Transfer from prime zooms to prime fixes

I use zooms for 'shooting from the hip' and for fast-action subjects like wildlife and sports.

Primes I use for subjects that don't move. Architecture, still lifes, macro et al.

You might want to consider some of the older "D" type lenses. Many are equal to today's G glass, but without a boat anchor built into them.

I think it's great that you're so keen to use prime lenses more often. Perhaps you should consider where and when you'll be using them though, because as you mentioned, you don't know where the VIP will stand, so for reportage and news photography, zoom lenses are so helpful. If you are super enthusiastic to use a prime in your news photography, the most convenient way would be to have a 2nd/spare camera body with the prime attached, so that way, you've still got the zoom on the other body, so you can quickly switch between them.

You said that you find the majority of your photos are taken at either end of your zoom lenses, but not in the focal lengths in-between. The best way to get around this is to force yourself to consciously select whatever focal length best frames your subject. It's definitely something which has to be practiced so that it becomes a part of your photography style, with the image being primary and the lens just a tool you use to create your images. Otherwise, the lens is dictating how your subject is framed.

I've a passion for using prime lenses, some favourites of mine are Zeiss ZF 100/2 macro, Nikon 200/4D macro, Nikon 28/2.8 AIS (the 40 year old manual focus 0.2m min focus distance lens), Nikon 200/2VR, Nikon 55/3.5 macro AIS (another 30-40 year old mf lens which is just a pleasure to use).

I love researching and trying to find some of the older mf lenses that are incredibly cheap on eBay but are amazingly sharp and work perfectly on D800E body, remembering to set the focal length and maximum aperture in the camera settings so the body knows what lens you're using. I constantly get strange looks from my friends when they see such ancient and (to them) strange looking lenses fitted to a modern camera. But if one selects the lens well, gets one which is still in excellent condition, no oil on the aperture blades, no fungus anywhere, has the right amount of grease lubricating the focussing helicoid - this is what gives the old, metal bodied AI/AIS lenses their beautiful, silky, smooth, luxurious focussing feel and action - and all the lens elements are aligned and everything is working as it should. These old lenses, many are older than I am(!!), can still produce excellent results on current, high resolution bodies. The way they draw their images is very different from the current AFS/ED/n/G lenses. And sure, when one compares a brand-new equivalent to the old AIS lens, absolutely the new primes are always sharper and show higher contrast but there's just something special about some of older Nikon mf lenses. They have to be sought out and carefully selected but it's possible to find some real bargains and some beautiful images can be made with these old lenses. Many people are also so surprised to find how accurately they can focus with these all metal, mf lenses. This is due to the grease which lubricates the focussing mechanism and which is absent from AFS lenses. It makes such an incredible improvement but AFS lenses will never be like this as the grease puts too much of a strain on the battery and with so much tighter tolerances in modern AFS lenses, it isn't really possible.

Remember to practice using the most appropriate focal length for each image, not just the ends of a zoom lens and, I'm not sure if this is something you already do, but I've always had the best results using by avoiding the shutter/aperture priority exposure modes and setting exposure manually, and using centre spot. This way, one can really get a feel for where the exposure should be and also to see how much difference there is from the darkest part of the frame to the brightest. I've never shot film, only digital but I just don't have the control, and results I expect when using the AE modes. Of course, in news photography, sometimes the AE modes must be used as you'll miss the shot if you have to take the time to manually set the exposure. This is understood as 'part of the job' and it's much more important to get a not so great exposed image versus no image whatsoever because the shot was missed.

Best of luck and I hope I haven't confused you (too much). Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welcome aboard. Enjoy the ride.
We look forward to seeing more posts and samples of your work.

Sparky raises some good points, but ultimately you need to make your own decision based a great deal on your own experience. Frankly I believe an updated camera and a good quality 24-70mm f2.8 zoom would fill the bill.

Have you considered the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 lens? It's about the same weight as the Nikon non-VR lens, but it has VR and a much lower price tag. And it's definitely lighter in weight than the Nikon VR version. I haven't tried it myself, but there are several members here who own it. As for carrying a heavier lens such as this, check out some holsters. There are companies that make belts and allow holster cases to be attached. So you wear the belt around your waist/hips and walk that way. Of course you won't want to carry a bunch of lenses that way especially if they are all heavy.

The Tamron's sharpness tests very high and is comparable with Nikon's lenses. It would allow you to own a zoom for less than a Nikon brand and hopefully enable you to get some type of prime(s).

The Nikon 85mm f/1.8 is no slouch and is an excellent alternative to the f/1.4...and the price tag is better, too. The problem with f/1.4 lenses is their depth of field is so immensely shallow. If you don't nail the focus when shooting at f/1.4, you might wind up with unusable images.

Good luck with whatever you choose. Just keep in mind that you might be able to accomplish a great deal with these less expensive alternatives until you save up enough money to purchase their more expensive counterparts.

