Iloca
Unregistered at user's request
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3800
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
I'm genuinely curious, on recent threads about m4/3rds (and 4/3rds in general) there are a good many people crying out for prime lenses. I understand that a wide to normal prime is going to make a camera much more pocketable but is there any real advantage to be gained in the overall package size if you end up carrying 2-3 prime lenses rather than something like an m4/3rds version of the 12-60 f/2.8-4?
Surely unless primes are significantly faster than f/2.8, e.g. an 12mm f/1.8 there isn't much point. Is it all about size and would you intend to simply use one lens rather than carrying a few to cover the same or greater range than a zoom?
What would your reasons be for using primes rather than zooms?
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37849
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Well there are a number of ways of looking at it, but I think that a lot of the interest is from people who were used to using rangefinders in their film days, and frequently it's possible to have a camera with lens in one pocket, and another lens or two in another pocket. They don't always have to be that fast, just as compact as possible and as high quality as possible. Some days you might take the camera and just a 35mm or 50mm equivalent, other days you might want a 21mm equivalent and a 90mm equivalent as well. I frequently used to carry my Leica CL with 40mm f2 lens in one pocket, and a 15mm, 25mm and 90mm lens in others - all a lot easier to carry than an AF SLR with standard zoom. Would I have preferred a 24-120? Frankly, no, because there's something about using such a camera that imposes a simplicity of approach - real point and shooting, actually. It's hard to explain if you've not actually tried it for yourself. Oh, and incidentally it works just as well with a FED 2 as with a Leica.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9463
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Traditionally primes always delivered far better image quality than zooms - particularly in terms of resolution and contrast. Today the difference probably isn't quite so clear cut especially when you consider the abilities of the pro spec models - albeit at a cost. Certainly the resolution and image quality of the 28-70 f2.8 Sigma I own are very close to prime and the 10-20 and 17-70 are not far behind. Nevertheless I would still have to say that I think both still fall an appreciable, though not intolerable, degree short of the simple and dirt cheap 50mm f1.8 or 28mm f2.8 primes I own.
If there is an issue with zooms where they are still well behind primes it's in their 'drawing' ability. The optical compromises required for zoom does leave them more vulnerable to distortion issues. Primes are generally easier to optimise for minimum distortion as you are generally dealing with a far tighter focal range - a few mm of focusing rather than tens of mm...
Zooms also tend to be bulky and the faster the bulkier - my 28-70 is enormous compared to the slower variable aperture 28-105 Canon. With modern SLRs this is not generally an issue although personally I find very big lenses on small bodies to be awkward. On the other hand with a system intended to be ultra compact lens bulk could be more contentious. A lack of grip area could make handling with large lenses tricky...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15456
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
Well there are a number of ways of looking at it, but I think that a lot of the interest is from people who were used to using rangefinders in their film days, and frequently it's possible to have a camera with lens in one pocket, and another lens or two in another pocket. They don't always have to be that fast, just as compact as possible and as high quality as possible. Some days you might take the camera and just a 35mm or 50mm equivalent, other days you might want a 21mm equivalent and a 90mm equivalent as well. I frequently used to carry my Leica CL with 40mm f2 lens in one pocket, and a 15mm, 25mm and 90mm lens in others - all a lot easier to carry than an AF SLR with standard zoom. Would I have preferred a 24-120? Frankly, no, because there's something about using such a camera that imposes a simplicity of approach - real point and shooting, actually. It's hard to explain if you've not actually tried it for yourself. Oh, and incidentally it works just as well with a FED 2 as with a Leica.
WHS.
I quite like just working with a two-lens kit, even though I might own more.
Most often with a rangefinder I'll go out with a wide and a standard lens, both of which would be small enough to sit comfortably in a pocket. Surprising though it might seem, even the lenses for my Mamiya 6 are small compared to AF zooms designed for 35mm and smaller SLR systems.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
  
|
Iloca
Unregistered at user's request
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3800
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Some good point guys, thanks for the input.
