All-Prime setup?

[Headshotzx]

Hey everyone! Recently I was reading POTN (Photography on the net) and came across a thread regarding an all-prime setup, so I thought of creating a thread here.

Personally, I love my 50 1.8 more than I like 17-40. The weight savings, price savings, wider max aperture and better IQ (of course, zooms like 70-200L are really close) really make me want to go all-primes.

However, and this is a big 'however', I want to question ppl out there with some questions:

If you shoot all-primes, do you in anyway feel extremely restricted in the sense that you have to constantly keep moving closer/further? I don't have much practice with primes because all I've used is the 50 1.8, but if you were to get a whole setup with primes:

24, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200 (not necessarily all L)

will you feel restricted or feel better because of the perfection in image quality that you get?

This is totally related to my 70-200 decision because I've asked quite a few people (non-SG / CS photographers included) and those that don't have the 70-200 don't seem to dream of the lens, but those that have the 70-200 don't seem to be constantly wanting to use primes they have cept for special shoots, preferring rather to grab the 70-200 rather than 3 primes.

Oh yes, and we all know that the dream prime setup is the 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 100macro, 135L, 200 f/2L, 300 2.8L, 400 2.8L, 500L, 600L and now the 800L, but I doubt anyone short of being the most profitable professional or a rich guy would afford it all =)

The following is slightly personal/offtopic, but here goes:
For the price of a 70-200 2.8IS, I can get the 85 1.8, 135 2L and 200 2.8L - Is this a justifiable purchase to the majority of shooters out there? I can replace the 200 2.8L with a 70-200 f/4IS (big top up from me), but will lose f/2.8 at 200mm--- Worth it to you?

Hope this thread brings about some interesting discussions =)

[sprewell]

OK this is a little off topic but it depends on what you shoot really.

Very often i have the temptation to sell my 2470 to buy 24,35,50,85 (Non- Ls) and 100 Macro.

If i were you i will go for primes.

[adamadam]

Originally Posted by sprewell OK this is a little off topic but it depends on what you shoot really. Very often i have the temptation to sell my 2470 to buy 24,35,50,85 (Non- Ls) and 100 Macro. If i were you i will go for primes.

Do it do it!

I'm prime infected, f/2.8 doesn't feel fast enough. I shoot to pleasure myself, so it's ok

[Garion]

It all boils down to personal preference and usage, really. For me, somehow I just feel that zooms are more convenient, especially for fast moving events where versatility is needed. But given time and space to use (i.e foot zoom), primes definitely have the edge over zooms, in terms of speed, bokeh, IQ, sharpness (and the list goes on), etc. The 24, 35, 50 (1.4), and 85 (all non Ls) would make a nice, affordable and portable setup. You can also throw in a 100mm (f/2.8 macro or f/2) or 135L later on to complete your wide to mid tele prime setup.

[antacid]

for paid jobs, zooms are the way to go.

but personally i prefer primes too. i think the difference between the 85 and 135 focal length is negligible. a few steps forward, a few steps backwards will help you achieve the same framing. there's also cropping is post. so i'd just go with the 85 and thats it. i dont shoot enough beyond that length to justify another $1000 or more to get a prime above 85mm.

my current 'trio' is the 17-40 for wide, 35/2 and 85/1.8 for most shots. notice i left out the 50mm range, for the same reasons as the 85-135. oh, and it's on a 5D.

i might trade the 17-40 for the 15mm fisheye, but we'll see. will need to unload my lenses on the poor unsuspecting guys in B&S when i come back to singapore. heh heh

[mckenzy]

i don't own any Ls... but i've used 20, 28, 30(sigma), 35, 50, 85, 100(macro)

and will probably get the 135 and 200 down the line once i've saved up enough.

its a hobby more than anything else, i don't earn any money with what i take.

the main reason for this is: the kids.

in Singapore we spend alot of time indoors... f/1.4 to f/2 is very important for me to get the shot. and then you realise that you need wider lenses (hence the 20mm) coz most of us stay HDB and don't have much space.

the other reasons, i take people mostly, portraits if you will... in the old days i used the 85mm, perfect... now with crop body have to resort to 50mm...

i don't feel restricted at all by a fixed focal length. zoom with your legs i guess... makes you stop. think. recompose.

when i tried to use a friend's 17-40 recently, i found myself setting it at 17 and shooting the whole night away at the birthday party.

hmm... mebbe i should be looking at a 15mm sigma at this time...

nope. i don't regret moving away from zooms...

