# whats so good about the prime lens that similar to the kit lens?



## mrm83 (Apr 27, 2009)

why do people replace their kit lens with a prime lens thats similar in focal length, but lower in aperture?

Is it just for the aperture?  Or is there something else?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 27, 2009)

Sharper image, faster aperture, no kit lens can shoot at f/1.4, smoother the bokeh looks more natural and you have more control over it.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 27, 2009)

Because of the simple design, prime lenses often have much better image quality compared to cheap zoom lenses.  

When the companies design a 'kit lens', the most important factor is that it be cheap, and less important that it be light weight etc.  In other words, image quality or maximum aperture are not the top priorities...so there is a lot of compromise in those areas.

So by 'replacing' your kit lens with a prime lens, you likely get better image quality and a larger maximum aperture, which has several benefits.  

This leads us to high quality zoom lenses.  They can be as good or better than cheap prime lenses...but they are very expensive.  And past that, we have very high quality prime lenses...they are also very expensive but the image quality is outstanding.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 27, 2009)

I remember a test between Canon's 24-70L, tamron's 28-70, and the Canon 50mm f/1.4, and the 50mm consistently yielded better results.


----------



## mrm83 (Apr 27, 2009)

serisouly??  its pretty crazy how mcuh a 50mm L prime lens can go...  Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L cost like 2k..


----------



## dxqcanada (Apr 27, 2009)

The cost of manufacturing a lens with an unusually wide aperture ... and at the same time reduce optical aberrations to a minimum ... is extreme.

Canon could have made a 50mm f/1.2 for a very low price ... but the lens would probably have so much optical affects it would render it useless ... such poor image quality that no one would want to buy it.


----------



## dxqcanada (Apr 27, 2009)

Most current optics manufacturer's tend to make their prime lenses of high quality. Generally, their target audience is the photographers that will spend a lot of money for high image quality.

Back in the old days prime lenses were the norm, so the optics manufacturers made a larger variation in quality of these lenses ... such as you see in the current zoom lenses.


----------



## rufus5150 (Apr 27, 2009)

mrm83 said:


> serisouly??  its pretty crazy how mcuh a 50mm L prime lens can go...  Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L cost like 2k..



Sw1tchFX was noting the 50mm f/1.4 USM (non-L) which is only around $300-400. It constantly outperforms way higher level zooms. The 50 f/1.2 is only marginally better from my understanding (I've not had much experience with them, other than to note their build quality). The 50 1.4 is an awesome lens. I use it for 90% of my shooting.


----------



## Garbz (Apr 28, 2009)

mrm83 said:


> serisouly??  its pretty crazy how mcuh a 50mm L prime lens can go...  Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L cost like 2k..



You're going ahead of primes into special purpose territory here. f/1.2 lenses are reserved for a few pros and serious amateurs, compare that to the cost of the f/1.8 which has a wider aperture and is still of significantly higher quality than the kit zooms. Costs only $150 or so. 

But while in this special territory it's still a very cheap. This is Canon's best wide aperture prime along with the 85mm f/1.2, comparatively the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 fetches a cool 4k on ebay, which is not bad for a lens that stopped production in the 80s.


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 30, 2009)

As with any technology the closer you get to "the ultimate" the more you have to pay for the least amount of gain (is a ferrari really THAT much better then a corvette?).  There's a HUGE difference between a typical f4 kit lens and an f1.8 prime, there's a bit of an improvement between an f1.8 and an f1.4, but the difference between f1.2 and f1.4 is almost imperceptible.


----------



## jdwyer (Apr 30, 2009)

how about the difference between the 50 1.8 and newer 1.4. is there that big a difference between the two?


----------



## docphotog (Apr 30, 2009)

jdwyer said:


> how about the difference between the 50 1.8 and newer 1.4. is there that big a difference between the two?



Apparently you get 2/3's more light with the 1.4 and 250+ dollars added onto the bill =(


----------



## rufus5150 (Apr 30, 2009)

If you're talking about the canon, it's not just the more light, faster autofocus, subjectively more pleasing bokeh and vastly higher build quality.


----------



## Garbz (Apr 30, 2009)

And when talking about that it's the difference between a lens that looks like it may fall apart if you pick it up the wrong way, compared to a lens which looks like it would easily survive a fall onto the floor.

There's far more in top grade lenses than build quality. Sealing, gearing, more accurate manual focus, less play in controls, smoother operation, and that's beside the build quality. That said wide open is also the worst place for a lens in terms of sharpness. Stop the f/1.4 down to f/1.8 and you end up with improved sharpness and reduced CA as well.


----------



## chantal7 (May 1, 2009)

I have switched over to a prime lens from my kit lens, Canon 50mm f/1.8 - I love it. Love the background blur mostly, and I plan to try it out on family pictures this summer  I recommend getting something like this to start ya off. 

But yeah, pretty much what everyone else said!


----------



## djacobox372 (May 1, 2009)

jdwyer said:


> how about the difference between the 50 1.8 and newer 1.4. is there that big a difference between the two?



The most significant difference is build quality (metal vs. plasic).  As for the difference in aperture between 1.4 and 1.8, and if that's worth the $$--for a pro, definitely, but for a hobbiest probably not.


----------



## table1349 (May 1, 2009)

djacobox372 said:


> The most significant difference is build quality (metal vs. plasic).  As for the difference in aperture between 1.4 and 1.8, and if that's worth the $$--for a pro, definitely, but for a hobbiest probably not.



I would agree if you are talking about the difference between the 1.2L and the 1.8, but the price difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8 is not that great.  From my prospective, if you want a 50mm to have around and you use it every once in a while then go for the 1.8

If on the other hand  if it is a lens that will see a good amount of use, buy the 1.4.  With the difference in build quality, it will last where the 1.8 will in all likely hood fall apart.  If you end up buying more than 2 in the lifetime of the system, you have paid for the 1.4 and not got the value the 1.4 would have given.


----------



## jdwyer (May 2, 2009)

I got my grandfathers film equipment after he passed away. The nikon 50mm 1.8 is just about my favorite lens in my kit. I use it for practically everything. I obviously cant have any "regrets" about getting it per se, but didn't know if purchasing the 1.4 would be at all beneficial. 
I'm just gonna stick with this lens, it's fantastic and has a lot of sentimental value to it as well for me - makes everything that much better.


----------



## mrm83 (May 2, 2009)

is the 50mm 1.8 simliar to the 18-55 is kit lens in build quality??

it's such a hard decision determining which lens to get..
at first.. it was the macro/tele for me.. now its
50mm 1.8
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
100mm 2.8 macro 

I really can't decide which to buy first anymore..

and btw.. in terms of focal length ratio
is 55mm vs 85mm the same as
25mm vs 55mm??


----------



## chantal7 (May 2, 2009)

Well, I bought the 50mm 1.8 because it was cheap! Maybe you can buy a cheaper one AND another lens?


----------



## DexGtr (May 7, 2009)

i just got a Minolta 50mm 1.7 to replace the kit lens of my Sony a200...and boy what a difference...


----------