I'm not sure what the best option is for my needs TBH. Yesterday I was out on the hill and carried the E-3+14-54, OM50mm f/1.8 and EC-1.4. Really I'd like something lighter like an E-420 and 14-42. The problem is that the 14-42 while being smaller/lighter is also slower, the 14-54 or 12-60 pretty much negate any advantage regarding weight/bulk in using an E-420. Carrying a few primes (50mm*, 200mm*)in addition to say a 28mm* on the camera (if a 28mm prime existed) sounds like a reasonable solution (I generally use my 14-54 at 14 (28)) although it isn't always practical or desirable to be swapping lenses in a downpour.
* when I refer to 28mm etc I'm talking in terms of 35mm cameras, obviously I'd be using a 14mm. Thought I'd point that out before someone suggested the 25mm Pancake
Actually I'm really interested in a Ricoh GR-D, well I have been for some time. I must ask some question in the relevant forum 
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1179
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
I always felt that primes were going to give better results. So much so in fact that I never have owned a film zoom. However, when I bought a digital camera with a zoom it was a major revelation in convenience.
However you can't get zooms for my "serious" camera.
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9463
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
TBH I haven't really come to any kind of definitive stand on this. As you probably realise I do have a range of zooms and they I guess they do get more use than the primes. This is at least partly down to the fact that two of my primes are old Sigmas that don't function properly with the 20D. It also depends on what/where I'm photographing. If I'm in a place where the photo-opportunities may be brief and/or varied then I do tend to stick with the zoom. Where the there is time to linger or consider the image then primes may be a better choice.
I had a week in Devon during June (which happily seemed to coincide with the same week that was summer ) with my film EOS. I did take two zooms (28-70 and 70-210) but as it turned out nearly all the pictures I took on film were taken on my prime collection. Mainly this was down to a conscious decision to avoid using zoom as I largely restricted the film use to 'proper' photography (with a tripod even!) and used the Lumix compact for happy snaps. As a result it was quite refreshing to find myself forced to move about looking for a good angle/composition rather than zooming in til something looks OK...ish. I got a similar buzz from just going out with the 28mm on the camera for the last round of the Forum monthly comp.
Personally I think it would be a sad day if primes go the way of the dodo...... 
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Bone_Idle
Mr Maybe
Reged: 28/07/2006
Posts: 1390
Loc: Bradford
|
|
I'm pretty new to photography, really just getting a DSLR when my daughter was born 2 years ago, so haven't had any experience of fixed focal lengths in the past.
However, after buying an old OM10 with a 50mm prime, I was hooked. I really liked the simplicity of it and the fact that it made me work a bit harder to get the shot I wanted.
I eventually sold the OM10, but since then I've bought a few Canon EOS film bodies, the lens I mainly use on them is the 50mm f/1.8 (even though I have a Tele Zoom and a 19-33mm Zoom).
I've also got the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for my Olympus, and I love it.
I think the appeal of my primes is the simplicity of a fixed focal lengh and the speed of the lenses (both the f/1.4 and f/1.8).
--------------------
Thanks
Nick
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 3024
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
For me, prime lenses are about speed, quality, simplicity and compactness, with bright viewfinder images which snap in and out of focus.
I find there is also a unique pleasure in using a fast primes which has nothing to do with quality per se, but is more to do with a feeling of getting closer to the roots of photography. For me, a prime lens is good, but using a prime lens and waist level finder is sublime, and even transcends the joy of taking a roll of freshly developed (and even correctly exposed) Velvia out of the processing tank!
On a more practical level, for days out I will often take only my OM4Ti with Zuiko 35 mm f2.0, which I find a lovely lens to use. I did once buy a 28 to 70 mm zoom for it, but I never felt happy with the zoom, and sold it after a few months.
I think there is also something rather magical about the look of big glass elements in some of these lenses, and the feeling of a small but high quality package.
If I could buy a fast prime for my E1 I would, but it would need to be the equivalent of a 50 mm 'standard' lens, preferably f1.8 or faster; or better still, a 35 mm f2.0 equivalent.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4967
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
For me, prime lenses are about speed, quality, simplicity and compactness, with bright viewfinder images which snap in and out of focus.
Agreed. To which one could add, lens hoods which shield the lens properly and simplicity of operation - no zoom ring to twist by accident, or creep when the camera's held with the optical axis pointing up or down at a significant angle.
The extra speed isn't that much of an issue these days, but the freedom from distortion, and from flare because of the reduced number of surfaces (providing the coating is done properly), is another attractive factor.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
