Prime Lens


Status
Not open for further replies.

edwinlimlx

New Member
Jan 2, 2008
171
0
0
#22
I've made myself clearer.. keke... pls read the first post again..
 

m3lv1nh0

Senior Member
Sep 24, 2007
2,225
0
0
40
Serangoon North
#23
Think I didn't make myself clear the first time, Sorry about that.

I mean, able to recommend both a budget series and high end series? using Canon 40D here. More of Landscape shooting for traveling trips.
If for landscapes, I dun think prime lens is suitable. A good WA lens like Canon 10-20mm or EFS 17-55, 17-40L, 24-105L is better.
For low budget ones, Sigma 10-20 or Tamron 17-50.
 

edwinlimlx

New Member
Jan 2, 2008
171
0
0
#24
If for landscapes, I dun think prime lens is suitable. A good WA lens like Canon 10-20mm or EFS 17-55, 17-40L, 24-105L is better.
For low budget ones, Sigma 10-20 or Tamron 17-50.
Yup, aiming for Canon 10-20mm too. But would want a Prime lens for general purposes.
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#25
Initially when i first started out for SLR photography, i always thought that zooms are better as they're more versatile as primes cannot zoom when u want to get closer or further away.

But now i finally reliased what's so gd abt a prime lens. It trains u as u've to use your feet to move in or out to compose your picture without using a zoom. In addition, primes have awesome sharpness. :)
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#26
Yup, aiming for Canon 10-20mm too. But would want a Prime lens for general purposes.
i suppose what u r asking is how much does a cheap prime cost and how much does an expensive prime cost, supposedly both are value for money at their respective performance?

but anyway, prime dun serve general purposes, as magnification and distance will definitely alternate with each other.

for what you mentioned, as for 1.5-1.6x crop factor, i suppose a 20 to 35mm range should be suitable.
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#27
Initially when i first started out for SLR photography, i always thought that zooms are better as they're more versatile as primes cannot zoom when u want to get closer or further away.

But now i finally reliased what's so gd abt a prime lens. It trains u as u've to use your feet to move in or out to compose your picture without using a zoom. In addition, primes have awesome sharpness. :)
but there is a limit to how much the feet can move though within the same time frame of changing focal length. i think the merit of prime is on its weight, price and optical quality rather than for its lack of range.
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#28
but there is a limit to how much the feet can move though within the same time frame of changing focal length. i think the merit of prime is on its weight, price and optical quality rather than for its lack of range.
Primes can be very cheap or very expensive too. In addition, primes are also able to have very large apertures when compared to zooms.
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#29
In addition, primes are also able to have very large apertures when compared to zooms.
gd pt. in fact, i have really considered to replace prime over zoom if it is more value for money, although i still searching for what i want. at the moment, i'm looking at AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 versus AF-D 200mm f/2. if the latter is cheaper, i may go for it, but then it isn't and AF speed is slower. also looking for suitable 30-35mm primes to complement 50mm primes, trying new perspective out.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#30
... AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 versus AF-D 200mm f/2. if the latter is cheaper, .
Not too sure if there is an AF version but there is an AFS 200mm f/2 VR and it costs a few times more than the 80-200 or the 70-200 :confused:

Ryan
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#31
i think the merit of prime is on its weight, price and optical quality rather than for its lack of range.
If you need the convenience of the range, then several primes to make up the range will weigh more and potentially cost more
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#32
If you need the convenience of the range, then several primes to make up the range will weigh more and potentially cost more
my shooting habits seem to show that i only need certain intervals and not really fine adjustments, which is why i can consider certain primes to substitute if the weight and cost is lower (though not always possible)
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#33
gd pt. in fact, i have really considered to replace prime over zoom if it is more value for money, although i still searching for what i want. at the moment, i'm looking at AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 versus AF-D 200mm f/2. if the latter is cheaper, i may go for it, but then it isn't and AF speed is slower. also looking for suitable 30-35mm primes to complement 50mm primes, trying new perspective out.
Some pple have been doing that. I've also noticed in those photography books taken by pros, almost all of them uses prime lens instead of zooms. I suppose it's for the quality and perspective.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#34
Some pple have been doing that. I've also noticed in those photography books taken by pros, almost all of them uses prime lens instead of zooms. I suppose it's for the quality and perspective.
Most are because of the aperture.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom