Why so few prime lenses sold?

It seems as if everyone is trying to squeeze the last pixel out of the
sensors, but then the cameras are almost universally sold with zoom
lenses.

My experience has always been that prime lenses provide better detail
and color than zoom lenses.

And, if the average DSLR buyer uses a single wide-range zoom, it seems
silly to pay the extra cost of the removeable lens design.

Something doesn't quite compute here - what am I overlooking?

phk wrote:

It seems as if everyone is trying to squeeze the last pixel out of the
sensors, but then the cameras are almost universally sold with zoom
lenses.

My experience has always been that prime lenses provide better detail
and color than zoom lenses.

And, if the average DSLR buyer uses a single wide-range zoom, it seems
silly to pay the extra cost of the removeable lens design.

Something doesn't quite compute here - what am I overlooking?


Zoom lenses are better these days than they used to be.

A DSLR still gets you a larger sensor with less noise, better high ISO
performance and faster shooting.

Switching lenses is still a pain, more so with sensor dust issues.

There is still the possibility of buying specialized lenses in the
future but beginners don't really know enough to make use of different
lenses. I think lots of people used film SLRs with one all purpose lens
without even thinking about it, I know I did back in college.

Check this one out:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm
$670 is a bit steep but wow that would be handy for a vacation or
backpacking trip or if you just didn't want to hassle with changing lenses.

Good answers Paul. I'll add that folks these days are more focused on
camera bodies as there have been so many rapid advances in this arena. I'll
go way out on a limb and predict that this curve is going to soon flatten
and interest in lenses will be rekindled and there will be more attention
paid to fixed focal-length lenses.

"phk" wrote in message
oups.com...
It seems as if everyone is trying to squeeze the last pixel out of the
sensors, but then the cameras are almost universally sold with zoom
lenses.

My experience has always been that prime lenses provide better detail
and color than zoom lenses.

And, if the average DSLR buyer uses a single wide-range zoom, it seems
silly to pay the extra cost of the removeable lens design.

Something doesn't quite compute here - what am I overlooking?

I don't think I'm representative of any particular group, but I'll try to
answer your question anyway.

From 1975 through 1998 I used a Minolta MF system that included 2 bodies (XK
and X-700) and 9 lenses (18, 20, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100 macro, 70-210, 500) and
only one zoom. Most were acquired in the 70's and 80's when prime lenses
were definitely better than zooms.

I'm now using a Nikon AF system with 3 bodies (N90s, F100, D70) and 7 lenses
(14, 18-85, 50, 55 macro, 90 macro, 70-300, 500). The performance of the
zooms (all Nikon optics) are exceptional and the only reason for owning the
primes is:
Sigma 14 f/2.8 is faster and probably better optically than the Sigma
12-24 F3.5...
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is for night and low-light shooting
Nikon 55mm macro is probably the best lens I have
Tamron 90mm macro is better macro than anything else I have


Pretty much the main reason I purchase primes these days is for lens speed
(macro excepted).

I'm totally satisfied with the performance of the zoom lenses on the digital
camera and I'm satisfied enough with the results I get on film so I don't
really consider getting any more primes except for speed or macro work.

I find that I'm not making as big enlargements as I did earlier. The prints
are pretty much the same size (4x6 through 11x14) but with zooms I don't
have to worry about cropping away half a picture to get what I want.

Now, if time, money, and an assistant to lug every thing around were no
object, I'd have a dozen primes. But that's for another lifetime.

Norm

phk wrote:
It seems as if everyone is trying to squeeze the last pixel out of the
sensors, but then the cameras are almost universally sold with zoom
lenses.

My experience has always been that prime lenses provide better detail
and color than zoom lenses.

And, if the average DSLR buyer uses a single wide-range zoom, it seems
silly to pay the extra cost of the removeable lens design.

Something doesn't quite compute here - what am I overlooking?

Noise. I'm talking about shots at ISO 400 under stage lights that look
like bad TV reception. An entry-level DSLR doesn't get this bad until
ISO 1600, if ever.

Dog slow auto-focus. Given the huge depth of field provided by the
typically short focal length fixed lenses on non-SLR digital cameras
you'd think auto-focus would be a snap. But auto-focus was slow enough
that I'd routinely miss shots while trying to street shoot with one of
these cameras. And without a focus ring manual focus was unusable.

These were the main reasons I gave up trying to do hobbyist photography
with a non-DSLR. Lens selection, particularly fast primes, was an added
bonus and one that I did consider since I occasionally shoot stills of
my wife's theatre productions using available light only. But there is
such a wide gulf between entry level DSLR's and non-SLR digital cameras
in other areas that this frankly was a secondary consideration.

