for the most part- i only have used primes.
and not b/c I was against zooms, I have the 17-85 I got w/ my 40d that rarely ever comes out.

Other than that I have never found the need for a zoom shooting portraints until a recent wedding I was second shooting for... the couple was on the church stage-- and from where I was standing couldn't get much of anything that I wanted.

So off I splurged on the 70-200 and love it. I could also justify the purchase b/c I know it can be used for portraits as well....

I'm not quite the wedding photographer yet, but how can you shoot only primes and not get the close up shots?? Just curious...

is this "only primes" a trend set? - or is their actual reasons to do so? Spending this year doing more weddings I can't see how I could only shoot with my primes--- am I missing something here?
I am looking at a few zooms, but please-- save me a grand or two if there is some extra insight here....

i use only primes. i get tons of close up shots. i do fine, i dont miss zooms at all, in fact, i just got rid of my last one - the 17-55.

my range starts at 15 (fishY) up to a 135. i have 5 all together.

but just because they work for one person, doesnt mean they will work for another person. it depends on your style, how you shoot, waht your experience is, etc.


you have to feeeeel it......

I don't use primes much because I'm lazy. My tools are the 17-35 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8. I feel like I get enough depth from those. But if I'm feeling ambitious, I'll pull out th 50 1.4.

But if you are a detail-heavy shooter, you need those primes in your arsenal. A lot of shooters I admire use primes-only.

This seems to be a topic that comes up on a regular basis. I think Tami is right, whatever fits your style of shooting is the right option. There are those who will extol the virtues of greater clarity and sharpness associated with prime lenses and tell you don't use those horrid zooms, I shoot with 2 primes and love them.

I also shoot with three zooms and guess what, I love them too. I like the ability to not move around, be unobstrusive but still be able to re-frame and recompose a shot. The 70-200 2.8 IS lens is one of my workhorse lenses. The gap, that at one time was fairly significant, between the quality of image you could create with primes vs. zooms is negligible or non-existent today.

So find what works and go with it...


Frank

I must admit that I don't get the "prime thing". I've had plenty of situations where I'm shooting wide-ish and see Mom crying and can zoom in to grab the shot. Do primers just shrug and say "oh well"? Moments sometimes happen so quickly that there's not time for a lens change. Or something is about to happen so you don't dare change the lens to grab that candid shot.

The "quality" argument doesn't make much sense to me. If bookings hinge on the IQ of the 135 f/2 versus the 70-200 2.8 IS, perhaps there's a marketing problem there, no? Is the difference so significant?

I understand that primes are lighter, which would be nice.

I usually shot with 2 bodies: 5D with 24-105 f/4L and flash, and one with 70-200 2.8L IS ambient. I bought the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 and tried shooting an event that way (swapping them onto the same body), and after 15 minutes or so when back to my zoom.

How (and why) to you prime folks do it?

-TM

i honestly dont think i can explain it, i just know when to switch and that is why my SS comes in handy.

no one can capture everything, regardless of zoom or prime. i dont quite understand what you mean about bookings and iq of lenses - i doubt clients care if you use zooms or not.???? can you clarify that?

the primes are lighter and that is a huge factor and probably one of my reasons.

i know i did not like the iq of the 17-55 at all. i hated it with a passion. that lens had no redeeming qualities for me at all.

my next purchase may be a 200. not sure yet.

when you say

SS?




Some people say they use primes because the images are so much better. I was just saying that, if you're using "L" glass, it shouldn't be such a difference that you'll lose customers due to the alleged lower IQ of zooms. I think this is mostly a 1970s perception (back when zooms weren't so good) that won't go away.



That I understand.

-TM

SHOOT SAC!!!!! SS

your very right - with today's L quality zooms, they are definiately comparative to primes.

i used to have an old 80-200L it was like hauling around a horse all day. i loved it, it was a beauuuuutiful lens but i just couldnt do it. talk about camera shaake!

its really about, and should only be about, what is right for you, the photographer. never about what is the 'in' thing.

i actually like being the minority on this.

I use both all day - I love a wide angle zoom for getting ready, then the 85 1.4 when ready with some nice window light and shallow depth of field. The new Nikon 24-70 is like a prime really, my old 17-55dx nice but not even close to a prime, but the focal legnth can really cover the entire day without dealing with gear, missing moments etc. 70-200 goes without saying.

