Gateway Digital Photography Group Message Board › 10 Reasons Why I Prefer Prime Lenses For Photography

10 Reasons Why I Prefer Prime Lenses For Photography

Dick S.
user 5078257
Orlando, FL
Post #: 505
Scott Bourne tells why. Link Here.
A former member
Post #: 6
As an old geezer too, I occasionally manage to pull myself out of my rocking chair, to lug my loaded twenty pound backpack around on a shoot.

On the weight issue, consider the Sigma for Nikon 70-300 macro (which many users describe as a fantastic lens) which weighs .53 kilos to the Nikon 300mm f/4 at 1.3 kilos. Or, Nikon's fantastic f2.8 300mm weighing 2.9 kilos. Not to mention the other primes one would have to carry to cover 70-300 range. Let's limit it to three: a 70mm(or close to it) a 100, a 135, a 200, and the 300. No coverage for those in between. For some reason I really like the 172mm sweet spot on my 70-300 mm.

Lots of other things to take issue with in the "10 reasons".

Cose focusing? Sigma 70-300mm macro, 59"; Nikon 300mm f2.8,7.2'.

Sharpness and brand name lenses: I think there are numerous tests that show Sigmas are sharper than their Canon or Nikon equivalents.

Just a little bit of kidding around here. I hope you/he were just kidding too.

Maybe Bourne is just past his prime. smile
Dick S.
user 5078257
Orlando, FL
Post #: 506
Bourne is citing HIS reasons for preferring prime lenses. Your mileage may vary.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy