Prime lenses, and why you need one
So, you’ve got a SLR, do you? Smashing. You might have a kit lens, a tele-zoom, and a couple of flashes by now, and you’re feeling pretty hot about yourself and your camera gear, are you?
Well, good on you. But until you’ve got a decent prime lens, you haven’t really lived. And I’m here to tell you why.
Back in the infancy of photography, we never had anything but prime lenses. When you bought a camera body, you first of all buy a camera lens to go with it. A 50mm f/1.8 was pretty much the slowest lens you could buy as a starter kit.
To this day, a 50mm f/1.8 is the cheapest lens you can buy in the entire Canon AF lens arsenal. And if you don’t have one, you’re missing out.
From your first prime, you move on. You might get a faster ‘normal’ prime, like a 50mm f/1.4 or a f/1.2 (or, if you’re intro your retro gear, the incredibly bright Canon 50mm f/0.95. This lens is 4 times faster than the human eye, and holds a joint 1st place for fastest lens in the world with the lenses available for the Nikon 7 range finders in the early 1950s.) If you’re into landscapes, a 28mm would be the natural choice. 100mm and 135mm prime lenses became the de facto standard for portrait photography all ’round the world.
The first zoom lenses were patented in the early 1900s, and the first commercial production of zoom lenses for stills photography started in the early 1960s. All of a sudden, zoom lenses were all the rage. Why would you limit yourself to a single focal length, when you can cover a whole range? So, manufacturers shrugged, and started creating zoom lenses.
What’s going on now?
Nowadays, all ‘kit lenses’ (lenses you get bundled with camera bundles) are consumer-grade zoom lenses. My dad recently got suckered into buying a 18-55mm and a 55-200mm lens (after I explicitly told him to buy a Canon 28-135 f/3.5 Image Stabilised lens… Tssk, doesn’t the lad know I run a photography blog, or something?), for example, and he isn’t stupid. The thing is: It’s just too tempting to get a wider zoom range, in the hope that the increased flexibility will get you the photos you need.
The thing is, a zoom range is all good and well, but ultimately, it’s all about sharpness. Are your photos so crisp they jump out of the screen at you? If not, you’re probably doing something wrong. So what happens if I tell you that the sharpest lens a consumer can buy is also the cheapest lens Canon makes? You’d be surprised, right? But it’s the truth. Time and time again, people are amazed when they review consumer-grade zooms against far cheaper prime lenses. But — as Tabaware explores — they aren’t even in the same league.
So why is this? Well, it’s damn simple, really… it’s far easier to mass produce a prime lens: Because it only has to be sharp at one focal length, the optics are a hell of a lot simpler. So they can concentrate on getting it to be really good, rather than just being good enough.
Why should I care?
It really depends, to be honest: What do you want out of your photography? If you are looking for convenience and holiday snaps, by all means, go for the first and best zoom lens. Hell, I’ll admit it freely: Most of my photos are taken with zoom lenses (I’ve got a Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS, a Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 that I use extensively), but still, there’s a certain feeling of zen about using prime lenses. They can be slightly limited, sure, but they’re also sharper than a surgeon’s scalpel, cheap as a bag of crisps, and they are just a better idea overall, especially as you are just learning about photography.
So, if you’re in the market for a new camera, and the kit comes with some two-bit zoom lens, see if you can’t convince the salesperson to do you a deal. “So, you want to sell me this lens? How much does it normally cost? Interesting. I can see that you sell a 50mm f/1.8 for less than that. Can you give me one of those instead?”
Sure, money-wise, you’ll lose out. But your portfolio will thank you for it for years to come.
Do you like this article? Tell the world using one of these:
[
Digg
|
Facebook
| 
del.icio.us
| 
Stumble Upon ]
reddit_url='http://photocritic.org/prime-lens/'
Categories: Buying Advice | PC articles
Tags:
This entry is © Haje Jan Kamps / Photocritic.org, and was posted on Thursday, March 1st, 2007. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
here
#1 - March 1st, 2007 at 21:33
I have a 50mm prime lens - the cheapest Canon one you can buy and it spends more time attached to my camera than any of the other, more expensive lenses in my bag.
At f5.6 or so it is ludicrously sharp, it’s great for portraits and the shallow depth of field it gives tends to create the loveliest bokeh. Plus I can take hand held pictures by candlelight and get away with it. What more could you want from a lens? I love it to death. About half the pictures in my photo gallery were taken with it.