In article .com,
phk wrote:
It seems as if everyone is trying to squeeze the last pixel out of the
sensors, but then the cameras are almost universally sold with zoom
lenses.

You have to distinguish between the people who just buy an entry level
DSLR and the people who want to get the best (technical) image quality.
Of course the second group is much smaller than the first.

And then there are professionals. Professionals have to make money. They
have to concentrate on what the client needs, and how to minimize costs
(before they lose assignments to other photographers). Getting the best
technical quality may require switching to medium format or larger.

My experience has always been that prime lenses provide better detail
and color than zoom lenses.

Some zooms are very good. For Nikon, it is hard to beat the 17-35 using
primes. The quality of the 80-200/2.8 tends to be on par with 180/2.8.

Another thing (that may be an issue with longer lenses) is that if you
crop an image taken with a fixed focal lens, you may lose more than using
a good zoom.

And, if the average DSLR buyer uses a single wide-range zoom, it seems
silly to pay the extra cost of the removeable lens design.

I doubt that the mount is really a big cost. In some sense it may even
reduce costs: lenses and cameras can be developed independently. Both
groups of designers know what the interface is going to be.

Getting agreement over a 'hidden lens mount' may cause delays in the
design of a new camera that are more costly than just adding a standard
mount.

Something doesn't quite compute here - what am I overlooking?

And finally there is the psychological factor: very few people buy a piece
of equipment that does just one thing right and doesn't do anything else.
Many people want options, even if they are unlikely to use them.

Being able to buy new lens if the kit lens turns out limiting makes it much
easier to decide to buy a camera now and the right lens later.

For example, for P&S cameras you have to decide what kind of wide angle or
zoom factor you want. Adding wide angle adaptors or tele converters is not as
good as buying the right camera from the start. With an SLR you don't
have that problem (or least, to a lesser extent).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

phk wrote:

It seems as if everyone is trying to squeeze the last pixel out of the
sensors, but then the cameras are almost universally sold with zoom
lenses.

My experience has always been that prime lenses provide better detail
and color than zoom lenses.

And, if the average DSLR buyer uses a single wide-range zoom, it seems
silly to pay the extra cost of the removeable lens design.

Something doesn't quite compute here - what am I overlooking?

An interesting piece of FUD. What is your agenda? Do you have a
warehouse full of P&S digital cameras that you are having a hard time
selling? Maybe a pile of "prime lenses" that is giving you similar
difficulties?

I raise these questions because there is nothing actually
digital-specific in your query. Why do some people buy dSLR's and only
mount one lens on it? Why did some people do the same thing with film
cameras? The answer is the same: because 35mm cameras demonstrably
produce better quality images than the P&S variety, and these people
are willing to pay for this.

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
t...

Switching lenses is still a pain, more so with sensor dust issues.

I'm paranoid about dust getting in - almost to the point where I hold my
breath changing lenses!

I was thinking about the issue the other day - I can understand how dust can
get onto the mirror, but when you think about it, the sensor is hidden
behind what I would have thought was a wonderful dust guard - one that's
usually only ever opened for fractions of a second at a time. Obviously I'm
talking about the shutter here. Have I missed something?

Cheers,

C J Southern wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
t...

Switching lenses is still a pain, more so with sensor dust issues.

I'm paranoid about dust getting in - almost to the point where I hold my
breath changing lenses!

I was thinking about the issue the other day - I can understand how dust can
get onto the mirror, but when you think about it, the sensor is hidden
behind what I would have thought was a wonderful dust guard - one that's
usually only ever opened for fractions of a second at a time. Obviously I'm
talking about the shutter here. Have I missed something?

I would think the moving shutter when activated causes air currents
inside the body. If there is dust present inside the camera it will be
blown around and could eventually land on the sensor.

No agenda - I'm hoping to switch from my Canon G3 to maybe a Nikon D200
soon and am trying to decide which lens(s) to get. For my old 35mm SLR
I had only prime focus lenses because they were simply better, but I
bought a zoom for my wife to use because she hated to bother with
changing lenses. There's no denying the convenience but I shoot a lot
of available light, and 1.4 still beats 4.5 even when you can push the
Iso to 1600.

A friend recently opined that with computer design, it's possible to
design zoom lenses that are a lot better than they used to be. But I
still see color fringes on a recently reviewed Tamron 10-20mm (or
whatever) at extreme wide angle.

The small sensor sizes are creating a need for very short focal
lengths, and that would seem to exacerbate potential problems with zoom
lenses.