In low light there is nothing like the way a 1.2 or 1.4 prime pulls in light. I think the new Nikon zooms are setting a standard. Also with the quality of the new sensors you can take that shot when you have the wrong lens say only a wide prime and crop in still with good quality. Primes generally always look better, however things are changing as technology changes and the difference between the prime and the zoom are becomming less. As Nikon is catching and surpassing Canon in some areas they will only push each other to make better stuff and make us pay for it.

I don't trust my rig to focus accurately at such a shallow DOF. I'd rather take the safe shot at F/4 than risk it being blurry.

-TM

You can trust your rig, just trust yourself with a little practice, you don't know what your missing at 1.4, heck even 2.8. What I wouldn't give for a 70-200 1.4.

I recently had a conversation in another forum about this. First off I use the 17-55f2.8 and 70-200f2.8 on Nikon, and I have a 50f1.8 for some portraits and I also use it as a macro, and trying to learn to use it as a tilt/shift as well.

I can understand about the larger aperture lenses capturing more light and the really nice bokeh they produce, but what I find rather difficult is that it's very hard to nail focus at those apertures, because the slightest movement of the subject or my hand will throw the focus point out of focus, since the DOF of those lenses at those apertures is razor thin. Don't get me wrong, I like primes, I have shot with my 50 and have rented the 135 f2.0 and I love the 135, I just don't see myself using those lenses at those apertures all the time to justify buying them, and then using them at smaller apertures than the max because it's hard maintain focus. But that is just me.

I guess it's having missed focus while trying to get moving targets. For static stuff it should be OK.

-TM

oh the 135 is my bestest lens! i love it love it love it.

It's not easy but when you get it, holy crap is it nice, When you can avoid flash and get a result that is better than what your eyes sees it is rewarding. Keep in mind DOF is relative to where you are standing. The further away the more you get, the closer you are the more razor thin. With the influx of the many digital shooters out there, budget photographers do not have theses lenses and it shows in their work, I think these lenses make the pros or aspiring shooters that "get it" stand out.

Use what fits you, and what you get the best images from. I use primes because of the extra light gathering and the flexibility to have greater control over DOF. Not to say i never use a zoom, but I use them less and less for sure. If you're used to zooms and you suddenly switch to all primes you will miss shots. It takes practice to think ahead about what shots might be about to happen and be ready. Using two camera bodies is a good idea so you have 2 focal lengths handy at all times.

To me, f2.8 is slow, for most people I'm sure that sounds funny. To each their own

~Bill

Oh, and PS: Primes aren't all light, lol:


That's a 200mm f1.8 and I'll take it every time over my 70-200mm IS...

WTF? i'm skeeeered......

At 20 feet, that lens has a DOF of 2.4 inches. Yikes.

-TM

That's a ton! - you only need one eye to make it happen, (not talking about a 3 deep group formal shot now )

Hee hee hee. I'll prolly smack peeps around with one of those, not to mention myself! Even topple me over clumsy as I am. Niiiiice

Of what?Indoors I use it without the hood sometimes... it's much smaller looking (but still 7lbs...)

I've never understood the "all primes" or "all zooms" thing. Each has strengths and weaknesses, use each to their strength and you will be stronger than using all of one and none of the other.

I love my 85 1.2 for getting ready and detail shots. The color and dof are unreal, nothing looks the same. But the 70-200IS is kick ass in low light too (as long as the action isn't moving too fast) and is great for ceremonies as people are moving and often I'm confined to a limited space.
Basically, if I can move around I shoot primes but if the action is fast and/or I can't move, a zoom is the way to go.

And the above (undelined) is what I have problems with. I think there is enough already happening during a wedding and us changing things in our cameras to have to worry about "being really steady because I am shooting at f1.4" I understand how DOF changes with distance to subject, but unless I am shooting a tightly cropped head shot or close up of the bride and the bride isn't moving, I want to have the head of my bride in focus, not just the eye, but let everything behind her fall out of focus, and for that f3.2-f4 just about does it.

I agree that work produced from these types of lenses can separate us from the budget photographer, but that was not the point of my original response, and maybe I didn't make myself very clear. My point was that I'll take a f1.8 prime over a f1.4 or f1.2 any day because the light gathering ability of the faster prime can be had with a bump in ISO, which to me doesn't justify the 3X or more cost of the faster primes. My $.02

Good point.
This was shot with a 85 1.2L at f/1.8, it is about an 80% zoom, almost no post work. At closest focus (as this was) the 1.2 is pretty much unusable without a tripod if you care about truly critical focus so I mostly shoot at 1.8 or smaller when hand held. BTW, this is my self portrait while working
The sharpness, clarity and color are not the same as if you used the 85 1.8 (I used a 1.8 for years and know it well) but I'm sure you could achieve similar result with the 1.8. To me, the biggest difference in the 1.2 vs. the 1.8 is the color as the sharpness isn't that big a difference. Colors are a bit more saturated and when you shoot with a super high resolution camera like a 5d or 1dsMKII the 85 1.2 really comes into it's own--especially in the corners of the image.
Is it worth the extra $1200? Well, to be honest, probably not as I doubt it makes me more money than if I was using the 1.8.

