time to go prime?

[quazimoto]

I wanted to get some opinions from you all and if many of you were feeling the same way or not. Recently more than ever I find myself shoot primes when it comes to lower focal lengths and rarely pulling 16-35 or 24-70 out of the bag. With the release of the Nikon 24mm F1.4 lens I've really begun contemplating selling both the 16-35 and 24-70 and just using a 24mm F1.4, 50mm F1.4 and an 85mm F1.4.

I think most of this boils down to the fact that I could sell the two lenses and pretty much buy the 24 and 85 without losing much money. I'm beginning to find that the zooms leave so much to be desired in comparison to the prime lenses and after the wedding yesterday it' really hard to justify not doing this.

I'm really curious if many of you are in the same spot using primes the majority of the time or if you were contemplating making the same switch?

[blitz]

I'm no pro, but I pretty much only shoot primes, with the exception of a UWA zoom. My daily setup right now is:

16-35mm F4 VR
Sigma 50mm 1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.8
Nikon 85mm 2.8 PC

I'd love to add the 24mm 1.4 to that eventually and upgrade the 85mm 1.8 to a 1.4

Wouldn't shooting ceremonies and receptions be a little limiting with only primes?

[quazimoto]

Yes and no for ceremonies. I use my 70-200 VR II a lot at ceremonies and the other lenses get used very little for artsy type shots. I think that's why initially got me thinking of switching to a 24 F1.4. I have used my 24-70 in a month now.

I'm not sure how well shooting at F1.4 would work for a ceremony anyways. Most of the time I'm stopping the lenses down quite a bit and shooting at ISO 6400 for the ceremonies. I often won't shoot at F1.4 unless there is a good reason to be doing so.

I think overall I'm just finding the primes are way more sharper and much easier to use without fussing over zoom. I think I'd much rather crop an image without worrying knowing the sharpness was better than if I had the zoom anyways.

I've been reading a few different websites from professionals that go both ways, some like primes and some like zooms. I guess the first step for me is finding a 24mm F1.4 that is actually available for sale.

[AccentAE86]

There is a place and time for primes, and a place and time for zooms. I have both and would never sell zooms and replace with primes. And shooting with ridiculously thin DOF for every damn shot is played out and overdone imo. The extremely vast majority of wedding day shots will not be printed into 16x24 or larger enlargements so the sharpness difference between a prime and a good zoom vs. the flexibility you have is just not worth it to me. In general, you have a pretty darn good idea of what might be enlarged so shoot those with primes if you feel you must. Otherwise, we are not shooting 500 pieces of art for each wedding... it's mostly just documentary rather than artistic.

I use an all-prime setup only if it's ridiculously dark, or if I am having neck/back/shoulder/elbow/wrist/hand problems due to shooting too much and need a lighter weight setup to recover.

[Melinda]

I can't see myself ever giving up the flexability of a zoom lens, especially for event photography. Even 85mm is often not good enough for some shots of a wedding ceremony. My husband/shooting partner loves primes and shoots with them a lot, but even he would never give up something like the 70-200 for a wedding ceremony. Actually, last weekend I shot an entire ceremony (an outdoor one with lots of room to move around) with the 70-200. All the photos are sharp, exposed wonderfully and I have a wide range of great photos without having to be in the way of everyone watching the ceremony. Rolland used a few different lenses (including primes) and had great shots too, but there's no real difference in sharpness between the two to my eye. Certainly nothing that a client is going to bat an eye at.

Hell, even in the studio I use a zoom lens. When you're working with kids on the floor, sometimes you need to change perspectives faster than you can crawl forwards or backwards before you miss your "moment". Kids certainly don't know what it means to "hold that smile", so you need a ton more flexability in that arena. If I'm being honest. I dont think I've shot with a prime lens in more than a year, it's just not what I personally prefer. Our entire arsenal of them all belong to Rolland.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Unless you need the slightly wider apertures & razor thin DOF, I'm not sure why you would make the switch. Nikon's latest zooms are all as sharp or sharper as any primes in that range, so it really comes down to if you want wider apertures and lighter lenses. You also give up VR if you go primes, at least until the new 85 1.4 comes out with VR (assuming all current rumors are correct).

