pobe
Well-known
For me it was sort of the other way around - shooting only primes on my dslr was one of the things that got me into rangefinders... 
pvdhaar
Peter
The DSLR is complementary to my rangefinder; I'm using it for when I need all the bells and whistles instead of keeping it simple. Although I do have a couple of primes to go with the DSLR (a 20, 50 and 90), I mostly use it with a 35-70 and a 70-300 zoom..
I've always been a prime guy, but lately I was using the Panasonic G2 with a 14-42mm zoom (bought for my girlfriend) and enjoyed it enough. If I was to go the DSLR route again, which I hope not to, I would go for one of those f/2.8 through-out the range zooms... of course coupled with some faster primes.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Yes and no -
Yes: I do want to go this route.
I use my DSLRs (also shooting D700s) for a lot of my wedding work; however, after experimenting last year again with film and specifically shooting with my M7s; I came to realize that I could do the same thing with primes.
My lenses for my Leicas were a 24mm/28mm (I rotated from 28 to 24 part way through the season last year), 35mm pre-asph lux, 50mm pre-asph lux, and 90 pre-asph cron.
I was shocked to find that I could get away with "just that" - this is coming from a DSLR line up that had me cover 17mm through to 200mm via zooms AND primes. I began to question: "Why do I need the zooms again??"
I will (and this is the "no" part) keep one long zoom (70-200mm VR f2.8) only for the purposes of "reach" but I really think I'll be able to "get rid" of that too if Nikon would produce a wonderful 135mm f2 in a similar vein to Canon's 135L.
Cheers,
Dave
Yes: I do want to go this route.
I use my DSLRs (also shooting D700s) for a lot of my wedding work; however, after experimenting last year again with film and specifically shooting with my M7s; I came to realize that I could do the same thing with primes.
My lenses for my Leicas were a 24mm/28mm (I rotated from 28 to 24 part way through the season last year), 35mm pre-asph lux, 50mm pre-asph lux, and 90 pre-asph cron.
I was shocked to find that I could get away with "just that" - this is coming from a DSLR line up that had me cover 17mm through to 200mm via zooms AND primes. I began to question: "Why do I need the zooms again??"
I will (and this is the "no" part) keep one long zoom (70-200mm VR f2.8) only for the purposes of "reach" but I really think I'll be able to "get rid" of that too if Nikon would produce a wonderful 135mm f2 in a similar vein to Canon's 135L.
Cheers,
Dave
peter_n
Veteran
Well I've tried it and I think I've given up. For the 20 years I used my Nikon F3 I had just three lenses; 28/2.8, 50/1.8, and 85/2. Then came rangefinders and more primes. A couple of years ago I bought a DX SLR. Along with that I bought a Nikkor 17-55/2.8 DX and the 35/1.8 DX lens. I was happy, a great mid-range zoom for everything and a cracking little standard prime for walkabout. But the zoom is heavy...
So last year I bought the mid and the two ends of the zoom in primes; Tokina 17/3.5, Nikkor 24/2.8 and 50/1.8. The idea was great IQ and light weight. Unfortunately it didn't work and the main reason is that the 17-55/2.8 is just an unbelievably good lens. The only prime that could compare in terms of IQ is the 50/1.8 which is known to be very good. On top of the IQ issues the combined weight of the three primes is 865g and the weight of the 17-55/2.8 is 755g...
I was disappointed in the wider glass. Nikon have developed very high quality zooms like the 17-55/2.8 and the 24-70/2.8 for FX and in some ways the primes have lagged. I'm back to the zoom lens and I'll keep the 50/1.8 and persevere a bit longer with the other primes but but it doesn't look good for them. It seems at least for DX primes aren't practical the 35/1.8 excepted. If Nikon produced a quality 18/2 DX I might try again though.
