What is the use of a prime ?


Pentaxophile

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 13:27
Simon, you'll find a DA70mm would compress perspective in the same way - it's a focal length thing, not a zoom vs prime thing. I do actually wonder if you'd be happier with a longer prime, as I think those longer, faster ones do offer more of a benefit over a zoom, in terms of nice OOF rendering etc.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

simonkit

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 13:40
Pentaxophile wrote:
Simon, you'll find a DA70mm would compress perspective in the same way - it's a focal length thing, not a zoom vs prime thing. I do actually wonder if you'd be happier with a longer prime, as I think those longer, faster ones do offer more of a benefit over a zoom, in terms of nice OOF rendering etc.

Yes, I didn't explain my point well I suppose and thinking about it, it's not really much of one....I was thinking more about the framing choice that a zoom gives you from the same viewpoint and therefore the choice between wide or compressed (zoom)..but you can obvioualy do that with 2 primes

I admit to not really considering the longer primes, I've mainly being trying to convince myself I need a 15 or 21 but neither seem to quite good enough to get me to replace/supplement my DA17-70/DA 12-24. The only prime I have now is the FA35mm F2 which I like but rarely use

Thanks

Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk

Find me on Google+ link
Last Edited by simonkit on 16/07/2012 - 13:44

Don

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 14:01
simonkit wrote:
Pentaxophile wrote:
Simon, you'll find a DA70mm would compress perspective in the same way - it's a focal length thing, not a zoom vs prime thing. I do actually wonder if you'd be happier with a longer prime, as I think those longer, faster ones do offer more of a benefit over a zoom, in terms of nice OOF rendering etc.

Yes, I didn't explain my point well I suppose and thinking about it, it's not really much of one....I was thinking more about the framing choice that a zoom gives you from the same viewpoint and therefore the choice between wide or compressed (zoom)..but you can obvioualy do that with 2 primes

I admit to not really considering the longer primes, I've mainly being trying to convince myself I need a 15 or 21 but neither seem to quite good enough to get me to replace/supplement my DA17-70/DA 12-24. The only prime I have now is the FA35mm F2 which I like but rarely use

Thanks

Simon

so use it. put it on, leave your zoom at home and use it..for a week or two... then examine your results and decide if you need or want another prime to go with it.. it will be easier to decide what to buy after you've tried using the 35 seriously... longer/shorter foal length, faster vs macro.. once you look at what you can do with the one you got, you'll know where to start looking for the next one..
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Last Edited by Don on 16/07/2012 - 14:02

Horst

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 14:27
Every now and then, I Just take one prime with me. Normally either the 40mm DA or my FA50/1.4. Never both. When I do this, I don't have to think. There is nothing I can do except move myself forwards or backwards.
Also the perfect lens hood is always matched to the lens.

A few years ago, I went for a trip to Germany and only took my Super-A and the SMC-A50/f1.4 I knew, I had a very good camera and a very good lens. Loaded with 200ASA Fuji Film. I didnít need a gadget bag ( not even a designer bag). I had the winder on the Super-A. This gave me the right grip. I recon, I made some of my best pictures then. I had the total freedom to go anywhere and just photograph without any worries if I had the right perspective or not. It made no difference anyway. The lens and my standpoint decided it.
Horst

simonkit

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 14:28
Don wrote:

so use it. put it on, leave your zoom at home and use it..for a week or two... then examine your results and decide if you need or want another prime to go with it.. it will be easier to decide what to buy after you've tried using the 35 seriously... longer/shorter foal length, faster vs macro.. once you look at what you can do with the one you got, you'll know where to start looking for the next one..

I did exactly that when I first bought it Don but found it too limiting for landscapes, most of my shots are between 17-24mm, hence trying out the 15mm and now having just given some thought to the 21mm. I was probably too subtle in my original post so..I'm basically saying that the wider Pentax primes just don't seem significantly, if at all, better than the equivalent zooms - for my usage anyway

.
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com

My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk

Find me on Google+ link
Last Edited by simonkit on 16/07/2012 - 14:29

michaelblue

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 15:24
I can't see the point of the extra expense of a prime lens just to post the photos on the web...as most people seem to these days.
Fair enough if you are going to produce large prints but how many people do nowadays?