I've never shot a wedding, but I'd imagine the ability to zoom is invaluable at least some of the time, especially because you can't always choose exactly where you shoot from. The 70-200 especially is a 'bread and butter" lens. The 70-200VR II is also sharper than the 85 1.4 at 85mm, it of course just can't open up to 1.4.

When the 14-24 & 24-70 came out, a LOT of people got rid of their primes and stuck to the zooms because they were as good or better than any prime in that range. The brand new 24/1.4 is perhaps the only exception to that.

If you shoot stopped down anyways, the only advantage a prime is going to give you you is less weight.

I would suggest at least renting the primes several times and using them in the exact situations you are considering using primes in before you make your decision. Primes have their place but personally I'd never make a complete switch. You'd be changing lenses more often too, most likely.

[quazimoto]

Well my 70-200 vr2 will never go away as it is such an amazing lens. If anything I rely on it too much. I also almost never shoot wide open. Lately its been f6 or higher. Flexibility on the d3s is nice. The one issue I'm having with the 24-70 is it seems weak at 24mm.

Yesterday I had my 70-200 on my d3s and the 50mm on the d3x and it worked so well. I think it might help if I could try a 24mm 1.4 out first. I'm beginning to seriously lean away flower focal length zooms I think though.

You both raise good points which is why I'm not sure lol.

[quazimoto]

Not really. The 50mm 1.4 sigma was destroying my 24-70 even at f2. I'd only shoot ceremonies at f4 or higher as I'm almost always at iso 3200 to 6400. The 70-200 vr2 is worth its weight in gold though and is relied upon heavily.

[D'z Nutz]

The only zoom I own is on my P&S camera. Other than that, I haven't owned a zoom in quite a few years. My rangefinders only have primes. My medium format cameras only have primes. My 4x5 camera only has primes. So naturally, my SLRs only have primes. I certainly see the benefits and flexibilities of zooms, but fast primes works best for me and it's what I'm comfortable with and I don't see myself wanting any zooms in the near future. I guess I'm one of those played out and overdone photogs AccentAE86 is referring to cause I like thin DOF haha

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by quazimoto
Not really. The 50mm 1.4 sigma was destroying my 24-70 even at f2. I'd only shoot ceremonies at f4 or higher as I'm almost always at iso 3200 to 6400. The 70-200 vr2 is worth its weight in gold though and is relied upon heavily.

I wonder if you don't have a good copy of the 24-70 then, if the Sigma 50 was actually that much better than it at f2. They should be closer to the same if anything.

Maybe rent the 24/1.4 and see how you like it if you aren't completely satisfied by the 24-70.

[quazimoto]

Well that's just it I think the 24-70 is a good lens but it's nothing spectacular. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 is one of the sigma lenses I can't knock since it is so good. I've been renting the 50mm and 85mm lenses the past few weeks and have been in love with them as it seems my life and job are easier. I would love to rent a 24mm F1.4 if I could find a place that had it for rent. It's hard enough to find available for sale.

I took this picture at F2 just for the idea. The DOF doesn't seem that bad by the time you get to F2 to F2.8 and even then the lens is so much sharper at F2.8. I don't think we could expect the zooms to be as good as a prime though.

http://www.khphotography.ca/sampleb.jpg

[EvolizePhoto]

I know alot of photographers that make 6 digits off weddings every summer, and there isn't a single one that owns any kind of zoom. They all shoot primes.

I also shoot with primes only as well. Only lenses I have are my 28 2.8 and 50 1.8. Might not help much with your question(s) , just thought id post it

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by EvolizePhoto
I know alot of photographers that make 6 digits off weddings every summer, and there isn't a single one that owns any kind of zoom. They all shoot primes.