So last year I bought the mid and the two ends of the zoom in primes; Tokina 17/3.5, Nikkor 24/2.8 and 50/1.8. The idea was great IQ and light weight. Unfortunately it didn't work and the main reason is that the 17-55/2.8 is just an unbelievably good lens. The only prime that could compare in terms of IQ is the 50/1.8 which is known to be very good. On top of the IQ issues the combined weight of the three primes is 865g and the weight of the 17-55/2.8 is 755g...
I was disappointed in the wider glass. Nikon have developed very high quality zooms like the 17-55/2.8 and the 24-70/2.8 for FX and in some ways the primes have lagged. I'm back to the zoom lens and I'll keep the 50/1.8 and persevere a bit longer with the other primes but but it doesn't look good for them. It seems at least for DX primes aren't practical the 35/1.8 excepted. If Nikon produced a quality 18/2 DX I might try again though.
JOE1951
Established
I've always used primes on my Nikon SLR's (24, 35, 50, 105, 300). It was reinforced by working in the film industry, under DP's who preferred primes over zooms. Zooms were used, but only for very specifc reasons.
When I was working for a university, the gear I was provided with were nothing but Nikon zooms, and I never really found they were much of an advantage.
I've been using Leica M4-P w/ 21, 35, 50 for the last year and the camera just seems pretty natural progression.
I don't own a digital camera, but I will probably get something like a D700 if only to continue using my primes!
When I was working for a university, the gear I was provided with were nothing but Nikon zooms, and I never really found they were much of an advantage.
I've been using Leica M4-P w/ 21, 35, 50 for the last year and the camera just seems pretty natural progression.
I don't own a digital camera, but I will probably get something like a D700 if only to continue using my primes!
presspass
filmshooter
It depends. For color work, zooms on the Canon digital - 17-40, 70-200, 100-400. For personal use and some film work with SLR, primes on Nikon F3s - 20 through 400. The zooms are just too handy for sports.
semordnilap
Well-known
That would be a really, really great thing.
I've been shooting my 28/2 and 50/1.4 ais on the d7000 and I've been very happy with the results. When the weather gets nicer I'll go out and play with my 105/2.8 macro some more–but I expect I'll get nice results as well. The 17-55 you mention, Peter, sounds interesting, but I haven't fone down that road yet. The really wide Tokina zoom looks interesting, though–I think it's 11-16...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I always use primes.
Zooms to me is always a compromise unless you're willing to shed big bucks, even then the size and the weight usually annoy me enough not to use them.
Olympus zooms (both OM and 4/3rd) are an exception, they are small, light and some of them are very sharp and nice.
Oh, and there is one Konica AR Hexanon zoom that I like very much, I use it as my creamy bokeh zoom.
Zooms to me is always a compromise unless you're willing to shed big bucks, even then the size and the weight usually annoy me enough not to use them.
Olympus zooms (both OM and 4/3rd) are an exception, they are small, light and some of them are very sharp and nice.
Oh, and there is one Konica AR Hexanon zoom that I like very much, I use it as my creamy bokeh zoom.
LeicaFan
Well-known
For me it was sort of the other way around - shooting only primes on my dslr was one of the things that got me into rangefinders...
Same here.
I really don't care for zooms. Shooting primes has always been a joy for me so making the switch from a DSLR to a rangefinder wasn't a very hard transition.
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
I use everything! I like to have options.
Have more primes than zooms, it's the mood or the objective that defines one or the other.
Besides on IQ some zooms surpass any prime on that range at same .f.
a 24-70 saves a lot of weight in Primes.
Have more primes than zooms, it's the mood or the objective that defines one or the other.
Besides on IQ some zooms surpass any prime on that range at same .f.
a 24-70 saves a lot of weight in Primes.
x-ray
Veteran
I have zooms but mainly use primes. it has nothing to do with shooting RF, it's because they are better lenses.
fidget
Lemon magnet
Something like this happened to me too. After discovering that primes do not present too much limitation to my RF work, I bought a nice fast standard prime for my Nikon DSLR. I've had it for 18 months and it's not been taken off yet.
(But, I also use the kit zoom on my Oly E420, which was bought in lieu of a good P&S).
