May12
The Case Against “Prime” Lenses
Prime lenses = Bad.
Zoom lenses = Good.
No — it’s hardly that simple. And before you gear up your flame-throwing responses on the keyboard, hear me out.
“Prime” lenses, for those of you who may not know, are the sorta like the opposite of “Zoom” lenses. A prime lens is a fixed focal length. They are often, but not always, expensive. They are almost always sharper than zoom lenses. And they are frequently “faster” than zoom lenses - meaning they are capable of wider maximum apertures allowing them to suck light in fast. That’s a fantastic thing to have in a low-light situation. In essence, a prime lens in whatever focal length - say 85mm - can usually do just about everything better at 85mm than a zoom lens fixed at 85mm could.
For example, both Canon and Nikon make superb 85mm prime lenses. Both are very fast - and very sharp. And they are ideal portrait lenses with exceptionally beautiful “bokeh.” Bokeh is essentially the blur caused when a wider aperture and/or longer focal length are used. And in any case, because both of these lenses are designed essentially to do one thing and do it well, they are outstanding and can produce wonderfully beautiful images.
So prime lenses are sharp and fast and can help create amazingly beautiful images. They also often weigh less than zoom lenses, which is no small thing since if you’re like me, you haul around no less than 15,000 pounds of camera gear. Seriously. I weighed it.
But if all this is true, why on earth would I title this post “The Case Against Primes?” Aside from the fact that I’m a cantankerous mood, here’s my view:
There is no question prime lenses are wonderful. And they are a challenge to learn to use effectively - which is a good thing. But I have come to the conclusion that there are essentially two types of photographers out there (and it’s photographers I’m talking about here - not casual point-and-shooters).
PHOTOGRAPHER TYPE ONE
Photographer Type One is obsessed with image quality at all costs. He or she is highly technically-minded and knowledgeable when it comes to precise control over an image.
PHOTOGRAPHER TYPE TWO
More of an artist, and less of a technician. Rules of composition and form are usually followed, of course, but style and subject matter outweigh questions of whether an image is as sharp as it could be, or whether the bokeh is just right.
Neither of these two types are bad in my view. While I’m a technically-minded person in most aspects of life, I tend toward Type Two in my photography. But both types represent polar ends and the best photographers lie somewhere around the equator.
The thing is, I do think as photographers we run the risk of focusing so much on the technical aspects of what we do - cameras are complicated, after all, compared to a paintbrush - and forgetting that what we are doing is making images.
I’m a journalist and I can tell you that it is fairly unusual to see a photojournalist armed with a prime lens. Why? Because there’s no time to swap out lenses every few seconds. So a prime lens might offer a sharper shot, but what does that matter if the shot disappears while installing it? In photojournalism, and in life, seconds can make all the difference.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I love primes and they have their place. Macro work. Landscapes. Fixed portraits. If you are interested in these areas, they are essential.
But for walk-around use, zooms are undoubtedly better.
Thoughts? Flames? Leave a comment.
Popularity: 7% [?]
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed!
photographyVoter.com May 12th 2007 at 11:21 pm 1
The Case Against “Prime†Lenses | Photographer’s Journey.com…
Think prime lenses are better than zooms? Reconsider….
Peter Costello May 13th 2007 at 07:24 am 2
Nice Post.
I’ve read a lot about Primes of late and have been thinking about getting a 50mm fixed focus lens but your post has made me think twice. I hadn’t thought about it in terms of missed opportunity. I currently have a standard 18-55 and a 50-200 zoom, neither of which I’m particularly happy with. In truth I would love a faster lens that covered the whole focal range. Not going to happen though.
My issue with these two lenses is that their not particularly fast and I need to swap them out quite a bit when out taking photos. The speed of prime lenses was what intrigued me, but thought of having another lens to swap out because of focal length restrictions is too much.
Thanks
The Case Against “Prime†Lenses at Imaging Insider May 13th 2007 at 01:38 pm 3
[…] Read More… […]
Rygood May 13th 2007 at 04:17 pm 4
So, although you are correct in everything your article says, the headline doesn’t accurately represent the article, which i think may be dangerous for newer photographers such as Peter, who commented above. I purchased my first prime (50mm 1.4) several months ago and i am still blown away by the quality and speed.