And there's plenty that make six figures shooting only zooms too. I'm sorry, but this argument makes no sense...and basing any decision on what some photographers you know make a lot of money doing is silly. It's like saying I know several sports shooters making a lot of money shooting canon, so clearly it's the only way to shoot sports. Perhaps the problem is that you don't know enough wedding photographers.

Never having shot a wedding, or contemplated shooting a wedding, I wouldn't claim to know the requirements of a wedding photographer, but I would think for ceremony I would want a zoom if I were to attempt it, and formals I would probably shoot with a prime, since it's easier to tell the wedding party to hold still while you take a step back to get the framing right in the formals than it is to ask the bride to stop for a second while she's coming down the isle...

[Gibson]

Originally posted by Go4Long

Never having shot a wedding, or contemplated shooting a wedding, I wouldn't claim to know the requirements of a wedding photographer, but I would think for ceremony I would want a zoom if I were to attempt it, and formals I would probably shoot with a prime, since it's easier to tell the wedding party to hold still while you take a step back to get the framing right in the formals than it is to ask the bride to stop for a second while she's coming down the isle...

I think the thing with exclusively using primes for weddings is that you get used to knowing exactly where you need to be according to what lens you're using.

I like primes, but for news/editorial work you have to be as versatile as possible, even ahead of straight image quality. Especially because photos printed onto newspaper tend to look terrible anyway.

[Go4Long]

alright, maybe that was a bad analogy...lol. I shoot with a big prime most of the time at the track. But there's lots of times when I wish I had a zoom, a moment that happens just out of range, or one that happens just that little bit to close, and all of a sudden I miss a great shot. Primes are great when you know what you're shooting for, but I agree with melinda, there's definitely times when a zoom is needed to recompose in a hurry.

[blitz]

I don't understand why you need to try out the 24mm 1.4 first if you only shoot stopped down. Why not either tape the zoom ring down on the 24-70mm @ 24mm and see if you miss the long end, or put on a cheaper 24mm 2.8 and see if it works for you?

You know the 24mm 1.4 is going to be extremely sharp, the real question is are you going to be comfortable with the fixed focal length.

[quazimoto]

I think that's just it though is that I would still be relying heavily on the 70-200 VRII for a lot of the shots. I could then however use a combination of a 24mm and 50mm 1.4 on my D3x. My thinking here is that I can easily crop the images even if they are not perfect knowing that I can afford to lose some resolution.

The problem I have with jumping into a $2000+ prime though is just how good it will be. I love the Nikon 85 1.4 and I'm really not fond of the Nikon 50mm 1.4. That is probably why I ended up buying the Sigma 50mm 1.4 after trying it out. I would just hate to dump that much money into one lens and then not be satisfied by it.

It's great to see though that there are others with a similar train of thought that shooting prime as much as possible.

Some of the shots that really stood out to me a lot were being shot at F16. At F16 the detail on a the prime compared to the zoom was startling.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by quazimoto
Well that's just it I think the 24-70 is a good lens but it's nothing spectacular. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 is one of the sigma lenses I can't knock since it is so good. I've been renting the 50mm and 85mm lenses the past few weeks and have been in love with them as it seems my life and job are easier. I would love to rent a 24mm F1.4 if I could find a place that had it for rent. It's hard enough to find available for sale.

I took this picture at F2 just for the idea. The DOF doesn't seem that bad by the time you get to F2 to F2.8 and even then the lens is so much sharper at F2.8. I don't think we could expect the zooms to be as good as a prime though.

http://www.khphotography.ca/sampleb.jpg
I don't know if it's me or your post processing? That entire photo looks out of focus to me. Just out of curiosity, why are you shooting outdoor formals (especially group photos) at f2.0? There is no way everyone could even come close to being in focus at that apperture.

