OK, listen up. The most important component of your camera is the lens. If there is a place to spend the money, it's on the glass. I'd take a 5 year old 20D with a good lens over a top of the line 1Ds MkIII with a crappy lens any day of the week. I can't tell you the number of people I see who have this all wrong. Last year at the Grand Canyon, I saw a girl with a high-end Gitzo tripod, 5D body, and some crappy consumer level zoom lens on the front. Honestly, I almost pushed her over the edge.There is a lot of talk about the mega-pixel race in digital cameras. I remember my first little 2MP digital Elph, and how I bought my father a little Kodak digital camera that I think put out only a 640x480 image and still cost $199. We've gone from 4MP to 22MP in about 8 years, that's pretty nuts. The problem is that the number of pixels on the sensor is meaningless if the light that gets to the sensor is crap. And that means quality lenses, or in the cool photographer parlance "glass".
You can cut up the subject of lenses along many different lines, but I've chosen to start this discussion by dividing prime lenses from zooms. For the uninitiated, a 'prime' lens is one with a fixed focal length, while a 'zoom' has a continuously variable focal length within a certain range. So for example a prime might have a focal length of 50mm and a zoom 24mm to 70mm.
In the beginning, there were only primes. Large format cameras only use fixed focal length lenses, as are most medium format lenses as well. For decades, this extended into the 35mm world as well. Through the rangefinder age (Leica, yum) and into the SLR revolution of the 70's. While zooms had been invented and in use since the 1920's, it wasn't until their prices came down to earth and their performance improved that they invaded the photographic world. I attribute that shift to the use of computers in their design. The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 zoom for example has 16 glass elements in 13 groups, which all have to remain in alignment and perform well from wide angle to portrait and macro to infinity. I'm not sure about you but designing something like that without a computer sounds near impossible (cut to me getting screaming emails from optical engineers). Prime lenses are much simpler. Even the high-end 50mm/1.2 only has 8 elements, and all things being equal, the fewer elements that bend my light it's way to the sensor, the better.
In the recent past and for most people in the world, zoom lenses have been their bread and butter. In fact, many SLR owners only have one lens, it's a zoom, and it stays on the body at all times. This is fine for the parent who bought a digital rebel with a kit lens to take pictures of their newborn and whatnot, but you're not getting the most out of that camera.
So people may talk about the latest 22MP Canon monster (which I'm totally salivating over) or the fabled 24MP Sony sensor that's in the wings. However, all these sensors are going to show is the limitations of most of the lenses you put in front of them. Now, I'm not one of those people who says that the 22MP sensor 'out-resolves' the available lenses. It probably bests some of the lower-end and consumer glass, but it will certainly show weaknesses that got lost in the past. Camera shake, inaccurate focusing, vignetting, and yes, at wide apertures, especially on zooms, they will not be sharp enough.
So what's the answer. Well, first, better technique. Second, Primes.
As a Canon user I've got all the good zooms.. 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L (and I had the 24-105L for a time). But you know what? I rarely use them anymore. What I do use are my primes. A 28mm, a 50mm, and a 100mm (the last occasionally). They're simpler, smaller, lighter, sharper, require less light, are more contrasty, and by using them I've gotten much better at visualizing shots before I ever bring the camera to my eye. Less versatile? Perhaps, but if you need to zoom, zoom with your feet.
If you only have zooms, do yourself a favor and go buy or borrow a decent prime lens. Canon makes a 50mm 1.8 that's less than $100 and other companies have good deals as well so you've got no excuses. If you own primes but have fallen into the habit of using your zooms all the time, take another look. Your pictures will be sharper with more contrast, your viewfinder will be brighter, and you will be less likely to hurt your back from carrying it around.
More thoughts on "glass" to come...
Hi Bill,
For me, the big win with primes is that their smaller size (versus a typical zoom) makes them far less intimidating to people I'm photographing. I have a 17-55mm f2.8 zoom that's just stellar, especially wide open. I love that lens, but it's big, heavy, and I've literally seen looks of terror wash across subjects faces as I swing that beast into position. I might as well be maneuvering a Howitzer cannon (or Canon :-)) into place. These days, I'm much happier shooting with 35, 50 and 85mm primes. I think that my subjects are happier, too.
Now the real question is...to filter or not to filter? Does a UV "protective" filter really turn a $1500 lens into a $200 lens? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this oft-debated topic.
I don't classify myself as a photographer by any means, but I'm torn between the primes and the zooms.
I bought an entry-level SLR late last year, and have been loving it. It came with the kit lens (blech) and I bought the 85mm prime to go with it, because I wanted to use it for portraits. Don't get me wrong, I love the results I can get with the prime, but I am coveting that 24-70 f/2.8, and I have a monthly savings plan to help me get it.
It just seems like on a normal day of photography I would have the zoom on the camera a lot more than the prime, just because it gives me more options. Sometimes when I'm in certain situations, I can't zoom with my feet to get the shot I want. So maybe for me the convenience wins? BUT...put me in a studio situation where I know what I've got to work with, and you can bet that I'll be using the prime.
