Why am I so stuck on prime lenses?

I seem to be drawn to prime lenses. When choosing a lens to use I always seem to lean towards prime lenses. I've heard that zoom lenses can be awesome these days, so why am I stuck on prime lenses? Are my zoom lenses not very good? Or is it just me? I love the idea of zoom lenses but when it comes to using them, I tend to be less happy using them than I am using primes!

I've only been a photographer for just over a year, so it can't be because of old film days tech habits. Anybody got a idea why I'm such a prime junky? Lol

For an example. I have a Nikon 1 V1 with 3 lenses, 1 prime and 2 zooms, and once I put my 18.5 prime lens on I am very reluctant to change the lens out for one of my zooms! Anybody know why this is?

Primes are awesome and I think part of the appeal is their simplicity. As my girlfriend once said, "I really like prime lenses. No fussing around with zooming." At first I was sort of dumbstruck, but when I got to thinking about it, I like primes for that reason as well, I just didn't know it. With a prime, if I need to zoom in or out, I move. I don't have to actually give it any thought, I just do it. I think primes allow me to focus on my photography more in an artistic sense, whereas with zooms, sometimes I get too caught up in the technical. Something like that...

...

Zoom's main advantage is the variable focal length in one package, but that comes at an expense. For a given cost Zooms are
. Larger
. Heavier
. More expensive
. Lower IQ
. Slower (higher minimum F stop)

I am also a fan of primes as they give me the smallest package for a given IQ. When I put the 50mm F1.8AF on my camera, the whole rig looks tiny (and to a layman "unprofessional", as every one associate size with quality). I mostly use my 35mm prime and the 18-55 at 55mm. The 50mm does not AF, else that would have replaced the kit lense.

I do use the zoom, when I am shooting indoors, as that gives me freedom to frame in tight spaces.

Bill16 said:

For an example. I have a Nikon 1 V1 with 3 lenses, 1 prime and 2 zooms, and once I put my 18.5 prime lens on I am very reluctant to change the lens out for one of my zooms! Anybody know why this is?

Click to expand...

Why not post two images, the same careful image on a fixed tripod, but one with the 18.5mm prime, and one with zoom set to 18.5mm. The point of which is to then explain to us the differences you see, the obvious reasons to choose one over the other?

Teasing, but I think the explanation would be interesting.

Depends on your desired subjects,i would love the 300f4 i know it would be sharper than my current lens, i also know when looking at the exif after a session in the field i would miss probably half the shots,its no good saying to a lesser spotted doodar hang on while i take ten steps back,primes would be my choice if i thought they would suit my subject matter.
Perhaps after taking more shots bill you will know why or decide you would be better served with a zoom.

Comparing a prime against a kit zoom lens will definitely give the prime a significant advantage since it will be much sharper especially at f4 since a f1.8 prime for example will be stopped down already while the kit lens is still wide open [give or take a few].

Is it just the fact it's a prime or is it also that it's more or less like we see the world. A long telephoto or ultra-wide angle distorts the image, bending what our mind knows to be true.

Makes me wanna go buy the 35mm f/1.8. And that wasn't next on the list!! Oh well.

Very interesting (and, probably never ending) doubt: do we have to try to "fit ourselves to the scenery" (and put that scenery into the viewing angle of our lens, be it a prime or a modest zoom, such as a kit zoom), or do we have to use as many lenses as it is (technically, financially etc.) possible to us, in order to be relatively "independent from the scenery" (that is, capable of taking a shot in full accordance with our view, without the need to change our position, just by choosing the appropriate lens or zooming in or out).
An interesting test for any photographer: take only one, prime, lens with you (wide angle, or a standard, or a telephoto) and take a hike about the place you live in for a few hours. Do the best that you can do with that lens.

I'm not sure what it is about primes that calls to me, that always makes me lean towards them whenever I'm choosing a lens to use. But some of the reasoning you all have makes sense!
I'm just not sure if this was my subconscious reasoning or not, but it sounds reasonable to me the way you guys put it! Lol

I think I just feel that it is more likely I'll get the shot the way I'm wanting it with a prime instead of a zoom. Like the odds are better or something! Lol
Maybe that sounds stupid, but that's the way it seems to me. So maybe it's not the lack in zooms, but the lack in my a abilities when using zooms. I just don't know.

