The first lenses you should probably be buying as a developing photographer are primes. I personally love prime lenses, and I will always have them in my pack even if I already have that focal length covered buy a zoom. And if you’re a professional who has all the lenses known to man, prime lenses are still a coveted asset.
So for a bit of background, I’m writing this today because just in general, I’m tired of hearing that camera sensors today are so good that you can buy a 24–105mm f/4 lens with image stabilization instead of buying separate primes. I’m not going to lie; each type of lens has their use case, and both are necessary for a lot of people. But unless someone can make a 24–105mm with an f/2 aperture, image stabilization, superb image quality, and not cost me my left kidney, I will always advocate for owning primes. I might even still advocate for primes even if that lens existed. I understand that Canon has made a miracle RF 28–70mm f/2 L lens, but it’s still $2,899 at the time of writing this and probably will still be if you’re reading this down the line. If you can afford it and it will be meaningful for your work, totally go for it, but many of my points below are still valid about primes.
Typically and in a previous post about five lenses to have, I advocated for three types of prime lenses to own: a wide angle prime, a normal prime, and a telephoto prime. This might look like a 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm (for me it’s a 100mm) in a typical use case. The vast majority of my reasoning below revolves around my experiences with owning these kinds of primes. I understand primes are very diverse but these three tend to be the most common purchases of prime lens focal lengths and tend to be talked about the most.
But why should you be investing in prime lens and why especially early in your photography journey?
#1. The Cost (More so a point for those early in their photography journey)
It’s all about the dollar bills or at least somewhat about the dollar bills. Quality zoom lenses are expensive, and I’m not talking typical kit lenses either. 24–70mm and 24–105mm lenses with just a constant f/4 aperture usually run somewhere from $800-$1,000. A 24–70mm f/2.8 can run from $1,000-$2,100 as well. That’s a lot to play for a single lens for those just getting into the game. Although zooms are highly versatile, and definitely have a lot of really great use cases, the ones really worth owning are definitely not cheap like a lot of prime lenses can be. Now, don’t get me wrong, there are expensive prime lenses out there that can cost just as much and if not more. But there are also really cheap but quality prime lenses, like a $200 50mm f/1.8 lens that are a fraction of the cost and yet have 80% of the image quality of the highest grade 50mm lenses.
So I’ll do the math here. Let’s say I want a pretty decent wide angle, normal, and telephoto prime. These aren’t going to be L lenses or the equivalent on other brands, but they’re still adequate for even professional work (I know this because this is how I use them). A quality 35mm lens with at least an f/2 aperture is going to run anywhere from $400–500 for Nikon, Sony, and Canon. The nifty fifty 50mm lenses with an f/1.8 aperture are around $125-$200 for all three brands. And a quality 85mm varies widely between the brands but can be anywhere from $350-$600. Take into consideration these are all brand new as well (used will be anywhere from $25-$100 less per lens). So in total, all three will cost you at the least $875 (Canon gravitates more towards this) and at the higher end of moderately priced primes, $1,300 (Sony gravitates more towards this, and Nikon sits in the middle). In total, this is probably around the same cost for a single quality zoom lens with a constant aperture, but remember, time is money. Whereas you might have to shell out $1,000 in one go with a decent zoom lens, you can do this over time buying primes one at a time. Spend $200 here and $400 there. I will say that you can probably get around this with a 24-month loan, but this is not applicable at every retailer and not usually applicable used. Second, I don’t like to worry about monthly payments, and I’m sure you probably don’t either. But if you’re okay with a loan, then by all means, do what makes you comfortable.
A few extra points to make here related to cost:
Besides just pure cost, there’s also that excitement factor with gear as well. Buying three new lenses over time is a lot more interesting than buying one lens just once. I like being able to rejuvenate my passion for photography with a new lens that I can save and hope for every few months.
And of course, if you fancy expensive $2,000 primes, the reasoning of cost doesn’t really apply to you, but many of the other reasons still will. I also understand there are very quality and relatively inexpensive zooms out there like the Sigma 18–35mm f/1.8, but these special zooms are usually only for crop sensors (which are still great cameras, but I’m just a real sucker for full-frame). For the most part, my point about cost is a general trend, and it stands to reason that a lot of exceptions exist.
#2. Low-light Performance
Decent prime lenses with moderate prices have apertures at least as wide as f/2 to f/1.4 and if you’re willing to give your first born away, as wide as f/1.2 and even f/0.95 (quite impressive, Nikon). Quality zoom lenses are typically as wide as f/4, and f/2.8 if you’re willing to add another $500 to that. Anything brighter is usually some sort of blessing from the gods and or will also cost you your first born child too. My point is, in general, prime lenses, even the moderately priced ones, have wider apertures than quality, constant aperture zoom lenses, usually by one to two stops and sometimes even three. Now, this probably doesn’t sound like a whole lot, but if you shoot in low light, that’s a lot. Two stops is the difference between shooting at ISO 12800 and ISO 3200. Now, I don’t care what kind of camera you shoot with or how clean you think your camera sensor is at high ISOs; I still want the lowest ISO possible with least amount of noise. This is even more important if you’re providing work to someone who needs clean images. I’m sick of hearing the reasoning that you can get away with an f/4 lens because of modern camera sensors. Sometimes, even f/2.8 is not enough. And even if the lens has some sort of image stabilization, that doesn’t help for fast moving subjects either.