(But, I also use the kit zoom on my Oly E420, which was bought in lieu of a good P&S).
menos
Veteran
Before I bought my first Leica - a M6 with 50mm lens - 2 years or so ago, I used a Nikon D300 and Nikon D3 with zooms:
- 18-200 for traveling light with the D300
- 17-35 2.8 for wide with the D3
- 70-200 2.8
and primes for faster, longer or light:
- 20 2.8 AF-D
- 50 1.4 AF-S
- 85 1.4 AF-D
- 300 2.8 VRI
and a couple of others
I used the M6 for a few weeks and completely fell for the Leica M.
After the warm up time, I realized, I didn't use the Nikon stuff any more, but wanted some more lenses for the M6, so I sold:
- Nikon D300
- 18-200 (it was only with the Leica lenses, that I realized, how bad a compromise zoom this really is - before, I loved it!)
- 17-35 2.8 AF-S (I got a Voigtlander 15 Heliar-M instead, as I didn't do much wide anyway)
- 20 2.8 AF-D (never used it much, lost it's touch as the light wide prime also, since the Leica is much lighter and smaller as a package anyway)
- 50 1.4 AF-D (I still kept this one after buying the much better 50 AF-S, now was time to sell)
- 85 1.4 AF-D - I sold this lens foolishly in a weak moment of hating it's CA behavior, as I photoshopped a few color product shots. Now, that I almost exclusively work in BW, I do miss this lens very, very much, especially, as I sold a LNIB sample for a very, very low price. I search already for months for a similarly nice 85 1.4 Ai-s, to bring me back this lens.
I bought a Leica 28 Summicron ASPH for all this stuff and never regretted it.
Since then, I got an additional M7, I tried digital with an R-D1 and added a M8.2, which became my daily shooter.
I added a lot of Leica M lenses and just keep the Nikon D3 with my back then 3 most used lenses:
- 50 1.4 AF-S (my workhorse and favorite lens on the D3 - still like it a lot)
- 70-200 2.8 VRI
I only kept this lens, as I shot several F1 GPs in pouring rain, survived other daily shootings in disgusting weather and this lens just keeps ticking - there is no Leica equivalent to the D3+70-200 combo - it is just bomb proof - I do not use it at all these days though. The big, heavy zoom thing just lost it's flavor for me.
- 300 2.8 VRI (my motor sport lens, when not traveling - I use it once or twice a year and keep it foolishly ;-)
I added only two lenses for Nikon F since using mainly Leica M:
24 1.4 AF-S (it's a marvelous, modern lens. I thought, I might use it, but I am just not a wide guy. I used it once and keep it, collecting dust ever since :-( I guess, this is no.1 on my sell list)
58 Noct-Nikkor - I love this lens, it is a drama queen though - wonderful, as it can be, it can be a pain, to focus spot on, wide open with modern (inappropriate) SLR screens.
I am on my 4th SLR body now, to use this lens on and I am still not 100% comfortable (the F3HP so far is the best, to use it wide open)
Nikon has introduced several very nice Zooms since I started with Leica M - the interesting thing is, that I feel not the slightest itch, to try or even buy one.
I am completely converted to primes now. I have issues, to frame with a zoom - too much options, to decide on ;-) I have issues, to use a automatic camera (D3) - I miss the simple and quick manual controls for focus, aperture, ss, ISO.
- 18-200 for traveling light with the D300
- 17-35 2.8 for wide with the D3
- 70-200 2.8
and primes for faster, longer or light:
- 20 2.8 AF-D
- 50 1.4 AF-S
- 85 1.4 AF-D
- 300 2.8 VRI
and a couple of others
I used the M6 for a few weeks and completely fell for the Leica M.
After the warm up time, I realized, I didn't use the Nikon stuff any more, but wanted some more lenses for the M6, so I sold:
- Nikon D300
- 18-200 (it was only with the Leica lenses, that I realized, how bad a compromise zoom this really is - before, I loved it!)
