Primes and Zooms

I recently got a K-m and can afford another lens. It comes down to two prime ones (second-hand) or one new zoom lens. Do folks find primes useful, perhaps because they impose a discipline which obliges one to find a picture that works at a fixed size rather than, as perhaps with a zoom, simply frame what's there. Or have zooms progressed to the stage where they are so good it really doesn't matter? Not trying to start a debate here. I find primes attractive not least because their build quality is often so good. Also, are both - primes or zooms - likely to retain their second-hand value well? That's quite a factor given the cost of new kit.

Also, is the 55-300mm zoom a step up in terms of IQ from the 50-200mm one?

At the mo I am thinking of one wide-angle and one standard prime plus/minus when affordable a telephoto zoom of the 55 to X kind, but not an expensive one as I won't use it all that much. OK or a mistake? I'm not much good at telephoto stuff, being more of an open vista, street and close-to-subject (as in macro or similar) snapper.

Older primes have held their value against older zooms, but the newer zooms are so much better that it isn't a good guide as to what might happen. The big advantage of primes is the speed compared to zooms so if you regularly shoot in low light a prime might be the way to go. I have the 12-24mm which I love (stunning lens) and a 43mm prime. I cannot comment on the 55-300mm lens but I know John Riley likes it, and he has plenty of experience.

Cheers, Kris.

I started with zoom's but now I'm into primes,both old and new!...I don't know if it's just me or not ,but the colours and contrasts seem so much more pleasing!........Ken

Primes will always be advantagous in terms of size and weight (when comparing one lens at a time, at least), and often distortion, but there's little difference in sharpness now between the best modern zooms and primes.

Second-hand old primes are particularly good I think when you want high speed and high image quality on a low budget. With examples like Pentax-A 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.7 and K 135mm f2.5, you just can't get anything anywhere near as good from any zoom lens for anything like the same money.

Compare the reviews of the K 135mm and DA* 50-135mm at 135mm: http://www.photozone.de/pentax. Now checkout the prices!

The "discipline" aspect of primes is interesting, but you could argue that that doesn't beat the convenience of zooms.

Re second-hand values: All good Pentax lenses retain their values well, whether they be primes or zooms.

Re 55-300 v 50-200: I've not got a 55-300 yet myself, but judging from reviews it's better (except less portable) than the 50-200. It's faster at 200mm as well.

I have shuffled over to primes and find the freedom of one on the body and one each pocket so much better than a larger zoom on the body. It's not logical but (at the moment) I prefer three lenses, 21/35/70 over my excellent 17-50 Tamron. I feel just too obvious with that zoom and it's by no means a large lens.

I never got on with the older non AF primes though and sold the ones I had bought.

Mike

On a recent trip abroad I resorted to the kit 18-55 and a Sigma 55-200, both light and easy to carry, the range given proving very useful.

Around home I play with older manual primes and a Tamron 70-300 amongst other lenses.

Make of that what you will!

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I've kicked off by acquiring a DA 35mm f2.8 macro second-hand on Ebay. Wow! A very sharp little jewel. I plan to use this as a general walk around lens as it's so near the old film 50mm, plus I get some macro too. And then look out for another second-hander of a different, wider focal length. Nearly all the shots that seem to "work" for me come out at around 35mm or less on digital.

Well you got off to a good start. That lens has had some excellent reviews.

I bought a DA35 macro as a general purpose and macro lens. I must say, it's a top quality item, razor sharp, compact and solid feeling.
I intend to buy a 15mm f4 and the 70mm f2.4 to make a fairly complete outfit, with the kit zoom for longer stuff.
As an ex-pro using Nikon for 35mm, I had a 300 f2,8 and 400 f4 Nikkors. Great lenses but so bulky, you only ever took them out of the boot when you knew you'd need them.
200mm f5.6 on the kit lens ain't great but with anti-shake and 800iso with Neat Image noise reduction, it gets a deal more use than my big Nikkors ever did. Mind you, I'm not working as a pro any more, so there is a difference.

I'd suggest trying to find a decent 77mm Ltd instead of the 70mm. It's a bit bigger, but also faster - which is good if you are going to use it for portraits.

It's also optically sublime. The three original Limiteds are just wonderful, but the short gap between the 43mm and the 31mm makes no sense at all.

But like you I plan to buy the new 15mm f4.

G

Give me primes any day, I have a 18 - 250 zoom which is very handy covers the whole range I need, But then I bought a 30+ year old SMC K 200mm f4 and am now not as happy with the zoom,When you think this Zoom cost about £300 and the average price of a new prime lens must be around £500 WHAT are you getting for £300 certainly not the same image quality. I now have
SMCP M 20mm 4.0
A 50mm 1.7
M 100 2.8
A 135 2.8
K 200 4.0 and I LOVE them, try one and your hooked.

I've now got up to a DA21mm and the DA35mm. Very happy in fact pretty bowled over by both. Eventually I'd hope to get the DA70mm too and that will be me done until "LBA" kicks in. The 21mm gets some knocks but I'm loving it - very nice as a walkaround lens. I still have the kit lens for 17-20mm but I really like the discipline, for want of a better word, of getting to know a single focal length. I'm not knocking zooms as they are fantastically convenient and of such good quality compared to a few years ago.

Treat yourself to an FA50/1.4 and you'll not be disappointed. Go for the DA*55mm if you have the money, but the FA50/1.4 will be much cheaper at around £150.

1. I have Pentax lenses and I don't have one where the quality is unacceptable.

2. Since I started taking photos before zoom lenses, I love primes. I have a 35, 50, 77, 100macro. On the other hand, I've learned to value the convenience of zooms. My primes come out for special occasions or conditions. My daytime walk-around lens is my 17-70 zoom.

Primes will improve your photography skills by making you walk around and seek the best vantage point for the snap, zooms make you lazy and you stand in one or two spots to grab the shot.
Unless you want to sell your images commercially there is little advantage in the better quality that primes offer.

Me? I'm lazy and use zooms all the time, though I recently aquired DA* lenses

Edit TYPO!