Prime Lenses Are Becoming Less and Less Relevant

[West Coast Birder]

I think that there a lot of excellent non-L prime that give probably 90-95% of the quality and results of an L prime. However, there is (in my opinion) a fairly significant step down in zoom quality from L to non-L. I think the reality is that zooms are hard to make without many compromises and you need to pay to get the best quality, whereas the simpler optics of prime lenses mean that you can get excellent non-L quality, as many of the contributors here have shown. There are of course exceptions in both directions but that's my observation, at least.

 

[davholla]

I've always been primarily a portrait photographer, and my style was never an attempt to get just one eye in focus.

Back in the manual focusing days I could not focus accurately with less than an f/2.8 aperture. Even split-image focusing aids worked better with fast lenses (and there were such focusing aids designed to work specifically with fast lenses).

Back when fast films were grainy, I also reached for the "fast" lenses.

These days, with auto focusing and good-looking ISO 800, I can't say honestly that I can't live forever at f/4 for my particular purposes.

I am not a portrait photographer but presumably with that because the subject is cooperating you can move in physically if you want to use a prime?

BTW I am not denigrating it - I doubt I could do it.

 

[RDKirk]

I am not a portrait photographer but presumably with that because the subject is cooperating you can move in physically if you want to use a prime?

BTW I am not denigrating it - I doubt I could do it.

I'm not a fan of "zooming with your feet."

It sounds lofty, but the fact is that changing your distance from your subject also changes the lens perspective of the subject, and that is often a significant issue with a portrait. I select my distance based on the perspective I want, then zoom with the lens to change framing.

Moreover, outside of certain specialties most there is a limit to how much skin detail audiences want to see, and usually audiences want both eyes in focus...and often both Aunt Tillie and Uncle Josh in focus. So, most often neither the absolute sharpest of images nor the shallowest depth of field is vital.

 

[aeon]

My lens choices have always been mediated by price, just to get that out of the way.

That said, the next most important criterion for me has always been rendering. Regardless of other features, if a lens does not have beautiful (to me) rendering, I am not going to be interested.

So my three main lenses are primes.

At 745, 980, and 1730 grams, I clearly do not care about weight.

My next lens will be a prime, a macro, at 937 grams.

I have nothing against zooms, but I have never really been captured by the look of one. Which is not a knock on them—it’s just that other lenses got my ooh la la.

That Sony 50-150 f/2 looks juicy, and is decidedly precious.

And I must admit, there are a couple of Voigtländer lenses which strike my fancy.

The things I shoot suit the use of primes.

Sometimes big aperture is nice. So is big flash and f/8 with eyes and ears and hair in focus.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ian

 

[West Coast Birder]

I’m at the other end of the spectrum from you, Ian.

I have exactly 4 primes, each of which is a specialist for a specific application. My 600/4L is my big white prime for birding. The 100/2.8L is a macro. In addition, I have a Rokinon 14/2.8 UWA and a Samyang 12mm fisheye. My zooms are my workhorses - 16-35 F/4, 24-70 F/2.8, 70-200 F/2.8 and the 100-500.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Enlightening conversation.
I have purchased and sold many lenses over the past 2 decades. Looking back, here's what I ended up doing (fwiw):

1) sold off all prime EF lenses (except the nifty-fifty which is not worth the effort) including many wide-aperture Sigma Arts and Canon "L"s
2) kept only four EF lenses (all Canon "L" zooms)
3) purchased several RF lenses in both zooms (non-"L"s) and primes (also non-"L"s except for the 100mm macro)

The general trend for me seems to be toward lighter weight, not-so-specialized equipment these days. I have noticed a dramatic improvement (in terms of optical performance) coming out of Canon's non-"L" lens lineup with the RF series. If anything, I've been trending away from "L" lenses than from primes.

I still like having primes for their small size and weight. The RF versions are even more so.

 

[Mr Roboto]

Come to think about it, I believe Canon and I have converged to a place and time that "consumer" grade non-L lenses (zooms and primes) are now "good enough".

It's been a while since I even bothered to check what new products have been introduced.
Very liberating and enjoying photography as it was for me back in the 1980's.

 

[Capn Jack]

Fixed Focal Length (FFL) used to be faster aperture, less distortion, higher resolution than Zoom...

1. fast ISO sensors made fast lens apertures less necessary
2. in-camera distortion corrections for given lenses make FFL less necessary
3. now even faster apertures in zooms make shallow DOF found in fast FFL even less of an advantange

So the unique advantages of FFL are diminishing in value.
What remains is that a single FL mounted on a body is the smallest and lightest combination. So if you do not need multiple FL, FFL can be the lightest and most unnoticeable (to the subjects)., one of its few remaining advantages.

And it is difficult to tell the difference, for the most part.

Things You Didn’t Want to Know About Zoom Lenses

The intersection (perhaps collision is a better word) of art and science is interesting. The scientist says "your impression is not as important as my facts." The artists say "my impression is all that matters." Imaging is that way. The photographer or videographer getting the look he wants from...

www.lensrentals.com

 

[Skygod44]

And it is difficult to tell the difference, for the most part.

Things You Didn’t Want to Know About Zoom Lenses

The intersection (perhaps collision is a better word) of art and science is interesting. The scientist says "your impression is not as important as my facts." The artists say "my impression is all that matters." Imaging is that way. The photographer or videographer getting the look he wants from...

www.lensrentals.com

That was a really good article.


And my main takeaway was:
"Horses for courses".

 

[LCPete]

Most of my lenses are primes, just ended up that way
When I was looking for an upgrade for wildlife from my 100-400 MK1 at the time the only choice for me at least was the 300 2.8 mk2 prime, at the time zoom lenses just weren’t as good although that’s different now I believe
Most of my other lenses are macro which are primes
I do like my 70-200 F4 non IS though, its always on a second body had that lens since 2006

 

[epic]

Love my primes. Nikon 35mm f/1.4g with FTZII is glued on my Z8 for walk around. Prefer it to the 24-70.