With the quality of today's pro lenses (14-24, 24-70, 70-200 + Micro's and super teles) and the ISO performance of the pro dSLRs why is Nikon still making 2.8 and faster primes. What advantage do the primes have over these workhorses? Personally I don't see it.
Does Nikon need to make prime lenses?
(66 posts) (29 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Newfie said:
With the quality of today's pro lenses (14-24, 24-70, 70-200 + Micro's and super teles) and the ISO performance of the pro dSLRs why is Nikon still making 2.8 and faster primes. What advantage do the primes have over these workhorses? Personally I don't see it.They are lighter and a less costly option to get a fast and sharp lens. Alright you are shooting something inside, like a function with moving people, that 1 or 2 stops can make all the difference, your flash can expose a bigger area
I used to go out and shoot with my old 50mm on a film camera, I enjoyed the challenge of only having that lens to work with. That would be 35mm on DX cameras. I think I am going to try that with my new 50mm (75mm ff) and see what kind of shots I can find
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm not sure about the less costly part. Just add up what it would cost to replace the 24-70 for example. As for weight, that one lens probably weighs less than the three or more you would have to tote around if you used primes.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Newfie said:
I'm not sure about the less costly part. Just add up what it would cost to replace the 24-70 for example. As for weight, that one lens probably weighs less than the three or more you would have to tote around if you used primes.I don't use primes, I only use one that I like for certain things, I prefer fast zooms with fast AF if they can do what they need to, they are tools, also my 50mm can become a macro lens with bellows or extension rings
If you don't have one get a cheap 50mm F1.8 the lens works greatPete
Posted 3 years ago # -
On dpr a sony user asks why do manufacturers keep putting in viewfinders when they have become so redundant ...yes it was a dslr forum.
Of these 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 + Micro's and super teles which one can you buy for $150 and under 1kg (D90 body is 620g)
If you like (as I do) 20mm 28mm 35mm and 100mm as FLs then what good are the other FLs when simon says "take one step forward", and Simon says "take one step back".
Before going on a day trip, I decide what I want to take, always the zf100 but sometimes I'll swicharoo the others to mix it up a bit. So this means one on the body and one or two in a pocket ...a coat pocket (or maybe my 40mm pancake in my jeans pocket). To do this with the trinity will require me to carry 3.2kg plus the d90 = approx 4kg and a larger and heavier bag.
I do accept that Nikon primes have fallen behind at the wider end ...but (and here come the groans) thats why some of us (me) buy other brands and only one of these 3rd party brands can be compared to the Nikon zoom trinity.
Lastly (I can hear you groaning again) I like MF, I prefer MF (for now) so for some this (unbelievable I know) is also a valid reason.
One more (groan, always one more with this guy, I hear you mumble) I love street photography and do not want to use a cannon where I can be a sniper instead.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The reason I would still use prime lenses is the opportunity to get faster apertures. No matter how good a 70-200/2.8 is, it cannot have the depth of field of an 85/1.4 at 85mm. There are also times where those two stops can be critical.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Newfie said:
With the quality of today's pro lenses (14-24, 24-70, 70-200 + Micro's and super teles) and the ISO performance of the pro dSLRs why is Nikon still making 2.8 and faster primes. What advantage do the primes have over these workhorses? Personally I don't see it.mb said:
People buying those lenses could not care less; they do not use them to make photos anyway but to brag about it.Posted 3 years ago # -
Who brags about what?
Posted 3 years ago # -
I don't know about other people, but my primes serve a special purpose - macro or very low light capability with shallow depth of field.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Newfie - to some point I do agree with ya, some primes no longer in need
- money wise if u still want to cover range of one zoom lens you need 2-3 lenses and it will end up to be more
- weight - oh plz go to gym get some muscles
- practicality - zoom zoom zoom all the way
- quality of the end result - have to say the primes that I tried were far better thn the zooms that I used
- wide angle primes are far cheaper thn AFS alternatives---in short
if you need special purpose low light lens you probly will end up with prime (i know I did)
for everything else GOOD zoom is better alternative (just an opinion)Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah, I like primes too, but in my opinion, Nikon needs wide primes for DX and FX. Preferably, I'd love a wide DX prime with the price of the 35mm DX.
Posted 3 years ago # -
NSXType-R said:
Yeah, I like primes too, but in my opinion, Nikon needs wide primes for DX and FX. Preferably, I'd love a wide DX prime with the price of the 35mm DX.Yes but wide primes have always been very expensive and some of the wide zooms have really gotten their act together: like the 14-24 2.8 is really sharp, there is no wide primes that can beat it, except for being smaller, even Canon Pro's prefer it over their 14mm lens
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
bmxdad said:
Yes but wide primes have always been very expensive and some of the wide zooms have really gotten their act together: like the 14-24 2.8 is really sharp, there is no wide primes that can beat it, except for being smaller, even Canon Pro's prefer it over their 14mm lensPete
I'm hoping that Nikon engineers pull something together to put together a cheap high performing wide lens though.
Is the 24-70 considered a prime lens? A prime needs to be fixed focal length, no?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Short answer: Yes.