Yes, for a journalist, a prime would cause a world of problems because of the lack of versatility, but for a serious hobbyist or photo enthusiast, primes provide excellent results that impress more than any zoom. I went from a non-believer in primes to a supporter from the first frame i shot with one.
Peter, go out there and get that 50, you won’t regret it.
Things to Know When Buying a New Lens | Photographer's Journey.com May 17th 2007 at 08:33 am 5
[…] The Case Against “Prime” Lenses […]
Ben Jun 1st 2007 at 02:20 am 6
There is an important point that you have left out.
The case for primes was made long ago on the basis of speed and image quality. Zooms could not hold quality throughout their range. This is no longer true. There are zooms now that pros can build their careers on.
What changed?
As with so many major shifts in our lifetime, it was technology. The rise of computer-assisted design allowed lens makers to precisely calculate exactly the best lens element shapes, the best combination of movements, and how to reduce the number of elements. Computers showed not only how the lens designers could kill off problems like distortion, flare, and chromatic aberration, but also how to kill them off across each point in the entire zoom and aperture range. The same computers also help make better primes, but today’s better zooms are probably as good or better than many of yesterday’s primes.
Christopher Scholl Jun 1st 2007 at 10:07 am 7
Ben, I couldn’t agree with you more. There are some absolutely amazing zoom lenses out there. I think Canon’s 70-200 f2.8 is a great example. Nearly every detailed lens review I have read point to this lens as being the equal - or close to the equal - of any prime lens in its focal length. An amazing lens. And not surprisingly, one I see photojournalists use all the time. Of course Nikon also has some excellent lenses like this.
I think in some cases primes are still sharper. But of course, there’s a big trade-off with the lack of convenience in using them.
Tom Jul 11th 2007 at 11:40 pm 8
Henri Cartier-Bresson shot nearly all of his photos with a 50mm prime lens. Read up on him. He was a pretty good photographer.
Christopher Scholl Jul 12th 2007 at 09:09 am 9
Michael Sep 7th 2007 at 04:30 pm 10
I got my very first prime lens recently and for the cost you can not go wrong. I got my 50mm 1.8 Cannon lens for all of 74$. Its versatile and so very fast.
Yes, it’s not for every shooting situation but it makes a fabulous tool to add to your arsenal. At less than 100$ for most entry level 50mm primes, they are well worth the investment.
If you want to see what a particular focal length prime is good for, look at Flickr or some other photo sharing website for groups focusing on that lens. You will be amazed at just how versatile a prime can be.
I was originally worried that 50mm would be too narrow but you can shoot (almost) anything so long as you learn how to focus and distance yourself properly.
Christopher Scholl Sep 7th 2007 at 04:47 pm 11
Hi Michael.
You are absolutely right. That is a terrific lens and it can’t be beat for the money - especially considering how much more you’d have to pay for the 1.2. Heck, even if you drop it and it splits wide open you can still buy another for that price and come out ahead of what you’d pay for most other lenses.
I’m curious which camera you mount it on (and what sensor size).
Chris
Coast Apr 4th 2008 at 09:01 am 12
It is a bit of a pain sometimes swapping between various prime lenses.
But… unfortunately I made the ‘mistake’ of buying the Nikon 50mm f1.8 and it is so good that I now struggle to compromise and use my non-prime lenses… The sharpness is so good, that I bought the 18-200mm lens supposed to be the ‘be all and end all’ for Nikon pro-sumer lenses and was so disappointed compared to my 50mm images that I ended up selling it and having to buy a new collection of lenses again!
Christopher Scholl Apr 6th 2008 at 09:35 pm 13
I completely agree with you. And although that may come as some surprise, the fact is I could just as easily write an article titled “The Case Against Zoom Lenses”. Both sets have their strengths and their relative weaknesses. And if it’s sharpness you need - that 50mm prime will nail it tack sharp. Thanks for writing.