I'm glad this topic came up. I am new and ignorant to a lot of things in photography and I want to learn as much as I can, as fast as I can. I am not understanding the whole "Prime Lens" thing. (Please don't laugh, I'm new) I understand that you have one focal length with a lower F-Stop (Meaning better in low light situations). But, this means that me as the photographer, has to move closer or further from the subject instead of using a zoom and staying in one spot. I hear that pics are clearer...I won't need as much light....but to be honest, I have some really good bokeh photos that was taken with my 55-300mm. (Except for the close ups of bugs and stuff). Please understand, I am not questioning, bashing or being judgemental, I just want to understand why I would spend money on, let's say a 85mm when I can zoom my 55-300 to the 85 spot. Please tell me why I should spend the money on a lens that I basically have. Thanks and sorry for the Lens 101 question.
It's not too complicated..
as a general rule, as the focal length increases, the quality depreciated... slightly
for example the IQ of a 18-200 which covers a lot, is not going to be the best..
along the same lines, a prime lens provides best IQ.
it's manly a matter of convenience & trade offs
if you prefer to cover a lot of area, through one lens - the compromise would be the IQ (very mild difference)
but if you font want to trade off on the IQ, you give up on convenience
that's mainly why most portrait shooters would prefer a prime lens.
since you need to be at the max zoom to obtain the best bokeh (if you've noticed, your 55-200 will have better bokeh at 200mm as opposed to 55), a prime lens is at all times at the max zoom.
tried to put it as simple as possible,so please excuse any technical incorrect blah blah