Well whatever the reason, I am a primes junky! Lol Maybe one day I'll use a zoom that changes this,a bit at least. Because I think a good zoom would make the better walk around lens, being more versatile allowing for more chances of good shots!

I just don't want to end up buying a zoom for walk around use, and end up unsatisfied or worse yet hating it. I suppose that is why I haven't bought a lens for walk around uses. But for the v1 I suppose my 30-110 is a good lens for that camera. I just don't have one I'd call a walk around lens for my D300.

I don't know, I guess I'll give all of this and your replies some thought. Because for now, I'd choose my 105mm lens for walk around prime, and I know that limits my opportunities for different shots that might be available.......................

I already started to save up for an 11-600mm lens. No one makes it yet, but when they do, I'll be ready.

Eyelight said:

Is it just the fact it's a prime or is it also that it's more or less like we see the world.

Click to expand...

The term "prime" is typically used to describe any lens of fixed focal length; i.e., not a zoom lens. This can refer to many different focal length lenses, including wide-angle and telephoto lenses of a single focal length.

A lens that exposes the sensor to what we usually perceive the world to be in our own vision, is typically called a "normal" lens.

And go ahead and buy that 35mm f1.8; you'll love it for the extra speed it gives you, which is what I see as one of the greatest photographic advantages of a prime lens over a zoom lens.

WM

One reason is that often primes are faster than zooms and they are corrected for one and not a wide range of focal lengths. I have owned two zooms in my life, the venerable 80-200 f/4.5 non-AI and the Series E 43-86 f/3.5. I no longer own either one of them, both are long gone

Zooms have come a long way in the last 20 or years but they will always be a compromise. It is a physical and optical fact of life. As the saying goes, "you can't get something for nothing". Most are comparatively slow, unless you want to fork over mucho deniro and not many offered today hold a constant maximum aperture. 30 years ago that was the norm but not today. When you are using DX especially, those smaller maximum apertures (and concomitant focal lengths) translate into less depth of field control.

I don't think anyone would argue that they offer more convenience over primes. They certainly do. But at what cost?

Eyelight said:

Is it just the fact it's a prime or is it also that it's more or less like we see the world. A long telephoto or ultra-wide angle distorts the image, bending what our mind knows to be true.

Makes me wanna go buy the 35mm f/1.8. And that wasn't next on the list!! Oh well.

Click to expand...

Whiskeyman said:

The term "prime" is typically used to describe any lens of fixed focal length; i.e., not a zoom lens. This can refer to many different focal length lenses, including wide-angle and telephoto lenses of a single focal length.

A lens that exposes the sensor to what we usually perceive the world to be in our own vision, is typically called a "normal" lens.

Click to expand...

I don't always get a thought to paper in the clearest way. Where I was going was Bill reaches for his 18.5mm, and perhaps it's not the fact it is a prime, but an as-we-see-the-world lens.

Interesting, I see what your meaning now! But no the 18.5 was just an example, with it being the only prime I have for the Nikon 1 V1 camera. Though I love the 18.5 for indoors shots, it's not what I would tend to like in focal length for outdoors shots. But that might be why I love it for indoors besides the fact of the better in lower light than my zooms.

Eyelight said:

I don't always get a thought to paper in the clearest way. Where I was going was Bill reaches for his 18.5mm, and perhaps it's not the fact it is a prime, but an as-we-see-the-world lens.

Click to expand...

This might explain it more than other reasons. Sharpness is either there or not in a prime, but a zoom might be sharp at some focal lengths but not at others. If a prime isn't sharp as I want/need I don't use it. But with a zoom you have to figure out what focal lengths are sharp and which ones aren't. So to me it seems you can't depend on a zoom(at least the cheaper ones). Fast is also a factor I may subconsciously consider too without realizing it.But accurate focal length is something that I did think about. When adjusting the zoom focal length, it seems like it's an approximation at best and a total guess when in a hurry.
But maybe like I said, it might partly be me not using a zoom right.
But to the most part I think you hit the nail on the head!

Thanks buddy! This might be what is that makes me reach for a prime over a zoom all the time!