- 17-35 2.8 AF-S (I got a Voigtlander 15 Heliar-M instead, as I didn't do much wide anyway)
- 20 2.8 AF-D (never used it much, lost it's touch as the light wide prime also, since the Leica is much lighter and smaller as a package anyway)
- 50 1.4 AF-D (I still kept this one after buying the much better 50 AF-S, now was time to sell)
- 85 1.4 AF-D - I sold this lens foolishly in a weak moment of hating it's CA behavior, as I photoshopped a few color product shots. Now, that I almost exclusively work in BW, I do miss this lens very, very much, especially, as I sold a LNIB sample for a very, very low price. I search already for months for a similarly nice 85 1.4 Ai-s, to bring me back this lens.
I bought a Leica 28 Summicron ASPH for all this stuff and never regretted it.
Since then, I got an additional M7, I tried digital with an R-D1 and added a M8.2, which became my daily shooter.
I added a lot of Leica M lenses and just keep the Nikon D3 with my back then 3 most used lenses:
- 50 1.4 AF-S (my workhorse and favorite lens on the D3 - still like it a lot)
- 70-200 2.8 VRI
I only kept this lens, as I shot several F1 GPs in pouring rain, survived other daily shootings in disgusting weather and this lens just keeps ticking - there is no Leica equivalent to the D3+70-200 combo - it is just bomb proof - I do not use it at all these days though. The big, heavy zoom thing just lost it's flavor for me.
- 300 2.8 VRI (my motor sport lens, when not traveling - I use it once or twice a year and keep it foolishly ;-)
I added only two lenses for Nikon F since using mainly Leica M:
24 1.4 AF-S (it's a marvelous, modern lens. I thought, I might use it, but I am just not a wide guy. I used it once and keep it, collecting dust ever since :-( I guess, this is no.1 on my sell list)
58 Noct-Nikkor - I love this lens, it is a drama queen though - wonderful, as it can be, it can be a pain, to focus spot on, wide open with modern (inappropriate) SLR screens.
I am on my 4th SLR body now, to use this lens on and I am still not 100% comfortable (the F3HP so far is the best, to use it wide open)
Nikon has introduced several very nice Zooms since I started with Leica M - the interesting thing is, that I feel not the slightest itch, to try or even buy one.
I am completely converted to primes now. I have issues, to frame with a zoom - too much options, to decide on ;-) I have issues, to use a automatic camera (D3) - I miss the simple and quick manual controls for focus, aperture, ss, ISO.
hausen
Well-known
I am in same boat as Tim I think. Have mainly zooms with my 5dII, 16-35/2.8, 70-200/4 but my favorite would be a prime TS-E24/3.5II. Find I use the zooms a lot because of the lack of zooms in RF photography.
NickTrop
Veteran
Great thread. Yes. Me. I shoot the 35/1.8 DX on a Nikon D5000. It's the only lens I own for the camera.
I am, however, considering their 55-200 AFS VR telephoto because it's such a great bargain. I was thinking of upgrading my compact superzoom digital but thought it would be better just to buy this telephoto rather than a whole 'nother camera.
However, for now, my DSLR is essentially a "fixed lens rangefinder". In fact, it even has a rangefinder. - I am shooting only with a single prime lens. In fact, bought the body to go along with the prime and had decent affordable primes not come out for digital APSC cameras, I would have kept shooting film rangefinders exclusively...
I am, however, considering their 55-200 AFS VR telephoto because it's such a great bargain. I was thinking of upgrading my compact superzoom digital but thought it would be better just to buy this telephoto rather than a whole 'nother camera.
However, for now, my DSLR is essentially a "fixed lens rangefinder". In fact, it even has a rangefinder. - I am shooting only with a single prime lens. In fact, bought the body to go along with the prime and had decent affordable primes not come out for digital APSC cameras, I would have kept shooting film rangefinders exclusively...