I love my primes. I am able to get a beautiful quality to my images with primes and full-frame that I wasn't able to get previously. Also, just because it is a 1.4 lens, does not mean you can't stop down to 2.0, 2.8 or 4.0 to get more in focus if you choose to, but with a zoom, you don't have the option. That, to me, is more limiting than not being able to zoom.

I'd love to shoot with a prime-er to see how it's done!

-TM

Wow...
I can't imagine trying to get a shot at f4 at a reception without blasting a flash across the room. I am usually at f1.2-f2 at any reception. I hear you on the focus issue, but with a little bit of practice you start to get a feel for where to focus. The 85L is pretty tough sometimes because it is slow to focus.

I am curious to how you are going to shoot at f4 without a flash? One thing that I love to shoot is to keep the feel for the moment. I am not saying that you can't get a moment at f4, but I love not being able to flash away when there is something happening that might lead to more. I always feel like as soon as I use a flash that they know that I am there, so then they feel as though they need to react differently knowing that I might be taking a picture of what they are doing. If I am shooting at f2 or even at f1.4 I can pretty much stay very ninja like. This seems to allow for all kinds of things to happen.

Just to add...I use an 85L...a 70-200f2.8IS and then switch between a 24-70 and a 24f1.4 on another body, so I am not a prime shooter or a zoom shooter. I think you have to look at what feels and works the best for you.

Now this is an argument for faster primes that I haven't heard before, about clarity and color, and our images are all about color. But it seems also from your statement that the improvement in color of the faster primes is only a bit better. If that is the case, and being that the majority of us at least apply some type of contrast boost and sharpening to our images, I'd say that the faster primes still aren't worth the significant additional cost over the f1.8 primes.

Now, one benefit of the faster primes could be if clients ask what we use to create those smokin' images is to tell them that we use "high end fixed focal length top quality lenses that cost $1000+". They'll be less likely to want to buy them because most consumers are all about the zoom lens, so in that regard we can separate ourselves from the budget photographer shooting weddings with a kit 18-70 variable aperture lens.

Where is the flash in these?

Images at f3.5





Images at f4





Image at f4.5



Remember, aperture affect flash output, shutter speed the ambient; it's possible to balance both. Not saying that my lighting is great (still learning), but with effective lighting it doesn't have to look like flash. Oh, and the cost for my lighting for these was around $200.

Hi Mike,

The events I shoot tend to be quite well lit.

I hear what you're saying about flash, but I would imagine that, even if the venue is sufficiently well lit to shoot ambient, the light quality on the subject is sometimes poor. Do you augment with flash in that case?

While I've never taken a survey, it seems like guests at my events ignore flash so long as it's not on-camera.



So you're using 3 bodies?


-TM

Hi Ramiro,
These are good images. However, I can definitely see how I would like them better if they by shooting at f2 rather than f4. I would prefer more of the ambient lighting coming through. If you are shooting at f4, you can lower your shutter speed, or use lighter flashes and wider apertures. I like being able to use my small flashes at 1/64 to 1/128 power.
Cory

Tzal,
I do shoot with three bodies. I find that I am more efficient this way then to shoot with two and try to switch lenses.
I find that most of the venues for receptions are going with the mood lighting and are very poorly lit. I have even talked with a few of the owners who have told me that a lot of the photographers will almost "demand" that they turn the lights up. But honestly that is why I like being able to shoot at f1.2 or something in that range, so that I don't need for them to change their setup.
I agree that most guests don't worry about whether you are using flash or not, but there are times during more private moments that basically can't be taken at f4 without a flash, so if I catch the bride and groom whispering to each other when they think nobody is paying attention to them the dreaded flash will scare them away. F1.2 to the rescue...

Hi Cory,

Although I agree that using flashes at less power helps not blind people and conserve battery power, personally, I a am not able to maintain focus on moving subjects as consistently as I'd like when I shoot at the larger apertures. For example, if people are dancing and I want to get a shot from up high, I have to use the red beams from the flash to "guess" where I am focusing, but with people moving so fast and even on AF-C (continuous focus) I still have more soft images than sharp ones at those apertures. I don't know if this is more related to technique on my part or camera capabilities, but shooting Nikon I know that the focusing of my D200 is pretty good.