Thank you friends for your answers. I'll consider Tamron's lenses. One my collegue also adviced to think about Sigma Art series. Probably, 3rd party's examples have to be considered.

Hark, I read that 85/1.8 is slower than 1.4 version. I still even don't know whether 85/1.4 as fast as 24-70/2.8. Did you compare them?
Yes, I use a belt system (Think Tank)

Bikerbrent, your answer is the most sober.

Aaron, I agree that two cameras are the best choice for a dynamic shooting. I'm not sure that old lenses are apt for me. I haven't experience of using them. It seems old lenses can be slower and much more difficult in work. Correct me If I'm wrong.

Sparky, your answer is 100% true but I almost don't take pictures of still life and others. I know one successful photojournalist who uses primes but he carries two cameras.
Thank you, I'll think about D lenses.

Marro, If you allow me to chime in on "slower":

What is sometimes a bit sloppily referred to as lens speed has nothing to do with the speed of the lens itself, whatever that would be. Rather, it refers to how slow or fast the shutter speed of your camera needs to be in order to get a sufficient amount of light energy on your sensor.

f/1.8 or f/2.8, which we often simply call 1.8 or 2.8, is the so-called maximum aperture of the lens. The value is an inverse number, so the smaller it is, the wider a lens can open and the more light it will let in. That is why a 1.8 lens is called faster than a 2.8 lens and a 1.4 lens is faster than a 1.8: since it allows more light to fall onto the sensor when the lens is wide open, the camera can close the shutter sooner, which means it uses a faster shutter speed.

The differences between lenses can be significant: wide open, a 2.0 lens needs twice as much light as a 1.4 lens does, and a 2.8 lens needs four times as much as the 1.4 one!

In broad daylight, this may not matter at all since you'll have plenty of light anyway. (There is another advantage of 'faster' lenses, though, which is a nicer 'bokeh' - look that one up if you're curious.) In dim light conditions, however, having a faster lens can make the difference between getting a great shot or shooting a blurry something that's best deleted right away.

Thank you Lothar. I meant just accuracy and speed of autofocusing. Probably, the article where I read about "fast" lens was indeed about aperture. I didn't know this meaning of the term.

I have been shooting a lot of Marriages and other Parties with just D3300 and 35mm F1.8DX, which is more or less equivalent to 50mm F1.8 on a FX body.

In general I usually get most of my shots by moving around. Let me assure you that is not really bad, as in case you are a bit away with a Zoom and forget to move you may be crowded out by other photographers, so you have to move a lot any way. As far as F1.4 lenses are concerned, they may be nice if you always shoot at F1.4, but at higher apertures the F1.8 lenses are as good if not better. So start with F1.8 50mm and then add lenses as you go along. Remember there was a time when most of us had only the 50mm on the film camera and that did not prevent great images.

You can supplement the 50mm with 105mm, 28/24mm and 85mm at a later stage.

Thank you Aroy.
I should specify my challenge as a photographer to buy the most effective tool. I got this obvious idea from all the answers in this thread. There're no "key" for several doors. 50 mm is very good and not expensive lens, I agree with you.

You are struggling with one of the classic dilemma's in photography. Fixed vs Prime - and what bit of gear to I buy next.

I have bought lots of lenses and some get more action than others.

Recently I bought a used AF (not even AFD) 50mm 1.8 lens cheap. Actually bought it to put on an old camera I have in a display of vintage cameras in my house as a decoration. But I tried it out. Turns out it is still a very usable lens. My $1,000 Sigma Art 1.4 50mm is better but not $900 better. The images from the old lens are indistinguishable. The Sigma focuses a bit faster (the old lens does not have an fast internal focus motor and relies on the camera lens drive). My point is don't overlook the used and vintage glass market. No idea how that works where you are so maybe useless advice.

The other thing you bring forward is the weight of the glass you carry. Seems they are just making the lenses bigger and bigger in a world where everything else is getting smaller. While some will say it is not a professional lens I use my Nikkor 35mm 1.8 DX AFS lens a lot - and it is one of the least expensive new lenses in my collection.

High on my GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) list is a Nikkor 20mm 1.8. There are better 20mm lenses and some ultra wide zooms like Tamrons 15-30 that may be rated better and are more versatile but I'm drawn to the Nikkor 20mm because of it's size and the fact it does not have the bulbous front end like so many others. I did consider the antique 20mm 2.8 AFD but they are not commonly available and from what I've read the new 1.8 G model is much better even if somewhat larger. I have the 85 1.8 and like the size and weight of that lens and they look similar.

I use both zoom and fixed focal - each have their place but I see myself buying more primes than zooms in the future for many of the reasons you mention.

Good luck with your well thought through business plan and be sure to post some of your work here.

Marro said:

Thank you friends for your answers. I'll consider Tamron's lenses. One my collegue also adviced to think about Sigma Art series. Probably, 3rd party's examples have to be considered.