#2 - March 1st, 2007 at 21:50
Interesting stuff, and I think you’ve made a good point. But the fact of the matter is that most consumers don’t care if their photos aren’t sharp as a tack. Most of today’s digital photographers getting into the dSLR market “grew up” photographically with the P&S cameras over the last 5 years. Zoom was a standard thing, so it’s natural to have them expect a zoom on their big new camera.
I’ll admit it, I have a couple of zooms and my first lens (just over a year ago) was a zoom — but it wasn’t the kit lens. I opted for a higher quality lens, and I’m glad I did. I now also have a prime lens (though it’s a macro), but there is a difference between that and my zoom.
And it DOES have a different “zen-like” feeling to it compared to using a zoom.
#3 - March 1st, 2007 at 22:35
I have the 50mm f/1.8 as well and it’s one of the best investments I’ve made. I once shot for almost four months before it ever occurred to me to take it off the body and try a different lens.
Plus it’s a challenge to yourself to frame your shots without using zoom.
#4 - March 1st, 2007 at 22:39
It may be worth noting, by the way, that if you are looking for the 50mm, that it is worth going on eBay or similar and getting the 50mm f/1.8 mk1 lens. You can get one of these for about the same price as the current offering (the mk2), but the mk1 is made of metal, and is generally sturdier. Image quality is the same, but I trust metal over plastic any day of the week.
If you want ultrasonic motors, you’re looking at the 50mm f/1.4 which is a lot more expensive. You don’t get that much better sharpness or brightness out of the f/1.4 than the f/1.8, but you do get an USM motor (= quicker, quieter autofocus), and better overall build quality.
#5 - March 1st, 2007 at 22:40
There’s also a comparison between the f/1.8 and the f/1.4 here!
#6 - March 1st, 2007 at 22:45
I have the 50mm f1.8 too but the crop factor on my 20D makes it so narrow it’s ruined for the street photography I like. Have you tried Canon’s 35mm f2? That’d give you a “normal” FOV on smaller sensors..
#7 - March 1st, 2007 at 22:58
Just got a 50mm f/1.8 for my new Rebel XT, and at first wasn’t happy that I couldn’t zoom. I warmed up to it pretty fast though, it seems to take clear pictures, and does much better under low light than the kit lens. Any suggestions though on a macro lens?? I was checking out the LensBabies, but not sure - don’t think macro is their specialty… Though I’m not sure if I’m up to buying another lens at this point - but could easily be coerced into buying a nice macro lens.
#8 - March 1st, 2007 at 23:15
the “nifty fifty” is indeed one of my favorite lenses. especially for my concert shots.
#9 - March 1st, 2007 at 23:34
I currently do not own a single zoom lens, and I haven’t looked back since selling off the last one. I have Nikon’s 10.5mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, and Tamron’s 90mm f2.8 macro. On my D200, with the 1.5x crop factor, the 24mm is a great walking-around lens, I leave it on the camera by default unless I’m doing something special.
The 50mm and the 90mm are both brilliant for different types of portraiture (50mm works well for ‘head and shoulders’ shots where the 90mm is good for really tight headshots). And then the fisheye is just fun for when I’m fooling around.
#10 - March 2nd, 2007 at 03:03
I don’t have a prime for my Nikon D70 :-( But instead I have a Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 attached to a Praktica MTL3 that used t be my father’s.
I don’t use it for a long time now, because I’m not much into film anymore, but I used it along with the Nikon N50 I had some years ago with Sigma zoom lenses attached, and the quality of such a lens is absurd.
#11 - March 2nd, 2007 at 04:34
i’ll talk prime lenses untill some zaned mofo banishes them from the earth, huge fan of them, purely from a “getting closer is photography” standpoint.
#12 - March 2nd, 2007 at 10:36
Just sold my 50mm f1.8 (too many cuts on my eyes from it’s sharpness :P).
50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8 are on their way from BH. I hesitated to get the 85mm f1.2, but the financial factor finaly took it’s toll.
the 50mm f1.8 should be in everyone’s bag. Over the roof quality/price ratio.
#13 - March 2nd, 2007 at 22:51
I agree with every one above. I have the 50 1.4 and it is a beautifull lens. Sharp Sharp Sharp! next prime is the 85. Can’t wait.
#14 - March 2nd, 2007 at 23:15
I have a 50mm f/1.8 as well and it spends more time on my camera then all the other lenses in my arsenal combined.