[quazimoto]

It's actually fairly sharp at 100% crop. It also wasn't really outdoors as it was in the loading bay in this alley and it was near dark. I shot it at a variety of different aperture ranges really just to try out how well I could get away with it. It's not super sharp at F2 but it's definitely not horrible.

The idea of the 24mm F1.4 is now even more interesting seeing as the price at Saneal is $2099 however I find it hard to believe that Vistek or TCS will match that price as it is $250 lower.

[Mitsu3000gt]

lensrentals.com is expecting to have available 24/1.4's by the end of the week, and they accept reservations. It would cost about $150 insured for a one week rental after shipping.

I agree with the above suggestion to just shoot your 24-70 at 24mm only for a day and see what you think. If you ever feel yourself wanting to reach for that zoom ring, maybe you don't really want the prime.

Also that pic looks soft on my monitor as well. If your 24-70 is softer than that at 2.8 I would bet you have a poor copy. I've seen some mind bogglingly sharp images with the 24-70 even wide open.

Have a look through this 24-70 "show off pic" thread on Nikon Cafe...some incredible examples in there of what that lens is capable of:

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=182276

[quazimoto]

It's not that bad wide open at F2.8 it just doesn't compare to the same results on the 70-200 VRII @ F2.8. At F2.8 the 70-200 is crystal clear. The 50mm stopped down to F2.8 was better than the 24-70mm not just for clarity but the contrast also seemed better. It's really just gotten to the point where that lens isn't used at all during ceremonies. I probably use the 70-200 for easily 80% of the photos at the ceremony and I honestly prefer it that way just so nobody has to see me at all doing my job.

I think either way I really want to try the 24mm 1.4 out. I'm just not sure on the pricing. Saneal's price somehow is better than Vistek, TC, Adorama and even B&H, it really is confusing how that is at all possible.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by quazimoto
It's not that bad wide open at F2.8 it just doesn't compare to the same results on the 70-200 VRII @ F2.8. At F2.8 the 70-200 is crystal clear. The 50mm stopped down to F2.8 was better than the 24-70mm not just for clarity but the contrast also seemed better. It's really just gotten to the point where that lens isn't used at all during ceremonies. I probably use the 70-200 for easily 80% of the photos at the ceremony and I honestly prefer it that way just so nobody has to see me at all doing my job.

I think either way I really want to try the 24mm 1.4 out. I'm just not sure on the pricing. Saneal's price somehow is better than Vistek, TC, Adorama and even B&H, it really is confusing how that is at all possible.

Yeah that 70-200 sure is something special, it's attached to my camera 90% of the time. Unfortunately I don't own the 24-70 (wish I did) so I can't give a personal opinion, but some of the pics I've seen from that lens have been simply jaw dropping. I think the best thing you can do is just rent that 24/1.4 and make your own decision.

According to TCS, their prices are dependent on the exchange rates they buy each batch of product at. So, that might account for slight price differences. If you do buy it though, I'd suggest getting TCS or Vistek to match the Seneal price so you can actually return the lens if something is wrong with it and not get the run-around.

[quazimoto]

Yeah thats what I do 99% of the time. Usually the guys at Vistek will beat the price that TCS or Saneal will offer on anything. I know last year when I made the switch to Nikon they weren't willing to beat the price Saneal was offering since the cost of the package was already quite high. The $2099 at Saneal though is the best price I've seen anywhere LEGIT in North America.

I think that's also why I say the 24-70 is a GOOD lens but I can' t call it over the top great. To me the 70-200 VRII is a Great lens. The other problem with many photo examples you see online is how much some of them are cropped. You can make just about any relatively soft photo look great when it's taken on a D3x. I think lenses like the 14-24mm and 70-200mm VR II are quite simply great lenses.

Everything I read online and all the image samples from the 24mm F1.4 more a less point it to being one of the very best wide angle primes available.

One thing I can say with certainty is the Sigma 50mm F1.4 is one of the best sigma lenses I've had the chance to use so far and it's provided me a little more faith into their company than I've had in years past.