Hark, I read that 85/1.8 is slower than 1.4 version. I still even don't know whether 85/1.4 as fast as 24-70/2.8. Did you compare them?
Yes, I use a belt system (Think Tank)

Click to expand...

lokatz said:

Marro, If you allow me to chime in on "slower":

What is sometimes a bit sloppily referred to as lens speed has nothing to do with the speed of the lens itself, whatever that would be. Rather, it refers to how slow or fast the shutter speed of your camera needs to be in order to get a sufficient amount of light energy on your sensor.

Click to expand...

What lokatz wrote is what I meant when referencing speed. The f/1.4 lens is 2/3 stop faster than the f/1.8, but since I've never used the f/1.4, I can't say how much faster it autofocuses.

Here is an interesting article that talks mainly about the f/1.4, but if you scroll down the page to #10, it compares some features of the f/1.4 with the f/1.8. Unfortunately I didn't see anything about the difference in autofocus speed. However, it shows the f/1.8 is no slouch. And the guy who runs this web site tends to be quite accurate and unbiased with his findings.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-85mm-f1-4g

My point was that the f/1.8 is well over $1000 less (US dollars) and should be a great alternative for you to start with. I bought mine 2-3 years ago when Nikon ran a sale. I got mine for about $100 less than its regular retail. And if you can find a new one on sale, you should REALLY consider it. Some people try to sell used Nikon 85mm f/1.8 lenses for more than I paid new on sale!

Marro said:

.....he carries two cameras. .........

Click to expand...

Doing this will make 'swappping' lenses a go-zillion times faster. It's the oldest trick in the book.

Fortkentdad, thank you for the answer, you shared a useful experience.
"The other thing you bring forward is the weight of the glass you carry. Seems they are just making the lenses bigger and bigger in a world where everything else is getting smaller."
It's witty true, you made me laugh. I complain about size and weight of Nikkor 24-70G, while the new one with an image stabilizer is even heavier and bigger. Probably, I have to become a sportsman and no longer bother about the issue.

Hark,
okay, I see that I was confused with the term. Honestly, I've never discussed the gear details in English.
I like the article you gived, there's very good review.

I shoot events in a reportage style. Im mostly hired bye the organisation to cover there events. So i know in advance what i will be shooting. My kit is d750. D810. Irix 15 mm. Nikon 35 1.8. 50 1.8. 85 1.8 then a sigma 135 1.8. I do have 2 zooms a 24- 120 f4 and a tamron 70-300 . Ïn some case i rent other zooms.
The total weight of my kit is more then a full set of 2.8 zooms but i almost never need to take it all.

Zooms are easyer to use but i just prefere my primes when i can.


Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-A520F met Tapatalk

Hello unalom,
I'm still leaning toward using a set of primes very similar to yours: 20/2.8 AF (already in the bag for a long time), 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8. They all weigh about 250-350 g, and it's perfect for me. In addition, there's a 70-200/2.8 in my bag, and it will remain the most appropriate tool for conferences and sports. May be, after all, I'll change my 20/2.8 AF to 20/1.8 AF-S.

Marro said:

Hello unalom,
I'm still leaning toward using a set of primes very similar to yours: 20/2.8 AF (already in the bag for a long time), 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8. They all weigh about 250-350 g, and it's perfect for me. In addition, there's a 70-200/2.8 in my bag, and it will remain the most appropriate tool for conferences and sports. May be, after all, I'll change my 20/2.8 AF to 20/1.8 AF-S.

Click to expand...

I think you should be okay doing press photography with just two zoom lenses, for example 16-35/4 or 17-35/2.8 in the wide end and 70-200/2.8 in the long end. I personally own about 50 lenses of which only 4 are zooms.

In your own photography, do all the prime lenses need to be autofocus? Nikon has manufactured excellent manual focus lenses, some of which are still extremely coveted and some are "sleepers" that you can get cheap despite their excellent image quality. I have about 25 manual focus Nikkors (of which 11 are between 50-58 mm LOL, don't ask). Manual focusing is different, it is more demanding but at the same time it is much more rewarding.

For example manual focus Nikkors 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.4, 105mm f/1.8 and 105mm f/2.5 and 135mm f/2 are excellent lenses. They have their own signature and character in the rendering, which might actually be an advantage since your pictures won't look like everybody else's, who use the latest modern highly corrected lenses which tend to produce images that all look the same.

I did a short photo walk with my daughter the other day and I went with four manual focus lenses. I divided the images in four consecutive posts: https://nikonites.com/prime/24774-lets-see-those-manual-focus-lenses-4.html#post665454

Please have a look if you like. There are some samples from 50/1.8, 55/1.2, 58/1.2 Noct and 105/2.8 Micro. The images are straight-out-of-camera to retain the rendering of the lens.