+

[Araakii]

Originally Posted by zibbazabba905

is there anything wrong with using a stock 18-55 lens vs a prime lens besides not having the 1.8f aperture? I've heard using prime lenses forces you to get closer/better shots, but isn't that just a mental problem?

Yes it's a mental problem but it doesn't mean you can just solve it by yourself mentally. For example, someone might be really afraid of riding rollercoasters. It's not something that the person can just overcome mentally. He/she has to ride it once and realize that there's nothing to fear about.

[brucer007]

It is not a mental problem. It is a mental limitation.

Using a prime lens does not force you to get closer or better shots. I might have a camera bag with a selection of prime lenses. Then I can have many choices of perspectives and compositions. However, if someone brings only one prime lens as the only lens to use for an photo shoot, then they are limiting their options.

[Foques]

the mental note is one of the most ignorant statement i've read..

my 50 and 85mm are my, by far, most favorite lenses, and are used the most.
Depends on one's style, I suppose.

[brucer007]

Originally Posted by Foques

the mental note is one of the most ignorant statement i've read..

There have been more than one reference to the word "Mental" in this forum, so I am not sure which note you find as ignorant.

[Foques]

that one of a mental "issue".. Though, I do not agree with it being a mental limitation either.
If anything, i think it is a physical limitation.. specifically, distance available.

[brucer007]

Ok..I see you replaced "problem" with "issue".

I meant, thinking that prime lenses forces us to get in closer or get better shots is limited thinking. Having the ideal focal-length for a particular shot can help get better shots. Sometimes the "ideal" focal-length can fall in between a 50mm lens or an 85mm lens.

Regarding distance available, either I would find the best lens for the situation, or I would change the situation, if possible, so I had the space I wanted or needed, to get a better shot. This might entail moving the cosplayer to a different area. If the situation is too much of a compromise, I might not even bother to shoot it.

[Ashurachan]

I prefer to use primes for photoshoots, because the physical limitation is a good push at my creativity. Zooms are immediate, you can correct your frame without moving, and without thinking much. Using a prime forces to really think about every single shoot you take. Which, depending on the time you have, can be a good or bad thing. Since I take my time for shoots (typically 2+ hours), primes are only a problem when I don't have any space to move. For example when I shoot in a studio, I tend to use a zoom. For convention photography, I've given up zooms entirely, I prefer the large aperture to the versatility of a zoom (since I only use available light and oten have to shoot inside, I really need the large aperture).

[brucer007]

Originally Posted by Ashurachan

I prefer to use primes for photoshoots, because the physical limitation is a good push at my creativity. Zooms are immediate, you can correct your frame without moving, and without thinking much. Using a prime forces to really think about every single shoot you take. Which, depending on the time you have, can be a good or bad thing. Since I take my time for shoots (typically 2+ hours), primes are only a problem when I don't have any space to move. For example when I shoot in a studio, I tend to use a zoom. For convention photography, I've given up zooms entirely, I prefer the large aperture to the versatility of a zoom (since I only use available light and oten have to shoot inside, I really need the large aperture).

I don't see how physical limitations would be different for a prime lens compared to a zoom lens. Generally, whatever focal length is available for a prime lens is also covered in zoom lenses.

Zoom lenses do not necessarily correct my frame without moving, if I have a specific composition in mind. I will still have to move if I want that size relationship of the subject, with the background and sometimes foreground as well. If my compositional needs are not so specific, then a zoom lens might save me the effort of walk a step or more and a prime lens might work out just fine.

Zoom lenses can be relatively fast, if budget allows. Otherwise, I raise my ISO within acceptable levels, or I keep my camera and the cosplayer as still as possible, when I lower my shutter speed. If I really need a faster shutter speed, then fast prime lenses can be helpful. Most of my zooms start at f2.8. That is why I avoid prime lenses that start at f2.8.

[Foques]

I'm with Ashurachan.. for the most part.
on Cons, in my opinion, zooms are a must. Actual shoots - I prefer primes.

as I mentioned above, I think it is up to the photog to chose their own style of shooting.