If you only shoot still subjects in low light and you have image stabilization, perhaps you could get away with a zoom lens that covers the range of typical primes (35mm, 50mm, 85mm), but at least for me, being able to go wider than f/2.8 has been a life saver too many times to count. You could probably supplement low light situations with flash, but using a flash is a topic that needs to be flushed out another day.
#3. Bokeh and Blurred Backgrounds
I’m a sucker for bokeh and blurred backgrounds (I always just imagine Kai W saying, “Bo-Keh”). A lot of my clients love the look too. There’s just that special “twang” about the creaminess of a very wide aperture. I mean, smartphone manufacturers knew this and added in “portrait modes”, even if they don’t really manipulate the aperture to get the effect.
If you’ve messed around with how different apertures look, you know that one stop can really make a big difference at the wider aperture range when it comes to bokeh and background blur. The difference between f/2.8 and f/2 is pretty noticeable, and the difference between f/2.8 and f/1.4 is very noticeable. And don’t get me started on the difference between f/4 and these wider apertures. And the only lenses that can really give you those absolutely destroyed backgrounds and huge blobs of bokeh are primes. Even the moderately priced primes are able to do this well enough. Now, if you aren’t a fan, I can understand, but I surely am. Unless I’m using a telephoto zoom, a lot of typical focal range zooms can’t really provide the truly creamy effect I’m looking for with their widest apertures of f/2.8 and f/4.
4. Travel Friendly (In general)
Prime lenses, generally, are lighter and more travel friendly than their zoom counter parts. I understand this is not always true, especially in the Canon L line of lenses. Of course, a 600mm f/4 lens is going to feel like carrying rocks, but your nifty fifty or pancake 40mm is just about going to fit in your shirt pocket. Some camera brands have been able to make small and compact zooms at least for APS-C cameras but my zoom lenses on full frame are almost always bigger than my primes.
I’m not really going to stress this point out too much. A lot of primes do tend to be more travel friendly in comparison to their zoom counterparts, but a lot of them, especially as you start spending $800+ on primes, can also be the same size as zooms. The whole size thing is really more so for cheaper lenses which I have an entirely different article for.
5. The Process of Learning and the Process of Photography
I think this is the biggest reason for owning primes and advocating, especially early in your photography career, to buy them.
For the most part, prime lenses are restrictive. You’re limited to a single focal length that you have to work with. But I think when you’re learning photography, this can actually be a really great thing. You’ve probably heard it more than once, but it is really beneficial in the long run to learn to “zoom with your feet.” Learning to rely on yourself, your mind, and your body instead of putting all your reliance on your tool makes you a better creator. When you’re forced to actively interact with your environment around you instead of on your gear, you’re putting more thought into what you’re creating and maybe even making a better end result. For a photographer who’s first getting into the game, learning this kind of shooting philosophy is invaluable. See, the matter-of-fact is that if you can learn to make art with restriction, in this case of having to use a prime, just imagine what your creative potential might be like when that restriction is removed using a zoom lens.
We must also remember, and I say this a lot, photography is a process, not just an end product. It’s just plain rewarding to use a lens that forces you to solely use and think about a single fixed focal length. It’s hard to explain with words, but I do indeed like challenging myself with primes, even if I already own zooms that cover that range. I spend less time worrying about specific focal lengths and more time just doing the thing I want to do (taking photos). It’s almost more of a feeling than anything I can explain, but prime lenses are fun to use. There’s something innately enjoyable about having a fixed focal length that’s hard to put into words. If you are accustomed to using primes, you might understand the kind of enjoyment that follows using them.
6. The Downside of Prime Lenses
Now, I’d be quite close minded to think that there aren’t downsides to using primes because there definitely are. Primes, in general, are less versatile. With a zoom lens, I have a range of different focal lengths I can interchange with just the flick of a wrist. If I need to change focal lengths with primes, I must remove the previous lens from the mount and put the new lens on, risking some dirt or dust getting on my sensor. In four words, zooms are just convenient. If I have a project that requires wide and telephoto focal lengths, a zoom is a very easy thing to work with, especially with shooting something very fast paced like sports.
But besides ideas of convenience and ease of use with zooms, not everyone has the pleasure of space. The idea that you can zoom with your feet is not applicable in every situation like in a tight studio environment or when you are restricted to an area for just photographers like the edges of a room. In this particular case, I’m definitely bringing zoom lenses.
And I must also say that primes are not practical at every single focal length known to man. 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm are very common fixed focal lengths to own a prime, but in the more wide angle and more telephoto range, a zoom actually makes more sense. My 16–35mm and my 70–200 are invaluable to me, and I’d never want to cover those ranges using solely primes.
Also, if I could only own a single lens for the rest of my life, it might very well be a 24–70mm f/2.8 if I’m being honest. Luckily, I don’t have that dilemma, but I can understand if all you can have is a single lens, it’s most likely going to be a zoom.
But nonetheless, I still love prime lenses. I get very annoyed when I hear that people no longer think primes are necessary. Primes are an amazing asset to photographers regardless of their level. Although not all my reasons for owning primes will always be applicable, a few of them will usually be relevant in considering what lens to use or buy next. Don’t get me wrong, zooms will always have their place, and it’d be foolish to think that they don’t. But I know that the primes are still here to stay.