It's a constant internal battle. :-)
Hi Richard-
I admit that I engage in unprotected photography. When I started, I used to have filters on my lenses, but then I actually held the camera up to my eye and took the filter off. HUGE difference. Maybe if you spend $200 on a UV filter they're ok, but the $100 Tiffen and B/W ones I was using turned my $1400 zoom into a $200 one. The only time I use one now is when I occasionally need a polarizer, but then I'm not a huge landscape guy.
Again, for me, it's the less things the light has to go through, the better. I care about my gear, but my gear is a tool to get me the photograph I want. So I tend to strip it down to the minimum.
One of my next "Glass" installments is going to talk about image quality of different lenses, where I'll get into this more.
A lot of people ask me about lenses and I couldn't agree more... I think the best lenses for clarity are prime lenses, no contest. If you want to start out the 50mm 1.8 is perfect! cheap, clear, and awesome.
Zooms are cool but I hardly ever use them and often leave them in the car.
The reason that I keep a zoom lens on my camera (17-70mm 2.8) is that I hate switching lenses on the fly. I'm curious if these things bug other people:
First, it's awkward. It takes two hands and/or a surface (or a bag), and I'm always anxious that I'll get dust on my sensor or the lens or drop something.
Second, and more importantly, switching lenses has made me miss shots. If I am primarily shooting a mountain vista but then a close-up bug or goofy antics by my hiking buds catch my attention, I can't get the lens switched quickly enough to take advantage of the moment. Sometimes it's fine to shoot w/ a less-than-optimal lens, but if I have a 100mm on the camera and really need a 17mm, it's extremely frustrating!
So, for those who swear by prime lenses, how do you handle these issues?
I also agree primes are the way to go. I shoot Nikon and have the 85mm f/1.4D AF (awesome bokeh) and the 50mm f/1.8D (cheap and tiny) and love them both. But they can also be a pain.
It all depends what I am shooting. If I can control the situation I would always grab a prime. If I want to capture the unknown then a zoom is the only way to go. I have been using the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom. I found I didn't need the length and missed the light of the primes.
I just upgraded (today) to the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 and look forward to using this as my everyday lens. Yes it is a monster (especially with the giant hood)and will probably scare people I am shooting. Yes I will probably look like a tennis player with one arm larger than the other soon from lugging the thing around. I just hope I can catch a few shots I would have other wise missed while changing lenses. I also I hope I can keep my sensor a little cleaner.
Richard,
It's not that simple. Primes don't work well if you are photographing people that are not willing to pose. You'll rarely find a wedding photographer that uses a prime most of the time.
Most of the photos I take are my children or photo journalism. I find primes unusable 95% of the time.
Dejan
I, too, am on the fence regarding primes vs zooms. I own two lenses at present-one prime and one zoom: a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L and a Canon 35mm f/1.4L and I can honestly say that I use both pretty equally. Both are exceptional performers and I have to say that the 24-70 gives the prime a run for the money in image quality.
I secretly keep hoping that I will swing more towards being a prime user one day just because they are so much lighter to tote around. That said, I also find that it's not convenient to have to switch lenses constantly...I tend to shoot in a variety of environments rather than a studio scenario.
I agree that primes can certainly offer some advantage in wide apertures and sharp shots. I worked as an assistant for a theatre photographer last summer and due to my budget I shot the whole summer with a Nikon 50mm. I didn't have a 5D with a 70-200 f2.8 like the other shooters, but I was quite satisfied with my shots week in and week out, was never worried about the lighting, and walked away with a strong portfolio.
Bill, what advice would you give to someone who's on a budget trying to build a good kit. At what point do you upgrade / splurge? Everyone seems to have a different justification. Would you always go lenses over body or are their certain criteria you focus more on? Good post.
Bill
Thanks for the info. I've actually been thinking about upgrading my glass the last couple of weeks. I love my 50mm/1.8, but all my others are zooms. I always feel like I'm fighting for more light. I think I'm going to rent some lenses and give them a test drive first.
Perfect timing on the post!
I think everyone would love to have a bag full of L-rated primes, but the problem is that L-rated primes cost just as much as, and sometimes more than, L-rated zoom lenses! Unless you've got money to burn, you're more likely to buy the zoom, and consider primes a premium luxury. I don't know how Canon can justify premium prices for L-rated primes since they are, I assume (a big assumption), easier to produce than a zoom.
Great post, but one thing I disagree with is that some people can't afford all prime lenses. Trust me, if I could I would have all L glass. But some of us (student with growing college debt) it simply is not an option, so the consumer and lower end lenses is all we can afford.
Can't wait for part two!
This is a great post and very educational. You explain things so well that even someone like me can understand. Can't wait for part two! So so much to learn.
Congrats on your Time's shoot!!! I know there will be more and more from you. I went to purchase the issue today but couldn't find it on the stand yet - will check again soon.