer focal lengths the ability on low light is hampered by the need to use higher speeds

about my zooms
the 11-16 is just awesome, only need to be careful about light flares and the f/2.8 is very helpful
my 70-300VR is also very good but has the slow apertures
the 18-200 VR can be good with bright light, but also can be frustratingly soft, need to be stopped down

[Don Schaeffer]

I like the primes because they are light.

[Franglais]

I like the primes because they are light.

.. and compact. And they don't frighten the subjects. On one occasion I was happily photographing an event on a 50mm, when I got out the big 28-70 I was immediately told to stop by the security guards.

[Greg McCary]

It does seem that I am shooting primes more and more. I have a Carl Ziess 24mm coming soon for my NEX. I agree Charles the primes attract less attention.

[Don Schaeffer]

Hi charles. Those security guards probably had no right to stop you.