[EvolizePhoto]

Originally posted by Go4Long


And there's plenty that make six figures shooting only zooms too. I'm sorry, but this argument makes no sense...and basing any decision on what some photographers you know make a lot of money doing is silly. It's like saying I know several sports shooters making a lot of money shooting canon, so clearly it's the only way to shoot sports. Perhaps the problem is that you don't know enough wedding photographers.

Never having shot a wedding, or contemplated shooting a wedding, I wouldn't claim to know the requirements of a wedding photographer, but I would think for ceremony I would want a zoom if I were to attempt it, and formals I would probably shoot with a prime, since it's easier to tell the wedding party to hold still while you take a step back to get the framing right in the formals than it is to ask the bride to stop for a second while she's coming down the isle... Makes tons of sense. Out of the 17 people I talk to on a regular basis who shoot weddings, 2 of them include a 70-200 in their arsenal. They prefer primes. What is it about a fact, that is making you get so worked up over..?...

[Go4Long]

Not worked up at all. Don't mistake debate with an attack. All I'm saying is I disagree with your argument for primes.
PS...17? I'm impressed. Lol

[blitz]

The 24mm 1.4 is $2097.47 at TCS...

[quazimoto]

Originally posted by EvolizePhoto
Makes tons of sense. Out of the 17 people I talk to on a regular basis who shoot weddings, 2 of them include a 70-200 in their arsenal. They prefer primes. What is it about a fact, that is making you get so worked up over..?...


Do these people all shoot weddings? If they do that is an awfully low number to be using a 70-200. The 70-200 is probably the most popular lens when it comes to weddings simply because the focal length is so versatile.

Thanks for the pointers on that price at TCS. I honestly couldn't pull it up on their website. I've always hated the search function and it never seems to pull up what I want to look for.

[msommers]

2100 for a 24mm prime?! That lens better take pictures itself for that price :rofl:

I've never shot weddings but overall I find I like primes more. In fact, I had an old 35-70mm f/2.8 that did well for awhile, but when I got the nifty fifty and then Sigma 30mm, I never used it. Sold it and very happy I did. I'd even consider getting the 85mm f/1.4 eventually, even though I have a 70-200 right now.

Honestly man, it doesn't sound like you're at that focal length that much at all. Given the price, it really doesn't seem like it's worthwhile, especially because you already have a lens that is capable at that length.

[quazimoto]

I'm actually sure this lens would get a lot of usage. There are simply a lot of photos taken throughout the course of the day where a 24mm lens is invaluable specifically with group shots, preparation shots and of course reception photos. As I found out this past weekend shooting F2 at a reception is kinda nice since it can blur out the background quite significantly.

Either way It'll be nice to have a lens like this not just for weddings as I can see this lens taking some absurdly amazing landscape shots which will come in Handy when I get married in St. Lucia next year :)

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by quazimoto
I'm actually sure this lens would get a lot of usage. There are simply a lot of photos taken throughout the course of the day where a 24mm lens is invaluable specifically with group shots, preparation shots and of course reception photos. As I found out this past weekend shooting F2 at a reception is kinda nice since it can blur out the background quite significantly.

Either way It'll be nice to have a lens like this not just for weddings as I can see this lens taking some absurdly amazing landscape shots which will come in Handy when I get married in St. Lucia next year :)

Sounds like you've made up your mind then. Let us know how you like it...the pics I've seen from it are very impressive even at 1.4. The bokeh is amazing.

[Melinda]

Kevin I'm not too sure why you post these threads. You state your case, ask for opinions then argue every point that's brought up against you. If your mind is set before you even make the thread, why not make one saying "I've decided to do this, anyone else use all primes?" and get experiences you're actually looking for.

[The_Rural_Juror]

It's a crime to needlessly rhyme.

