Prime Lenses - an Introduction
Should I buy a Prime Lens?
In an age when zoom lenses are all the range - I’ve been surprised to be getting more and more questions about prime lenses of late.
Perhaps there’s a return to a more ‘pure’ or ‘back to basics’ form of photography going on?
A Definition of Prime Lenses
For those of you unfamiliar with the term ‘prime lens’ - lets start with a simple definition. A prime lens is one that has just one focal length only (in contrast to a zoom lens that covers a wider range of lengths).
Prime lenses come in a wide range of focal lengths from wide angles through to the very longest of tele-photo lenses used by many sports photographers and paparazzi.
While zoom lenses are ever popular and come as the standard kit lens with most DSLRs sold - prime lenses remain the favorite of many.
The main two reasons given by prime lens lovers are:
Maximum Aperture - one of the biggest arguments used by prime lens lovers is the speed that prime lenses are able to offer. For example, in the Canon range the fastest lenses available are all prime lenses (down to f/1.2) where as in the zoom range f/2.8 is as fast as you’ll get.
Quality - traditionally prime lenses are known for their advanced optics and quality. They generally have less moving parts and so manufacturers are able to concentrate their efforts on adding quality glass and menanisms.
Keep in mind however that just because it’s a prime lens doesn’t mean that it is going to be of the highest standards. Manufacturers make a range of lenses at different price point (zoom and prime) and some are always going to be better than others.
Price - in general prime lenses are simpler in terms of construction and as a result they can be cheaper to buy. Of course it’s not as simple as this and quality is determined by many factors and as a result price varies a lot even in the prime lens range of most manufacturers.
Weight - once again, a simple lens with less moving parts can mean that in many cases prime lenses are smaller and lighter than zooms.
Prime Lenses Combat Lazy Photographer Syndrome - when you have a zoom lens attached to your camera the temptation is to let your zoom do all the work and to leave your feet attached to the same piece of turf. This is what is attractive about zooms - however it can also lead to laziness and I’ve heard a few prime lens users argue that when they have a prime lens attached that it makes them more creative with their framing as they are forced to look more actively for the best shot.
There’s a lot to like about Prime Lenses and most serious photographers will own at least one or two. However there are of course those who argue against them with some of the following arguments:
Weight and Price - while the arguments above on price and weight are fairly convincing - it’s also worth considering that you might need to buy two or three prime lenses to cover the same focal range as you could achieve the same spread as could be achieved with a zoom lens. This means the price can add up and that you might end up hauling around more weight in your camera bag than you would with just the one lens.
Flexibility - perhaps the most convincing argument against prime lenses is that they can limit the possibilities of the photographer. I still remember the time that I had a 100mm prime lens attached at a party when the speeches started and where I was separated from my camera bag. I was just too close to the people giving speeches to get anything other than tightly cropped shots of their facial features. Had I had my trusty 24-105mm lens attached I’d have been able to get those tightly cropped shots as well as some full body shots.
There is rarely a ‘best’ in photography when it comes to either technique or equipment and those considering the purchase of a prime lens will want to think seriously about their own needs and circumstances.
Some questions to ask might include:
- What will I use the lens for (what style of photography)? - If you’re into macro you’ll probably want a purpose built macro prime lens, if you’re into photographing kids then the flexibility of a zoom might be handy)
- Do I need fast aperture? - if you shoot a lot in low light and f/2.8 is not enough - a prime lens will be your best bet
- Do I want to be changing lenses all the time? - three prime lenses means a lot of swapping over of lenses which opens your camera up to the risk of dust.
- How many lenses do I want to carry? - is weight an issue?
- How much is my budget? - the cost of either option can be prohibitive depending upon the quality and number of lenses that you’re after.
My personal Favorites
I’m a Canon user and have three prime lenses that I’ve used and love:
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II - my first prime and a superb little lens that is light, cheap yet produces great results considering it’s price tag. The perfect lens to test out what it’s like to have a prime lens.
- Canon EF 50mm f1.4 - exceptional quality and really great in low light.
- Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro - this lens opens up all kinds of possibilities for macro work and is brilliant in that field. It’s also not bad as a portrait lens strangely enough!
- What prime lenses do you own? (I’m particularly interested in the recommendations of non Canon users to help balance the recommendations)
- Do you use them?
- What do you see as their advantages and disadvantages?
Find this post helpful? Digg it.
Read more posts like 'Prime Lenses - an Introduction'
Digital Photography School is Digg proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache!
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:50 am
I’m a Nikon user and basically have the same prime lenses.
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 - You can’t go wrong for an awesome lens at only $100.
Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Macro - This is my primary lens, and I absolutely love it. As you mention, it’s also great for portraits as you’re not right up on the person.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:49 am
Wow just today I ordered my first prime lens. Funny to see this posted on here shortly after I ordered it! Its the Canon 35mm f/2 to go on my 350d. Cant wait!
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:59 am
I just got the nifty fifty - the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II - and I’m loving it already. I agree about the having to think more creatively about the shot, and for portraits of my daughter indoors and in shade it’s been great.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 am
Nikkor 50mm f1.4
Nikkor 105mm f2.5
You might mistake me for a Nikon camera user but, actually, I’ve got the above mounted on my Olympus E-1 by means of a cheap £10 adapter off eBay. Fantastic - I even get aperture priority…
The size of the 105mm (210mm equivalent on Olympus cameras) is fantastic - and people I photograph have no idea how close I’m actually getting…
Favourite digital lens is the Olympus Zuiko Digital 50mm macro…
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 am
I’ll echo the support for the 50mm f/1.8, especially for beginning Canon photographers on a budget (like me), and I really enjoy using it indoors. Two weekends ago I was at a wedding, where I shot with that lens exclusively.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 am
I’m a Canon user and have (or had in the case of the 50mm f/1.8) all three of these primes as well as the 85 f/1.8. All are great lenses; I’m in total agreement with you!
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:55 am
I bought myself a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and absolutely love it. Wonderfully shallow DoF shots along with a focal length that just seems to work for me…where do I sign up? Granted it is on the pricey side, but I do believe it was worth every penny.
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro
I’m a Minolta user and I’m less than impressed with the way Sony re-released some of the KM lenses (they feel cheap), so I went with Sigma. It’s not super-fast, but it’s better than my zooms.
It’s the only prime I have — the other two are zooms. Haven’t had any experience with a non-macro prime lens. It’s a good overall lens that I can use in most situations, but there have been occasions when I kicked myself for not having my 18-200mm on — mostly wildlife encounters. I probably use it more for macro work than not, though. My default lens is my 18-200mm, and I’ll throw on the 10-20mm or the 105mm macro when the occasion arises.
My next lens will also probably be a zoom — maybe a super telephoto. I’m kind of hooked on the whole zoom thing. To me, the convenience is worth the extra effort required to obtain super-sharp images with a zoom (tripod, mirror lock-up, sweet spots, etc).
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Canon 50 f/1.4
This is my only prime to date. I have sided with the zooms for flexibility thus far (24-105L, 70-200L f/2.8 and Sigma 50-500m). My next purchase will be on the wide side, and I may choose to go prime on that.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I have my nifty-fifty (along with a WA and the kit lens) in the bag, but when shooting weddings, I get to use my partner’s lenses - a 24-70mm f/2.8L, plus three primes:
35mm f/1.4L, 85mm f/1.2L and 135mm f/2.0L
At the ceremony, I take my establishing shots with the WA, get a bit closer with either the 24-70 and the 35, then start shooting close-ups and detail shots with one of the longer lenses, usually the 135.
At the reception, I start with either the 24-70 and 35 to get group shots, then start shooting candid photos with the longer lenses again.
I could choose to get something like a 24-105, but I think I get better shots by moving around rather than zooming. I walk around more to find the shots I like, but I don’t mind.
What I do have a problem with is when some people ask to have their picture taken while I’m using the 135 - I just have to pretend I’m getting them all in the frame sometimes.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I have been wondering about this a great deal lately? Are most “casual” portraits (for instance when the photographer shoots in a person’s home)…usually done with a prime lens?
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Using a EF 50mm f/1.8 II and I swear by it. Beginning to use it so much so that I’ve quite put aside my EF-S 18-55 USM kit lens.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Yes, Yes, I too have the Nikkor 50mm f1.8. Use it only for DoF. The aperture (low-light shooting) is compensated usually by the VR in my zoom lens.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro
I changed from the Nikkor f/1.8 to the f/1.4 .. haven’t tested it enough until now but I already loved the 1.8 thats why I decided to upgrade. So far I have used the Sigma only as macro but hence there are so many supporters for primary lens here I might give it a try :)
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
So far I have my hands on the following: 24/2.8, 30/1.4 (Sigma), 50/1.4, and lately a 135/2L. Now when I go shooting, it’s pretty much always the 30/1.4 on one body, and the 135/2L on the other. If I’m going to have plenty of light, I enjoy the flexibility of the 17-85 IS and the 70-200, but the aperture just can’t compare.
-/\/
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
- Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC
- Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX Makro
I currently only use those two. I found them to be perfect for me.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Prime lenses go down to f/1 actually if you count Noctilux and the old Nikkor f/1
I have the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 prime for Macro, the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D for portrait and the 50mm f/1.4D for street and low light.