STM said:

One reason is that often primes are faster than zooms and they are corrected for one and not a wide range of focal lengths. I have owned two zooms in my life, the venerable 80-200 f/4.5 non-AI and the Series E 43-86 f/3.5. I no longer own either one of them, both are long gone

Zooms have come a long way in the last 20 or years but they will always be a compromise. It is a physical and optical fact of life. As the saying goes, "you can't get something for nothing". Most are comparatively slow, unless you want to fork over mucho deniro and not many offered today hold a constant maximum aperture. 30 years ago that was the norm but not today. When you are using DX especially, those smaller maximum apertures (and concomitant focal lengths) translate into less depth of field control.

I don't think anyone would argue that they offer more convenience over primes. They certainly do. But at what cost?

Click to expand...

For me it's the same. I love prime lenses for this reason. You are more involved with the shot. You need to get closer, you take steps and vice versa. It takes those few extra steps to get that shot the way you want.

I read this week the story of a man that stated he got bored with photography.
Found it:
3 Reasons Why You Should Shoot with One Camera and One Lens

He then rediscovered the one lens with one body and got motivated again.
Primes interact with you in a different way, they play with you, they push you. A zoom can be handy, practical, etc... and boring.

I suppose if your getting bored, that might be solution, especially if your physically fit. But boredom isn't an issue for me, and getting more creative to make due with one lens is fine if your willing to settle for what that one lens can do.
My goal isn't to say master a specific camera or lens, nor to be super creative. My goal is to enjoy taking photos, and to capture scenes or subjects that interest me.

Sure I want to take the best photos I can, learning as I go how to improve my skills to get better shots. But the main objective has been and continues to be achieved. I'm having fun, taking photos of things, scenery, and people that I like. I use whatever lens and camera I can afford to help me do that, and get the photo I see in my minds eye. A lot of gear that I get to do that can be a trial and error process, since I don't know exactly what will do the job at a cheap enough price for me to afford. So now and then I get something and find out that it isn't what I'm looking for, and I get rid of it eventually.
This might surprise everybody, but even my I wants have toned down since I first got started in photography. I'm no longer looking for the biggest,baddest,bestest anymore. I would sorta like to complement what I have right now, since I'm loving my D300 and have no interest in getting rid of it. It suits me, and my thought was maybe one day to add her big sister the D700 to go with. I don't really have a long list of lenses I want either anymore. A wide lens for the D700 someday, and good walk around zoom D lens that goes up pretty high in fgocal length, and maybe a high focal length prime. Well and 35mm d lens that is very sharp. But otherwise I think I have most of what I need/want right now.

Now this might change as I learn more(more or less), but I'm having fun with the setups I have right now!

I say as long as your enjoying yourself, having fun with taking photos, then whatever setup and plans your following are great!

Vincent said:

I read this week the story of a man that stated he got bored with photography.
Found it:
3 Reasons Why You Should Shoot with One Camera and One Lens

He then rediscovered the one lens with one body and got motivated again.
Primes interact with you in a different way, they play with you, they push you. A zoom can be handy, practical, etc... and boring.

Click to expand...

Horoscope Fish said:

Primes are awesome and I think part of the appeal is their simplicity...With a prime, if I need to zoom in or out, I move. I don't have to actually give it any thought, I just do it. I think primes allow me to focus on my photography more in an artistic sense, whereas with zooms, sometimes I get too caught up in the technical. Something like that...

Click to expand...

+1

I don't know about anyone else, but I think HF may agree, that when I'm working with a prime, I feel more like a photographer. I've never been able to quite put my finger on it, but I think he did a good job of nailing it down above. It seems that when I'm forced to move (as opposed to letting a zoom lens do the work), I'm forced be more selective with composition. I have to see the image I want more clearly in my head, and as a result, I think better photos are a direct result of using a prime.

Maybe that's all a bit artsy-fartsy, but that's about the best I can put it into words.

Well lazy dog that I am I am somewhat addicted to zooms. But I am also generally more satisfied with the results that my primes afford me when I make the effort to use them. Only a prime gives me the occasional dead on exposure that is the Holy Grail of photography. Now some zooms, like the Tokina 11-16 has such a small focal length range that it might as well be a prime. Which is probably the reason for it's poularity.