[tfcreate]

Originally Posted by zibbazabba905

is there anything wrong with using a stock 18-55 lens vs a prime lens besides not having the 1.8f aperture? I've heard using prime lenses forces you to get closer/better shots, but isn't that just a mental problem?

If you play to the strengths of whatever you have, you should be fine.
Just because you have to move yourself rather than the barrel of the lens doesn't mean that it's a weakness.

I still have an 18-55 kit lens (literally Gen-1).
I still use it.
It does what I need it to do, so I see no reason to get rid of it.

[sukotsuto]

The eternal debate, zoom vs. prime.

There are a few instances where one is actually better than the other based on their inherent design, however I personally think those instances are few with the right technique. I think it's pretty common that people tend to go with zooms, that's their prerogative and if it works for them, great.

I use primes for hallway cosplay. It works well for me. When I want some focal length range, I like using two camera bodies to speed things up.

I go to events and just enjoy photography sometimes with a single prime lens. No, I don't think I'm limiting myself, I'm using what I decided to bring, enjoying it, and using it as I feel like. In this case, it is generally a wide or normal focal length lens.

A zoom can't replace a prime unless it is being used at the same focal length and aperture. Once you zoom your zoom from the same focal length, your result will look different.

As Bruce said, a zoom won't replace moving around, he just wants those extra focal lengths at a given aperture for more possibilities.

As for me, I'm fine with one or two focal lengths, but I usually like having more aperture possibilities (note, I do have a few slower primes like a 40mm f2.8 and 100mm f2.8).

[Ashurachan]

Originally Posted by Foques

I'm with Ashurachan.. for the most part.
on Cons, in my opinion, zooms are a must. Actual shoots - I prefer primes.

as I mentioned above, I think it is up to the photog to chose their own style of shooting.

As I've mentionned in other threads, there aren't many cons in France that have nice backgrounds to work with, and light is generally very poor, so the large aperture of primes is doubly needed - my zoom is good, but it's not f/2.8 (I only have Canon's EF 24-105/4 L), which means I can't have much background blur when I take full body shots with it - did I mention that I'm really fond of full body shots ?
I've grown tired of shooting random cosplayers in alleys, so at cons what I do can be seen as minishoots : I take a cosplayer apart for five or ten minutes, and I take my time to get a few creative, in character shots. I find it way more satisfying than going for quantity, since I enjoy the photos and the con more.

[brucer007]

Originally Posted by Foques

I'm with Ashurachan.. for the most part.
on Cons, in my opinion, zooms are a must. Actual shoots - I prefer primes.

as I mentioned above, I think it is up to the photog to chose their own style of shooting.

Of course the photographer should his or her own style. I doubt anything I, or anyone else said contested that. I have been merely defending the principles I have experienced of how choosing a prime lens or a zoom lens actually effects a photo or a photo shoot, while dispelling anything that might not be accurate. My arguments are about physics, not shooting styles.

[PsychoLove]

As a cosplayer, I have been starting to feel a bit iffy about my posing and the decisions I have been making, and so I pose these two questions to you guys:

1) When not in a private shoot (more over, when you're in a crowded lobby etc), do you guys care if the cosplayer is in a dynamic pose or if they are just standing there in a line? I'm always finding myself wanting to be as dramatic as possible, but I'm not sure if it is worth the effort or appreciated!

2) Say you pass a cosplayer already in a pose, surrounded by other photographers and you take out your camera for a shot, are you disappointed if they shift their pose to look at you? Was it exactly what you saw initially that got your interest, or did you want them to change poses to look at you? I am never sure if I should shift my attention around, or if I should just hold one pose and let the photographers find the angle they want out of my statue of a being...

[Foques]

Granted, I haven't been to many cons yet..
but at the cons i've been a apart of, if the cosplayer isn't wanting to make an effort to be in character for the shot, I won't put an effort in considering/framing/taking/PPing the shot. I definitely appreciate the folks who take a moment to strike a pose. Afterall, if the costume is built well, that person (odds are) won't have any issues getting in character momentarily.
#2 question... really depends. I normally ask the person to pose for me in a certain way once the other photogs have dissipated..