#15 - March 2nd, 2007 at 23:35
or even better, fit an 85mm 1.8 on your 1.6x dslr and have a monster fast 135mm equivalent. whoo hoo! i think the 85mm should be everyones first “expensive lens” (though at 350usd, it not the most expensive lens by a long shot)
#16 - March 3rd, 2007 at 00:07
as a side note, canon did make an EF mount 50mm 1.0, it sells for a mere 3500-4000usd on ebay
#17 - March 3rd, 2007 at 03:22
I just ordered my second prime, the canon 50mm F1/8, my next prime will be the 85mm 1.8.
#18 - March 4th, 2007 at 04:21
My 50mm f1.8 came in the mail today! next up is the 85 f1.8
#19 - March 4th, 2007 at 20:57
I have a Nikon 50 1.8 that with my D200 is like my old 85 1.8 I used as my main lens in my film days only sharper. 2 weeks ago I found a clean Nikon 105 f 2.8 macro [pre VR version]. WOW is that sharp.
I have been debating this change back to primes for a while and the more I read, the more I think I should.
#20 - March 6th, 2007 at 13:20
If a person really *understands* the physics and optics of photography, then they would know having a prime lens, or two, is necessary. It’s all fine and dandy using a combination lens, but there’s a degree of degradation, as well as certain side affects of using different focal lengths.
I work with both types of lens, I like the flexibility. Because honestly there are instances where I just cannot get close enough with a prime lens. But … using a prime lens means I have to physically move; I find myself getting lazy using combinations lens.
For my Canon EOS Rebel I have an 80-200mm 4.5, but the 50mm 1.8 allows me to shoot very low light conditions and the sharpness is incredible!
On my Pentax ME Super (the thing is a tank! it’s like the Energizer bunny, it just keeps on going!) my combination lens are: 28-80 w/ macro @ 3.5; 80-200 @ 4.5 so I’m pretty well covered for a lot of things. But when I want sharpness I use a Pentax/Takumar 135 @ 2.8. However, I have one more prime lens for my Pentax ….. when I want to shoot something far away, and I mean really far away, I have a Sigma 600mm mirror lens @ f8. It’s pretty damn impressive! The lens virtually dwarfs the camera body! When I put that baby on the camera, I sure get looks from people :) However, a tripod is *absolutely* necessary because the smallest vibration is magnified, so I use a Manfrotto. And then when something is really, really far away, I put a 2X doubler on it! So now I’m shooting @ 1200mm! When I use that lens I don’t even touch the camera when I take a picture, I use a cable release, because even pressing the shutter will shake the camera. Digital cameras don’t stand a chance against that! :)
cory photographique
http://www.coryjohnson.net
#21 - March 21st, 2007 at 17:07
Spot on - although the 50mm is the cheapest primes, the others cost several times what you’d pay for a consumer zoom - in the Canon line up, the 85mm f/1.8 is awesome - even better than the 50mm lenses (aside from the 50mm f/1.2 L), and you’d have to spend many times its value to get a prime lens that betters it on image quality. There aren’t any zooms that better it on image quality
#22 - March 23rd, 2007 at 18:38
I have an Olympus E400, and unfortunately Zuiko do not produce fast and cheap prime lenses, nor any other 4/3’s compatible producer.
#23 - August 15th, 2007 at 17:44
Have to say I agree with this; the Canon f1.8/50mm lens is great, both for portraits (really nice shallow depth of field effects). I’ve also combined mine with some extension tubes for macro shots, it works surprisingly well.
Really versatile; should definitely be on a canon user’s shopping list.
#24 - April 2nd, 2008 at 15:41
And what about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ? I have the canon 50mm 1.8 but I’d like to change…
#25 - April 19th, 2008 at 13:23
I was using zooms for the first month or so after I started, but I always found myself wishing I had more light and better sharpness. After buying my first prime, my current set stands at
EF 28mm f/2.8 - lovely for APS-C sized sensors.
EF 35mm f/2.0 - brighter than the 28 but at the cost of a narrower AOV
EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk I - my wide portrait lens and sharper than the currently available Mk II
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - standard portrait lens, possibly my sharpest lens
EF 135mm f/2.8 SF - I love softfocus and this lens also great for narrow portraits
I can’t stop and I’ll be adding the following lenses as soon as I can
EF 100mm f/2.0 USM
EF 24mm f/2.8
EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
I use only two zooms these days - the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and the Canon EF 100-300mm f/5.6 mostly because getting the focal lengths covered by those two with the kind of aperture that I like would be too expensive.
#26 - October 30th, 2008 at 14:00
great article… after 10 years of photography I am finally starting to get into the prime lenses and I know my skills will improve. The one I had for years, the 50mm f/1.4 was so great, time to move beyond the basics.
#27 - November 28th, 2008 at 13:33
Nice article. Im convinced and will now save for one.