To prime or not?

I understand the difference between lenses such as the 18-55mm kit lens and primes such as the 50mm (speed of lens, focusing speed, and sharpness) But my question is simply; do I really need one?

I have heard rave reviews about this lens, but if I shoot with my flash while I am indoors, will I really see a difference? Or better yet, where would I realistically see a difference.

With a fast prime, you won't need a flash indoors. You can get proper exposure with a fast enough shutter... so you won't have blurry subject matter. I love my 50mm.

What would I need to adjust in the camera as far as shutter, aperture, iso, etc. to achieve those results?

I guess I am just trying to decide if the 200 dollars is worth it. Or if I should just use my flash and be happy until my skills can match my equipment.

A prime can give you very shallow depth of field and lets you shoot in low light without a flash. They are also lighter (typically), sharper and easier to hold.

Matthew

In my course, I encourage all students purchase a 50mm lens, if all they have is the kit lens. It changes how you work and see with a camera. It takes it from a fancy P&S to one you control.

You will realistically see a difference when shooting under poor lighting conditions, where the f/1.8 lens will allow you to see through the viewfinder better, and also when it is necessary to have fast,sure focusing under poor lighting conditions without flash, and without any AF assist beam from a speedlight or a camera body that emits an AF assist beam when it has difficulty focusing.

The greater light gathering power of an f/1.8 lens rather than a much slower lens means that your AF system will have a slight edge. You know how the kit lens sometimes hunts for focus when using an off-center AF point? That type of behavior is minimized by having a fast, f/1.8 prime lens that is optimized for focusing at one length,and which is not a compromise.

The other place you will notice a difference is the lack of zoom on the prime; after using a particular fixed focal length lens, you start mentally framing shots in your mind's eye; there is less indecision about where to stand, and instead of debating about how close or how far to be, or what zoom setting to select, you will find yourself composing shots almost by instinct, once you become familiar with the angle of view of a particular prime lens on a particular camera format. Zooms by their very nature work differently than high-speed prime lenses do.

That makes sense, so it will basically take some of the gadget fidgeting out of the equation and let me focus on taking better pictures? (aside from being an all around better lens.)

Well not less fidgeting. You won't have a zoom function to mess with, but everything else will still need to be adjusted as necessary.

Great! Thanks everyone for the info! I think I am going to go ahead and pick up a new lens then!

As far as whther the difference in a given shot may be noticeable depends on how you view the images, and what eventual use you want to make of them. If you print 11x14 at 300dpi, you will almost surely see the difference in almost any image.

Country gal wrote: ...the f/1.8 lens will allow you to see through the viewfinder better...

Many DSLR stock focusing screens are optimized for use with zooms these days, and won't ever get brighter than f/2.8 (I think this effects AF too, not just looking through the viewfinder). This is the case with Canon. I had to install a different focusing screen to get a brighter viewfinder with my prime lenses.

---

In low light situations I'll usually take all the extra exposure I can get. The difference between f/1.8 and f/2. can seem significant.

At focusing distances of 10' or closer the difference in DOF between f/2-ish and f/4-ish should be fairly obvious.

I am a big fan of smaller, lighter lenses. For me that's an advantage.

As far as sharpness goes I can't speak for the zoom lenses you've been using, but I've done extensive comparisons between the Sigma, Tamron, and Canon f/2.8 zooms I own and my primes. Common advice says the primes stopped down a few to f/2.8 ought to blow away the zooms at their max aperture, yet I can't see a difference even when extreme pixel peeping. I have shown my test shots to many photographers, and if the pics are unlabeled they don't seem to be able to differentiate primes from zooms either.

A prime lens will affect the quality of your photography much in the same way a non-adjustable wrench affects the quality of repairs for a mechanic. IMO, not much. Some days the prime will be better because of it's strengths, other days will belong to the zoom. Whether you succeed or fail at what you are trying to accomplish probably won't depend on what lens you are using.

If cropping in camera is important then a zoom lens trumps a prime. Perspective is controlled by camera placement. I position the camera to get the perspective I need, then I crop in the camera by adjusting focal length. With a prime lens I may need to crop out of the camera. This was a bigger deal to me when I shot 35mm film. Some DSLRs today allow for quite a bit of out-of-camera cropping and still retain decent image quality. I don't mind cropping big film or 12+ megapixels.