kit lens vs Nifty fifty

[Leo]

https://www.picturecorrect.com/5-reasons-why-prime-lenses-are-better-than-zoom-lenses/

picturecorrect.com

5 Reasons Why Prime Lenses Are Better Than Zoom Lenses

The debate always rages between photographers – which is better: zoom lenses, or primes? In this video from, photographer Kai W, with the help of his buddy Lok, makes his argument for the benefits of prime lenses: Of course, every lens … Continue reading

[Grant Vergotine]

Thank you Leo, this is very helpful…. i guess i will have to get myself one.

• This reply was modified 12 months ago by  Grant Vergotine.
• This reply was modified 12 months ago by  Marcel Wiegerinck.

[Jacques Linssen]

It all depends what you want to do, and/or how you define quality. Zooms often have a slow aperture, such as f/2.8, f/4 or even slower. A fast 50mm will provide other creative. Or e.g. the minimum focus distance is not so good when compared to a macro 50mm. Etc. What are your concerns with your zoom?

However, no lens will in itself make an image better; 99% of the image quality comes from the creativity of the 20cm behind the viewfinder. For years, I have used mostly lenses from the 1930ies to 1950ies, these are not as advanced as today’s designs, but also do not prevent someone from making great images 🙂 Same goes for the modest 16-50 2.8 zoom I currently use on my K3iii Mono; it’s just that I prefer shooting primes.

[Grant Vergotine]

Hi Jacques

Thank you for the methodical answer, It does make sense in what you say especial the the part of creativity.

My main focus is to get the best i can out of my camera without spending on unnecessary equipment.

[Jacques Linssen]

Hi Grant, in that case, first analyze what you miss in the image quality department, and what causes it? Is it stuff like composition, lighting, …? Are some things related to wrong settings (e.g. motion blur on static subjects, …)? Are the instances where you think your lens is the issue?
In case you are in doubt, you can post images here for review.

NB – there’s nothing wrong with collecting lenses, but it won’t necessarily improve images.
NB2 – if you shoot at f/8, usually there’s not much difference in quality between lenses, except lemons or very poor quality designs. In case you want to shoot at wider apertures, the differences become more visible.

[Jacques Linssen]

Just to be clear, I dont necessarily want to discourage you from buying more lenses.
I’m a lens collector myself, I think I currently have somewhere between 75 and 100 lenses, mostly analog-era glass, some which I use regularly, and many that I use occasionally or rarely.
But if you dont want to collect gear that you don’t use: A different consideration is getting a 2nd lens that does something your current lens cannot do (e.g. ultra wide, long tele, fast aperture prime, ….)