(although i do keep the 28-70 for the odd holiday or so... but mostly for practical reasons... on holiday you still to carry passport, wallet, diapers, milk bottles, travel maps... etc etc

2 cents.

[Beethoven]

It's a versatility-quality tradeoff for the most part. If you are shooting stage events/concerts in low light the prime setup would be more useful, considering the need for fast focusing and high shutter speeds. Not that a 2.8 zoom isn't fast enough, but having a 35/1.4 vs a 24-70 is a 2 stop light difference (say 1/125 vs 1/500), making all the difference when shooting say dance events or hip hop concerts.

Having said that, if u were to go for an all prime setup for events you'll need at least 2 bodies or risk missing critical shots when changing lenses. For most hobbyists though, that's quite a stretch already, especially if one body itself already sees seldom use.

[mismis]

It totally depends on what you shoot. But the prime on a body as a main + a zoom on a backup body seems intuitive to me. Fire off using the prime and if anything happens and you cant move, switch to the zoom and start shooting. Primes are lovely, zooms can be a compliment

[wanttosnap]

I think it has something to do with being minimalistic in your photography style. I mean why bother with the focus ring when all you have to do is to take a few paces front or backwards to achieve the desired composition. Also, i find that some primes are built so light-weight and fuss-free (such as the 50 1.8) that I'll just leave the zooms at home and bring the prime out instead.

I'm trying to shoot more of street photography and I find that having a big DSLR with an averaged sized zoom lens isn't exactly inconspicuous to your subject matter on the street. However, having a big DSLR with a tiny prime will help you blend in to the crowd and capture those fleeting moments. It's also a plus point when you draw your camera out from your camera bag. A short barrel means faster "draw-time"

So, that said, I don't think you need to have an all prime set-up. I have the 35mm f2 and it's a charm to use. Dreaming of the 35mm 1.4L actually because I believe that it's the focal length that I'll ever need.

Oh, just wanna say hi to Beethoven!!! Wohoo!!

Cheers!

Cheers!

[mismis]

the L primes arn't exactly 'inconspicuous' either

I use a 35L as my everyday lens and it is amazing. My supersmall/superlight setup is my xti without grip and my 35L, frankly speaking, it looks ridiculous without the grip. But thats the least conspicuous setup I have right now.

I'm not going to lie, there are times when I really wish that I had a zoom, but being able to stop down to f1.4 makes up for it many times over.

[KangS]

Its all a matter of horses for courses as mentioned. Nothing is perfect, but what is "good enough" .. ?

In rapidly changing environments, a prime can be a handicap in capturing that 'moment'. And in most cases, zooms do compromise a little of 'ultimate picture quality' for that bit more of flexibility.

If looking at a full prime set-up, I would look at the following :

Olympus 21mm f/2.0, Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, Canon 35mm f/1.4 L, Canon 50mm f/1.2L, Canon 85mm f/1.8, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon 135mm f/2 L add in an Olympus 250mm f/2.5.

Pretty odd combinations perhaps, but they are chosen based on flexibility as well as quality of image reproduction.

[calebk]

I am also a prime lover, but I will say that there is really no substitute for a versatile zoom, especially on events, unless, as what others already said, you have a second body.

That said, primes are discreet, usually faster than zooms, mostly cheaper, and usually also sharper.

Discreet. I love it when you can put it into a simple insert (even a pro-sized body) with a short, small prime and stuff it into a normal messenger bag with other stuff. Your *compact* set up. Hehe. It's also great on the street. Hardly anyone gives you a second glance if its in your hand, as compared to a big zoom like the 24-105 or 24-70.

Fast. My favourite prime, the 35/2 is one stop faster than my fastest zoom, and one stop faster than most fast zooms. Great for those single-light tungsten-lit restaurants, when you don't want to use flash to spoil the ambience (or your flash isn't corrected for tungsten light colour balance). I shot a friend's birthday party with just that and a 30D pumped to ISO1600. I'm pretty sure even a f/2.8 zoom wouldn't fare very well in such a situation.

Cheaper. A fast prime, like the 35 f/2, is practically 25% the price of a 24-70, and one stop faster. Granted, the versatility is not as much there. Also, the 50mm f/1.8 II is another good example of a cheap and very good lens. Sharp and lightweight. For its price point, you really have not much to complain about.

Sharper. Because of their simpler design, primes are mostly sharper than zooms. Nowadays, this no longer holds true, with many excellent zooms (like the 70-200 range) rivalling the quality of most primes in that focal range for sharpness, but if you are wanting a cheap, fast and sharp lens, then primes are really a good choice.

[Headshotzx]

Well, I guess the pros of a setup like this would be the price savings, wider apertures and less noticed at times.. but versatility will take a big hit if the shooter doesn't have 2 bodies.

To cover the 'range' of the 70-200, my guess would be 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8.. They cost the same as the 70-200 2.8IS, but I can spread the cost out over a few months, like maybe buy the 85 + 135 together, then get a 200 a few months later. Sounds reasonable yea?

If I'm ever going to go the all primes way, I'll probably go with the 50 f/1.8 (Which I have), 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2L, sigma150macro, 200 f/2.8L, 300mm f/4LIS or 400mm f/5.6L, and get a 1.4x tele converter for use on the longer lenses.

I'm quite puzzled though. To get the range of 100-400L (S$2550), a buyer would need to purchase 100 f/2, 135 f/2, 200 f/2.8, 300 f/4IS, 400 f/5.6, which adds up to about S$7k. Biiiiiig price difference haha.

[KangS]

Originally Posted by Headshotzx I'm quite puzzled though. To get the range of 100-400L (S$2550), a buyer would need to purchase 100 f/2, 135 f/2, 200 f/2.8, 300 f/4IS, 400 f/5.6, which adds up to about S$7k. Biiiiiig price difference haha.

Actually, you only need the first 3 and add in a 2X teleconvertor! And tada... !
You get the equivalent focal length with the equivalent apertures too!

But on a separate note, they are totally different applications. The 100-400 is really just for wide ranging shooting distances within a single session. Things like outdoor sports events/ concerts, and even airshows. Not that suitable if you use primes.

[Garion]

Originally Posted by Headshotzx I'm quite puzzled though. To get the range of 100-400L (S$2550), a buyer would need to purchase 100 f/2, 135 f/2, 200 f/2.8, 300 f/4IS, 400 f/5.6, which adds up to about S$7k. Biiiiiig price difference haha.

In this range, it depends on what u gonna use the lens for. After 200mm, prime lenses start getting into pretty expensive territory....even the cheaper ones cost at least 2k+. The 100-400mm is sorta a general purpose lens mainly used for sports and wildlife shooters. The main plus point of this lens is its zoom coverage. However, most users tend to use it around 300mm and above....some have it perpetually stuck at 400mm, esp. the bird shooters. IMO, you don't need to spend so much to get all the primes mentioned in your list, to get the same kind of coverage. You can cut down the no. by purchasing a 135L and a 300 f4L IS, and throw in a 1.4x extender into the list. This would give you 135, 190, 300 and 420. But the combined cost would be more than just getting the 100-400L alone. So, in all practicality, for this kinda range getting the zoom would make more financial sense. (unless u have the money to burn lar!).

[Benosaurous]

i always wonder how bird shooters take their photos with prime 600mm L. Do they always be on the move around? as you cant zoom? interested to see 1 in action.

[Garion]

Originally Posted by Benosaurous i always wonder how bird shooters take their photos with prime 600mm L. Do they always be on the move around? as you cant zoom? interested to see 1 in action.

Bird photography = the longest lens you can manpack on your back without breaking it. For 90% of bird shooters, the longest often = not long enuff. It is usually very rare to have a bird fill at least 40% of your viewfinder....unless you are camouflaged in a bird hide or you are shooting at the bird park.

[Benosaurous]

so that means they will try to take the sharpest image, even it dont fill 20% of the viewfinder, and then... cropped it to show it full size?

[calebk]

Originally Posted by Benosaurous i always wonder how bird shooters take their photos with prime 600mm L. Do they always be on the move around? as you cant zoom? interested to see 1 in action.

Serious birders usually find themselves not using anything shorter than 300 to 400mm focal lengths and usually anything above 400mm is a prime already.

[Headshotzx]

I also notice something trivial about having an all-prime lens lineup-- P&S shooters and normal friends would usually want to use a zoom lens if they are to borrow your camera. When I have my 50 1.8 mounted onto the 400D, almost everyone who wanted to borrow my camera for a few minutes asked to use my 17-40L zoom instead =X