Shooting landscape with primes?

[nickthetasmaniac]

Hi everyone, just thought I'd throw this question out here to see if any outdoors people had some input

For whatever reason, I've decided to move away from my current Olympus dSLR system, and switch back to Pentax with the K-5. Please bear in mind that I am not asking for advice on which system to invest in, so please no "you should get Nikon" comments!!!

The thing is, I've seriously been considering investing in a prime-only kit. I've been shooting a lot of film lately and have come to really appreciate primes, mainly for the quality, size and 'approach' to photography that they dictate. However, I've never not had a zoom to fall back on...

So, my question to you guys... Do any of you shoot landscape just with primes? How do you find it? What are the pros and cons? Has anyone moved to primes and then come back to zooms? Any advice and experience would be great

Here's my flickr stream to get an idea of my shooting style http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickthetasmaniac/

Cheers, Nick

P.S. For what it's worth, the primes I'm considering (at least initially) are the DA Ltd 15mm f4, DA Ltd 21mm f3.2, FA Ltd 43mm F1.9 and D-FA 100mm f2.8 Macro (WR)

[Drifting]

I really like primes, but the biggest problem with using them exclusively is that to get an wide focal length (16-24mm in 35mm terms) you need an ultrawide zoom, like a 10-20 or 10-22mm. But if you are happy foregoing that range of focal lengths you might be on to something.

I'm a Canon shooter, and GOOD Canon primes cost nearly twice what their best zooms do, so it's not such an easy choice. But I have a very sharp, cheap 50/1.8 which I use often, and a 100/2.8 macro. My next lenses are going to be a 100/2.8 Macro with IS and a 200/2.8, both "L" or professional quality.

I only discuss Canon because it's what I'm familiar with. For Canon shooters using the 5D or 1Ds full frame cameras there are the "Holy Trinity" of lenses, which from memory is the 35/1.4L, 85/1.2L and the 135/2L. For landscape I'd think you could add a 17mm Tilt shift lens and the 24mm/1.4 L instead of the 35/1.4L.

BUT- most Canon professional landscape photographers I know of seem to use these lenses:
16-35/2.8L or 17-40/4L
24-105/4L IS or 24-70/2.8L
70-200/4L IS or 70-200/2.8L IS
Thought quite a few seem to supplement these with primes, particularly Tilt-shift lenses, 135/2L or macro lenses. But the point is, most use zooms.

I guess the reason for this is that a sack full of prime lenses weighs more than 1-2 well-chosen high-quality zoom lenses, and modern zooms are nearly as good quality as primes. In Pentax's case, from a quick scan of some of the lens reviews on photozone.de, it would appear that their zooms are as good as their primes in many cases- though I've only glanced at the reviews. Maybe you should go for two good zooms and one pro-level prime in your most frequently used focal length.

[tasadam]

I shoot Nikon and the lenses I currently own are
50mm f1.4
105 macro f2.8
17-35 f2.8
24-70 f2.8
Also a 12-24 f4 for the D200 body (DX lens)

So the only primes I have are the 50mm and the 105 macro.
I rarely use the 50mm, it's the first lens I look tot ake out if I really want to save weight, even though it's the lightest lens.
I only use the 105 for macro work.
My favourite lenses are the 17-35 and the 24-70, they are both great on the D700 body.
I don't carry dedicated primes due mainly to weight vs versatility, and also because of cost.
If my camera kit was based in the car or on a sherpa then fair enough, if I could afford them. But with the great results I get with the lenses I have, I am in no hurry to add to the weight I carry when walking.
The 14-24 lens is supposed to be fantastic so I might consider that one day.
If the budget allowed, I'd love to own a prime so I can compare and see whether the results justify carrying it, but it would need to be a significant improvement, which would be hard when I look closely at my current results.
Hope that all helps.

[photohiker]

My kit is similar to Adam's, but I use a better brand

I use both primes and zoom as well:

21/3.5 (Zuiko OM with adapter)
50/1.8 (light, cheap, good)
100/2.8 Macro
17-40/4

I find I take most shots with the zoom, partly because its range suits most of my photography, but also because weather conditions on the trail are often not conducive to swapping lenses. On my last long hike, I took a Panasonic GF1 and two lenses (prime 20mm and zoom 7-14mm) for weight and bulk reasons. After a couple of days of faffing about in the rain and wind I decided to swap lenses each night and shoot the next day with whatever was on the camera. Worked well, and the discipline of 'working with what ya got' may have even improved the shots

[Drifting]

From memory Ansel Adams and Peter Dombrovskis only used primes. I guess you can't say that fixed lenses hurt them any....

[tasadam]

From memory Ansel Adams and Peter Dombrovskis only used primes. I guess you can't say that fixed lenses hurt them any....

Another consideration in that regard is that they weren't shooting with DSLR's either. Were zoom lenses even available for those cameras?

[whynotwalk]

How timely! I just returned from a week on the Overland Track using my:

Canon EOS 550D
Canon EF 15-85mm lens
My home-made neoprene, chest-mounted camera bag (photo attached)

The camera bag faces some weather on Pelion East

Camera Bag2.JPG (126.33 KiB) Viewed 8915 times

By the end of a day carrying what is a heavy (if wonderful) zoom lens, I was occasionally hoping the images would be worth the weight (and the wait!) You can see some results here: http://picasaweb.google.com/auntyscuttl ... kTasmania#

But it had me wanting to experiment with a light-weight fixed lens. So yesterday I bought a 50mm prime lens - a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II. It's certainly light, as well as cheap. I guess time will tell whether it will do a good job on landscapes, but it appears to be very good in low light and for portraits. And Drifting's comments are encouraging.

cheers

Peter