[bcylau]

I think you should get the 35f2 as a trial first. The 35 is sharp enough wide open, tho its not very fast. and its cheap to try.

I find that the 35mm is easier to use than 24mm especially in events.

edit: check out fredmiranda's wedding section and search for hassas and hoffer both are also exclusive prime users.

[quazimoto]

Actually my mind wasn't made up prior to this and I'm still not 100% sold. I do want to give the lens a serious trial though. I've just been going back and forth on it for the past 3 weeks.

Thanks to those that pm'd me some useful info to look over, it made the decision a little more clear for me.

Oh and I am renting it first. I was able to find a location that would rent it but I won't have the lens for another week. I would try the 35mm however I'd like to have a great focal distance between 35mm and 50mm. That and I'd still like to keep a relatively wide angle lens for landscapes.

[quazimoto]

Originally posted by bcylau
I think you should get the 35f2 at a trial first. The 35 is sharp enough wide open, tho its not very fast. and its cheap to try.

I find that the 35mm is easier to use than 24mm especially in events.

edit: check out fredmiranda's wedding section and search for hassas and hoffer both are also exclusive prime users.

Hoffer is a wicked photographer and I actually chatted with him quite a bit. He's not 100% exclusive primes but does shoot primarily with them. The one big thing he basically tries to get across is that you should keep the strobes in the bag unless you absolutely need them.

I was reading about the 24mm on FM however the information is still not exactly great since the lens is relatively new. maybe if Nikon would learn how to produce sufficient quantities of new products when they release them.

[bcylau]

what i actually meant was exclusive prime for under 70mm range. pretty much everyone uses the 70-200mm 2.8 is/vr

[blitz]

Originally posted by quazimoto
As I found out this past weekend shooting F2 at a reception is kinda nice since it can blur out the background quite significantly.

Either way It'll be nice to have a lens like this not just for weddings as I can see this lens taking some absurdly amazing landscape shots which will come in Handy when I get married in St. Lucia next year :)

Only problem is, trying to shoot f1.4 to f2 with a 24mm lens an blur the background means you have to be within 6' or so to get an effective DOF.

According to my Calc:

@1.4
200cm Distance = 58.9 cm DOF
400cm Distance = 253.2 cm DOF

@2.0
200cm Distance = 86 cm DOF
400cm Distance = 400 cm DOF

You're going to have to be right in their face to get any effective bokeh.

Edit: And St. Lucia is awesome btw :)

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by EvolizePhoto
Makes tons of sense. Out of the 17 people I talk to on a regular basis who shoot weddings, 2 of them include a 70-200 in their arsenal. They prefer primes. What is it about a fact, that is making you get so worked up over..?...

I have a really hard time believing that. Of all the wedding photogs I've talked to (or seen in action), every single one uses a 70-200 or at least has one in their kit. If you actually know 15 separate people who shoot weddings for a living and none of them have a 70-200, that is pretty amazing. It's probably the single most popular wedding lens there is.

[quazimoto]

I would agree for sure. It's attached to my D3s for almost the entire day. I think that's also the reason I really want to try the 24mm out before I buy it just to make sure it's going to be the right fit. I always find it hard to tell without field testing a lens for myself before buying it. It's probably why I've never bought a lens online before.

Thanks for the props on St. Lucia. We are looking forward to it but we aren't excited about how expensive it seems to be escalating. We actually plan to do St. Lucia for the wedding and hopefully Antigua for a honeymoon :)

[msommers]

If you're going to St. Lucia, pick me up some hot sauce!!!

http://www.susieshotsauce.com/store.us/index.php?app=ccp0&ns=prodshow&ref=ORIGINAL

[quazimoto]

Is that pineapple hot sauce? lol. Oh it's not IF we've already paid for the venue for the wedding so we will be going even if the oil from the gulf leaks down there and we seriously hope that doesn't happen!

[msommers]

It's delicious is what it is!

If St. Lucia is anything like Antigua, it will be spectacular :)