I think the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 is the best 50mm you can get!
I also want the Nikkor 35mm f/2 or something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4!
I used to have the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, amazingly sharp lens for the money, but quite horrible bokeh.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
My primes are:
Nikkor 50 1.8
Nikkor 85 1.8
Sigma 105 2.8 MACRO
Nikkor Fisheye 10.5 2.8(?)
I also have a Nikkor 18-200 VR (love it)
April 4th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Any body here uses Olympus dSLR’s or any other four thirds systems?
April 4th, 2007 at 1:34 am
i have the canon 50mm f/1.8 and love it. I recently bought the 100mm macro lens and man, what a great lens. and it is even really sharp outside of the macro territory. really loving it.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:55 am
I´m very happy with my EF 100mm f/2,8 Macro on my EOS 300D, but I can´t live without my Sigma 18-50 2,8 EX ether…
April 4th, 2007 at 2:52 am
I’m a Canon guy and have the EF 50mm F1.4 and love it. My favorite, though, is my Sigma 20mm F1.8 DG EX.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:48 am
I have Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and getting a Canon 85mm f/1.8. I love my sigma and it gets the most use. Also have a Sigma 17-70 and a Canon 75-300(not good).
April 4th, 2007 at 4:18 am
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 - very good for portraits. But not too flexible in conditions where you can’t ger far enough.
April 4th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Pentax 50mm A f1.7
Pentax 70mm f2.4 limited
Pentax 21mm f3.2 limited
Pentax 40mm f2.8 limited
Zooms are probably convenient but agree that primes are fun to use. The Pentax limiteds listed above are also known as “pancake lenses” because of their unbelievably small size. The drawback being that they have to sacrifice some aperture “speed”. However, the build and performance are excellent. I can travel with one on the camera body and the other two in my pockets with ease.
BTW, the 50 A 1.7 is a classically good performer and my low light lens of choice.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I’m a canon user and my favorite prime lens is the 85mm f1.8! I love it. When traveling, I still use my 17-40f4L a lot, but because of my 85mm, I like to capture a lot of portrait and tight shots more now…
April 4th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I have a Minolta 50mm 1.7 - love it and it was really inexpensive at $60 for a very good used on ebay.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I’m in the market for a prime lens (Minolta/Sony). Does anybody have any experience with the Sony 50mm f/1.4?
April 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
As a pentax owner I have the 50mm 1.4 and it is awesome. I highly recommend the 50mm lens for any company of cameras. I PROMISE you wont be disappointed.
April 6th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Nikon D200 + 50mm 1.8D - my cheapest and lightest lens ever, and one of the best regarding sharpness and color rendition - walking on sunshine!!!
April 6th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I have the Nifty-fifty plus the Canon f2 100 and JUST got the F1.8 85(with my Digital Rebel XT). I shoot a lot of my daughter’s volleyball and basketball matches. Nothing like them in low light situations for freezing action. And ALMOST ALL gyms are a “low-light situation”.
Most of the other parents also shoot these matches but they do not get past their kit lens so my shots(while in my opinion sucking a lot) are sooo much better than theirs.
April 6th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Tarek,
Yes. I don’t have a prime lens for the four thirds, but I have the Sigma 30 mm 1.4 on my wish list:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3300&navigator=6
Anyone use this lens? Anyone use the four thirds mount version of it?
April 7th, 2007 at 1:48 am
I bought a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II a few months ago.
The quality/price ratio is very high and I find myself doing the most of the photos with this lens; why? Because you have to move to get your perfect framing and I have much less lazy pictures with this lens. Speed is also very important as I shoot a lot of portraits during night or in apartments. I recommend this lens for every novice/intermediate and even experts (who might want to have a look at F1.4 50mm)
April 7th, 2007 at 5:00 am
I also have the Pentax 50 1.4 and it is a stunner. It’s always on now, my 16-45 has become a backup.
April 7th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I bought this the Canon 50mm f/1.8 back in january and I love it. For the budding, budget conscious photographer, you just can’t go wrong. The auto focus motor is pretty cheap, so I focus manually 100% of the time, but the optics are sharp as can be…
Of course the 1.5 is much nicer, but weather it’s worth the extra money depends on your budget and need for clean auto focus.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Nikkor 50mm AF f1.8
Nikkor 105mm Micro AF f2.8
Nikkor 180mm AF f2.8
These lenses are oldtimers. All from ‘90.
I also have the Nikkor 18-70 AF-S. My wife prefers the zoom lens but I prefer primes.