Hi Mike,

So do you have a flash mounted on any of the bodies? Do you wear a belt - how do you carry them all, and the fourth lens?

-TM

Hey niiiiiiice photo. The photographer should've put a logo on their pic. j/k

TM,
I usually have a flash on the 24-70 with a diffuser on that. I then strap one over my neck and the other two over my shoulders. I basically put the 70-200 down on my right so I am pretty much able to swing that one out in front for a quick shot. I don't usually keep any extra lenses on me, but sometimes I use the Boda Bag and drop out the third camera and just put my fisheye, 100 macro, and 24L in there. It just depends on the situation. I will set up a couple of 580ex's at the reception in different locations depending on the situation. So then I have the PW's connected to be able to fire these off if needed.
Hope this helps. Mike

Hi Mike,

Have you considered a belt system? I use a Lowepro system, and hope to switch to Kinesis soon.

-TM

You're right! They should. I just hotlinked that from my blog, but of course I originally stole it from YOUR blog...

Oh! Oh! I have a question!

I've been wondering this for a while, for you "all prime shooters" how do you handle the ceremony? How do you quickly snap shots of the bride coming, in the groom's face, their parents, the altar, the details, the groomsmen, the bridesmaids?

Move a TON? I've never shot a ceremony with a prime.

I guess that is where I was kind of going with this. Though just looking at the photo of the gynormo prime makes my wrists hurt!!!

I shot my first pm wedding last weekend, and my zone was a decent distance away from the couple. Not super far-- but definitely not close enough for any of the primes I own...
Being a portrait photographer going into weddings, I have really only used primes so the night of the rehearsal I was uber frustrated that I wasn't getting really any shots I wanted.
Which kicked my purchase for my zoom into high gear and the next day was soooo excited at all the shots I got knowing there was absouletly no way that I could have taken those images with a prime.
Reading all this "prime only" stuff just had me wondering "why?" and "how?"
Though I totally love my primes, I just have a hard time understanding why anybody would want to be so limited. I totally agree to go with what your comfy with-- also agree that use the best of both worlds. Looks like I have a few more zooms to invest in

Thanks for the reponse. Any more suggestions about how you make prime works for you?? Anybody?

i think a lot of you guys are trying to make it difficult. its not difficult. not for me at all. use your intuition and you just know when to switch. if its part of your style, it isnt difficult at all. but for those who do not use only primes, then its not your style. i have had weddings where i have only been allowed to stay in one spot during the ceremony - in the balcony - i used my 135 and 50, and i can't remember if i pulled out my 85 or not.

Having two (or more) identical camera bodies helps a lot. I usually spend the whole day with a 5D+85L, and the other 5D rotating between the 24L and 35L. You get used to the field of view your primes give, and learn to anticipate where to be.

Not to be a jerk, but saying that primes can't work well in rapidly shifting environments is absurd. Some of the best photographs of all time were shot with primes, and some of the best photojournalists of all time shot/shoot with primes.

It really does come down to you, and what you see and are comfortable with. Primes impose a field of view on your shots, and for me, allow me to communicate a certain vision/perspective that is more difficult to do with zooms.

amen.

The quality argument is semi-moot at this point. It's just easier to get a cheap prime that performs amazing. Like the nikon 35 f/2 there is nothing overtly special about that lens, but it's is fantastically sharp, and produces absolutely stunning images.

How and why do I like it? Well it's simple. I shoot with my eyes. When I take a picture I take it as my eyes see it. If i have one body that has a 50mm on it, that's the range my eyes pick out, if i have a 35mm that's the range I pick out. And if I have two bodies then I remember 2 ranges. It allows me to take pictures naturally. In a way that is organic and flows with my natural rhythms. It may sound odd, but it really adds to the zen of shooting and produces a great ebb and flow during a wedding.

I don't know if that makes all too much sense, but maybe it does.

cheers

I love my primes, but I also love my zooms. Each lens helps me out differently and I assess what I need to pull out of my bag based on my shooting situation. What am I shooting? Commercial work? Wedding? Portrait? Do I have room to move or am I in a tight space? How much light am I working with? How much movement is there? What final outcome do I expect to see in my images? The list goes on.

To add to it, check out some of Tom Stoddart's work, or Bresson, or Nachtwey, or Capa, or McCurry ... all of them shot mostly primes (if not only primes, since some shot Leicas).