@ebiggs1 wrote:
My take at this point is get the 5D Mk III and the Tammy. Forget any primes. You simply will not use it when you get this combo. The disadvantages with primes far out weight a slightly more than one stop faster aperture....:
I think a lot of it comes down to personal preference.
I've been shooting for going on four decades. So I grew up using primes because, back in those bad old days, zooms really sucked.
Gradually I've started using more zooms and today one or two are among my most used lenses. In fact, for certain types of shoots I carry mostly primes.
But I also still use a lot of primes. The reason is not that primes necessarily offer better image quality. Sometimes they do, but the zooms I use are top notch, too. Nor is it because primes tend to be smaller, more unobtrusive and less intimidating, although there are times it's a real advantage. It's also not just because primes can offer a 2 or 3 stop larger aperture than a zoom, which I generally appreciate more for it's ability to blur down a background, than for low light shooting capabilities.
In thing for me it's because shooting with a prime is different than shooting with a zoom. When I use a zoom I tend to stay in one spot longer. With primes I move around more, looking for angles and exploring the subject more thoroughly. In a sense, zooms let me be lazier, while primes make me work with the subject in a different way. As a result I think I tend to find more interesting shots with a prime than with a zoom.
Not sayin' one way is better than the other. Just sayin' that sooner or later anyone who is moderately serious about their photography should try both to explore what benefits they get from each, then decide for themselves. Someone who has never shot with a prime should get one and use it for a while, to see if it works for them or not. And the opposite holds true for anyone who has never used a zoom, although I'm sure those folks are rather rare these days.
Henri Cartier-Bresson shot almost exclusively with a "normal" prime, throughout his career. The vast majority of his work was a 50mm lens on his Leica rangefinder.
I personally don't care for 50mm lenses on full frame (but I love one on a crop DSLR, where it's a fast, short telephoto/portrait lens). I tend to prefer a slightly wide normal, such as 40mm or 35mm on full frame.... But I would never have known this unless I tried shooting with a 50mm and saw how it "felt".
And, things change. I've had a couple of the "big white" primes (300/2.8 IS and 500/4 IS) for more than ten years and they are truly superb. But today one of my top "dream lenses" is the EF 200-400/4L IS 1.4X... for its sheer versatility and uncompromising image quality. For what I shoot with a big telephoto, a zoom covering the range from 200mm to 560mm would likely be very useful and help me get some shots I'm missing now using primes. With big lenses like the 300 and 500mm, I'm not terribly mobile anyway... so I'm not seeing the same "prime effect" I mentioned above. More often with these lenses I'm set up on a tripod in a blind and waiting for a subject, or similar. Soon as I win the lottery, I'll be buying a 200-400/4 1.4X!
Sometimes just changing out your gear or adding a new lens can stimulate or reinvigorate your shooting and take you places you didn't know existed. And you'll never know, unless you try.
To each his own!
***********
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & EXPOSUREMANAGER