April 11th, 2007 at 1:26 am
As a new Photographer (Canon) I find myself a little confused with all of the options out there. I have 2 daughters that play several indoor and outdoor sports. We go to the lake a lot (wake-boarding). I’m a stickler about photo quality. I’m thinking about a 50mm 1.8 Prime for portraits, 85mm 1.8 or 2.8 for some of the middle of the road stuff and a 70-200 2.8 for indoor and outdoor sports. I aslo read very good reviews on the 24-70 2.8 also…so many options so little experience. any suggestions?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I use a Canon 400D, and because I have the opportunity to take a fair few pictures of theatres and gigs I’m a big fan of prime lenses. Currently have EF 50mm f/1.8 II and EF 100mm f/2, and hopefully getting the EF 28mm f/1.8 soon for wider angle shots. Wouldn’t mind the 100mm macro either, but that’ll have to wait.
Limited resources means my zooms are all of aperture f/3.5 or f/4 to f/5.6 when at full reach. They’re great the outdoors, but as soon as I’m inside I find zoom a lot less useful than the low light capabilities. The other month I was in a really dim room and cracked ISO up to 1600 and my 50mm wide open. Sure the shots were a little noisy, but the guy next to me couldn’t believe I was getting enough light for anything.
And oh, they’re so much sharper than my zooms.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:00 am
I have the 100mm f/2.8 macro and absolutely love it! It’s on my camera more than any other lens right now. I have just purchased the 50mm f/1.8 and have heard good things about it. Would I be able to use this for groups shots at a wedding?
May 10th, 2007 at 5:04 am
Hi Brian, just to answer your question about the 50 mm :
it’s for portrait and narrow areas; you can get two people in the shot, but beware the bokeh effect in wide aperture (you don’t want one of the subjects to be out of focus). It’s not large enough to get group shots in good conditions. You’ll have to walk back ten steps to shoot lol!
Good shooting!
Bye,
eden
June 24th, 2007 at 2:39 am
It should be mentioned that in old-school photography, on a 35 mm camera a 50 mm lens was called ‘normal’, because the field of image approximates that of a of person with normal peripheral vision. It sounds like the 50 mm lens mentioned here is really a portrait lens, and that a ‘normal’ lens for a digital camera would be something less than 50 mm. So your collection of ‘favorites’ doesn’t include a normal lens? BTW, when I choose to employ my old Canon A1, I use a fast normal lens to combat lazy photographer syndrome: no telephoto tricks allowed (or digital ones, either, for that matter).
July 31st, 2007 at 1:12 am
canon 50mm f/1.8, looking forward to upgrade to f/1.2
canon 300mm f/4 L IS (awesome lens with good value for money)
one thing though that I haven’t seen anyone mention is that ideally you should pursue a logarithmic coverage of the focal lenghts. Example: 0..2..5..10..20..50..100.. and so on. If you check the field of view in each of these focal lengths, you will find that you get evenly spread field of view increments.
However, this does not apply at wide angles, since even the slightest difference in focal length produces a dramatic effect in field of view. This is why I’m saving for the Canon 16-35mm for wide-angle, followed by the above-mentioned upgrade.
Above 50 mm I own an 80-200 and the 300L. I haven’t found the need to cover outside these focals (well, I wouldn’t decline a 400mm, mind u).
Bottom line: zooms are necessary only at wide angles should covering the entire focal range be your only goal.
Situations where you can’t move a lot can prove challenging if not even impossible to deal with, but I prefer having high quality primes for a good price rather than compromise quality for those few rare occasions where zooming is imperative.
On another note, primes also offer superior sealing and ruggedness. For adequate protection against dust and impurities on a zoom lens, you may find yourself paying a hefty price.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Have a Pentax K10D and am just getting into photography.
Started out with the kit zoom lens, and it was fine but pictures often looked similar to my point and shoot.
Then I bought the FA50mm f1.4 and love it to death, the low aperture makes it a joy to shoot indoors and at night time. Now I am wanting to get a bit wider on my people shots.
So I just ordered the Sigma 20mm f1.8. hope it makes me happy!
September 5th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
i was using the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 on my eos 300d for more than a year and i wanted to see how its like working with a prime.
Got the 50mm f1.8 mII about six months ago and i never used the kit lens ever again.- i have to admit that there are some issues with this lens ,poor bokeh and slight backfocus at wide apertures (i heard that’s not uncommon with this lens) but the image quality is SUPERB for the price tag (you might wanna consider getting the hood as well cause this lens is prone to flare, the loss of contrast is huge when the sun hits the front element under certain angles). get a decent prime and you’ll be amazed what you’re camera is capable of :)
December 7th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Prime lenses are visibly more sharper and tend to be better choices when you want to shoot with open apertures. Zoom lenses get expensive even at f/2.8, while you can still get primes with 1.8 and 1.4 for quite a bargain.