I had a Pentax 43mm 1.9 and at 1.9 it was absolutely unusable!...got rid of it. (maybe it was a bad copy, I don't know)
Regards,
Michael
My new website:link

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 15:34
You cannot get an f1.4 zoom. There's justification for a prime lens right there. If you want to shoot in the f1.2-f2.5 range, you have no choice! Even at f2.8, a prime will normally be cheaper and more portable than a zoom.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

johnriley

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 15:36
Quote:
I had a Pentax 43mm 1.9 and at 1.9 it was absolutely unusable!...got rid of it. (maybe it was a bad copy, I don't know)

It must have been faulty or damaged. These are exceptional lenses.
Best regards, John

Smeggypants

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 20:03
Pentaxophile wrote:
You cannot get an f1.4 zoom. There's justification for a prime lens right there. If you want to shoot in the f1.2-f2.5 range, you have no choice! Even at f2.8, a prime will normally be cheaper and more portable than a zoom.

I'm a huge F/1.2 fan

I've just posted some I took recently in the photos section of the photos section of this forum. I've marked them for those who don't have EXIF addons

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/modified-nationals-show-2012-36084
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 20:09
A 50mm f1.2 came up recently, and I wish I hadn't bottled it and passed it by. Is the 50/1.2 noticeably more bokelicious than the 1.4 to make it worth paying the extra?
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Smeggypants

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 20:10
michaelblue wrote:
I can't see the point of the extra expense of a prime lens just to post the photos on the web...as most people seem to these days.
Fair enough if you are going to produce large prints but how many people do nowadays?


You seem to be restricted to sharpness ( resolution ) as a lens benchmark. You're missing out on some great aspects of photography by doing so.

For example large aperture, shallow DOF Bokeh shots. See my last post for examples @f/1.2

Plenty more here too. http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=1046

Then there's individual character of lenses.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Smeggypants

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 20:13
Pentaxophile wrote:
A 50mm f1.2 came up recently, and I wish I hadn't bottled it and passed it by. Is the 50/1.2 noticeably more bokelicious than the 1.4 to make it worth paying the extra?

Yes totally different character. I've got the 1.4 as well and also love it but they are two different beasts. Actually I must remember to take my 50/1.4 out with me next time, I haven' used it for sometime. Thansk for reminding me

How much did the 1.2 go for btw ?
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Pentaxophile

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 20:47
Two hundred and fifty odd... The going rate I think. Quite a gulf in price compared to the 1.4...
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Smeggypants

Link Posted 16/07/2012 - 20:54
Pentaxophile wrote:
Two hundred and fifty odd... The going rate I think. Quite a gulf in price compared to the 1.4...

I got mine for £250 - It had a dint on the filter thread and no one else bid on it. Otherwise it was pristine.

I've seen them go for a lot more. Don't let the next one get away
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Horst

Link Posted 17/07/2012 - 02:31
Quote:
You seem to be restricted to sharpness ( resolution ) as a lens benchmark. You're missing out on some great aspects of photography by doing so.

What Smeggypants says, makes a lot of sense to me.
A few years ago I owned a Canon 50mm f1.2 for my Canon 7 RF camera.
This lens did not get very good reviews. Especially in respect to edge sharpness.

I loved the pictures I made with this lens. All my enlargement where about 15" x 8 or 10" I can't remember at the moment. The so called edge sharpness never really bothered me, because my main interest was the motive.
I never took a magnifying glass and checked the outer edges to see how much less sharp they where with respect to the centre.

I looked at the pictures I made (often only one good one in a roll of 36) and was glad I saved the moment on film.
I realise it wasn't a Pentax 1.2, but I had it and used it.

In my humble opinion, this is what photographing is all about. To capture something one thinks is worth while preserving.

I love to own a Pentax 1.2 and also an 85mm lens, but my finances and the little woman wonít allow it at the moment.

Horst
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.