Creagerj
Incidental Artist
I'm proud to say that I don't even own a zoom lens for any of the cameras that I own. Of course, I hate digital and i so want to get rid of my DSLR kit to make room for film and a scanner. Unfortunately most people expect the turn around time of digital, and the overhead is much lower.
B.J.Scharp
Still developing
Actually, I shoot rangefinders because it's so damn hard to get primes for your SLR nowadays (not the only reason, but certainly a big one).
pstevenin
Established
Ended at the same point with a different route.
First a M8 + loads of lenses (incl. 75/2 summicron + 50/1.4 summilux+35/1.2 voigt) , Voigt 667and D90 + 50/1.4 AF-G to catch fast moving kids.
Nikon results were so-so hit mis ratio on par with M8.
I've upgraded to a D700 and added a 105/2.8 macro VR + 24/2.8 + 200/4 AIS MF.
hit miss ratio is wayyyy much better than M8 and 25K iso on par with 2500 on M8. Using it at 1.4 with AF (AF assist lamp turned off) you can still make more than acceptable images the M definetely cannot do.
I've eventually sold all the RF equipment. I use the D700 with only one focus point + reframing, not using fancy AF tracking stuff and the 50 + D700 produces results on par with the 50/1.4 (much better than D90+50/1.4 even at base iso) . the 105 macro is on par with the 75 summicron (at least to my taste, no bench tests here). I hate to say that as I was a long term RF shooter (from M4-P M6, RD-1, M8, 667 and even a Horseman VH-R). If Mister Leica or any competitor lauch a box with a modern chip inside, and a decent RF I'd love to have an Mxx plus a 50 1.4 ASPH. for sure! As I'm a 50/90 type of shooter I may also consider a X100 full frame with a 50/2. a 24 reframed as current specs are, is no interest for me.
No zooms involved here. I've tried, but I can't shoot decently with that kinda lenses anymore.
First a M8 + loads of lenses (incl. 75/2 summicron + 50/1.4 summilux+35/1.2 voigt) , Voigt 667and D90 + 50/1.4 AF-G to catch fast moving kids.
Nikon results were so-so hit mis ratio on par with M8.
I've upgraded to a D700 and added a 105/2.8 macro VR + 24/2.8 + 200/4 AIS MF.
hit miss ratio is wayyyy much better than M8 and 25K iso on par with 2500 on M8. Using it at 1.4 with AF (AF assist lamp turned off) you can still make more than acceptable images the M definetely cannot do.
I've eventually sold all the RF equipment. I use the D700 with only one focus point + reframing, not using fancy AF tracking stuff and the 50 + D700 produces results on par with the 50/1.4 (much better than D90+50/1.4 even at base iso) . the 105 macro is on par with the 75 summicron (at least to my taste, no bench tests here). I hate to say that as I was a long term RF shooter (from M4-P M6, RD-1, M8, 667 and even a Horseman VH-R). If Mister Leica or any competitor lauch a box with a modern chip inside, and a decent RF I'd love to have an Mxx plus a 50 1.4 ASPH. for sure! As I'm a 50/90 type of shooter I may also consider a X100 full frame with a 50/2. a 24 reframed as current specs are, is no interest for me.
No zooms involved here. I've tried, but I can't shoot decently with that kinda lenses anymore.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Yup. Only prime lenses. In fact, I pretty much only use 35mm-e lenses:
Nikon F100 + 35/2 AF-D
Nikon D80 + 24/2.8 AF-D
Olympus EP-2 + 17/2.8
Olympus Stylus Epic (35/2.8)
Lomo LC-A (32/2.8)
Every once in a while I'll put the 35mm lens on the D80. I never shoot the 24mm lens on the F100.
Nikon F100 + 35/2 AF-D
Nikon D80 + 24/2.8 AF-D
Olympus EP-2 + 17/2.8
Olympus Stylus Epic (35/2.8)
Lomo LC-A (32/2.8)
Every once in a while I'll put the 35mm lens on the D80. I never shoot the 24mm lens on the F100.