Less short answer: With the odd exception (12–24mm [edit: this should have read 14–24mm], I'm lookin' at you) primes still deliver superior IQ. Plus, big apertures! I love all things fast, and f/2.8 is not that. Good luck trying to pry my 85mm f/1.4 out of my cold, dead hands.
Posted 3 years ago # -
For me, using a prime lens is a bit like driving a manual gear shift car.
Instead, using a zoom feels like driving an automatic.
Moreover, when I use a prime, I prefer to focus manually :D
Even when an AFD or AFS version exists, I think I'll prefer the AI(S) for the comfortable touch & feel of its focusing ring.
I also agree that 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 105VR are superb lenses, but they are like supercars in the world of nikkor lenses and although I use them for my work, I tend to use primes when I want to go out with my kids (50 f/1.4 for instance). Much smaller form factor than a 24-70 or a 17-55 and much more discrete for street photography, which is a must. I'm happy that Nikon still produce manual focus primes, btw.(aren't they?)Posted 3 years ago # -
optimaforever said:
For me, using a prime lens is a bit like driving a manual gear shift car.
Instead, using a zoom feels like driving an automatic.
Moreover, when I use a prime, I prefer to focus manually :D
Even when an AFD or AFS version exists, I think I'll prefer the AI(S) for the comfortable touch & feel of its focusing ring.
I also agree that 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 105VR are superb lenses, but they are like supercars in the world of nikkor lenses and although I use them for my work, I tend to use primes when I want to go out with my kids (50 f/1.4 for instance). Much smaller form factor than a 24-70 or a 17-55 and much more discrete for street photography, which is a must. I'm happy that Nikon still produce manual focus primes, btw.(aren't they?)Sure they do. Just turn off the AF and you get a manual focus prime!
Posted 3 years ago # -
50mm f/1.8 is one of the best lenses I have ever tried. Sharp, light, very well built and it costs around 120 last time I checked. Better than 10 times more expensive 17-55, not as versatile but sharper and brighter.
I would like more lenses like this one, not some way overpriced 50 years old Zeiss design.Posted 3 years ago # -
And I prefere my 24-70 above any prime in this range. Had once N50/1.4 and it wasn't even close to the sharpness of 24-70. As for prices, sure 1 prime gonna cost You less, but once You add all the lenses needed to cover the same range as in zoom the difference will be much more acceptable, not to mention weight gains and flexibility.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I started photography using the kit lens, and I have used a few friends nicer zooms like the 17-55 as well.
However, I have fallen in love with my 35 1.8. I find the lack of zoom limits my speed in some ways but overall I feel it has made me a much better photographer.
I like the shallow dof (and probably overuse it) but I also just like zooming with my feet.. I didn't think it would be true but primes really do force you to think more about composition. I feel like with a zoom I can take a snapshot of anything, but with the 35 1.8 I have to think a hell of a lot more before I really "make" my picture.
I want to try an 85mm prime sometime and see how it feels!Posted 3 years ago # -
@moregan17 — If you like shallow DOF with your 35mm f/1.8, you'll LOVE what you can do with an 85mm prime.
@adamz — I assume you had the 50mm f/1.4 AF? I'd be very surprised to hear your 24–70 was significantly sharper at the same aperture. I haven't used the 24–70, but the 50mm f/1.4 AF is a very solid lens.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Why Prime?
There are a few exceptional zooms and there might be some primes in the range of those zooms that perform not so good under certain conditions but as a whole primes are sharper, simpler/lighter and less expensive than a zoom which includes that focal length in its range. Certainly there is still plenty of market for "normal" primes (for sure more than DC and PC lenses) thus won't disappear any time soon.Why wide aperture lenses?
Allows for more narrow DOF at a given Frame/Magnification if needed.
Faster, more accurate AF performance.
Even with increasing high ISO performance of cameras the large aperture lenses can go
darker at a given ISO for an equivalent shot than their smaller max. aperture brethren, only complete darkness may draw the line :)Posted 3 years ago # -
tai said:
@moregan17 — If you like shallow DOF with your 35mm f/1.8, you'll LOVE what you can do with an 85mm prime.@adamz — I assume you had the 50mm f/1.4 AF? I'd be very surprised to hear your 24–70 was significantly sharper at the same aperture. I haven't used the 24–70, but the 50mm f/1.4 AF is a very solid lens.
yep, I had the 50/1.4 and like I wrote before my 24-70/2.8 is a sharper lens than my 50/1.4 was, not to mention the AF speed difference; the only two pros that I see in 50/1.4 is faster aperture (2 stops) and weight/size
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
Thank you for saying that, I agree!nau said:
- weight - oh plz go to gym get some muscles
tai said:
Short answer: Yes.Less short answer: With the odd exception (12-24mm, I'm lookin' at you) primes still deliver superior IQ. Plus, big apertures! I love all things fast, and f/2.8 is not that. Good luck trying to pry my 85mm f/1.4 out of my cold, dead hands.
The 12-24 I think is a tad soft and I wish I'd gotten the Tokina version as I hear it's IQ is a bit better.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
