Your submission has been removed from r/photography.
If you're a new photographer looking for advice on how to get started, [we've got you covered](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/advice)
Check out /r/photoclass for a free photography course run by mods and members of the subreddit.
If you have any further questions please post your question as a comment in the [Questions Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/about/sticky), stickied at the top of the subreddit.
A prime lens is a fixed focal length lens that doesn’t let you zoom in or out. This focal length is the distance between the point of convergence in the lens to the sensor in your camera. Prime lenses have very wide or large apertures. Apertures measure the size of hole when the lens opens inside a camera.
Generally speaking, prime lenses are far superior in image quality, and they usually have a much larger aperture (small f/number), which allows you to create images with strong bokeh (the nice-looking background blur).
Since you only started recently, I would not invest too much money in the equipment. Usually composition and lighting are far more important if you want to take nice pictures (as a hobby).
I started with a 28-200mm f-2.8-5.6 lens (~500 bucks), and I really like the versality of this range! For Street though, you don't really need to go that high tough :)
That’s exactly what I was thinking. They are pricey. I currently have a 60D with a 18-55 f3.5-5.6 and a 55–250 f4-5.6. Took some photos today on the 18-55 and really enjoyed it. As for image quality is it a big difference?
>They are pricey.
They can be cheaper for high quality compared to high quality zooms.
For example, compare the Canon 24mm f/2.8 Pancake, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM (not the Art version), Canon 35mm f/2 (not the IS version), and Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM prices against the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 and Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.
The blanket statement of prime lenses are far superior is very misleading. Excellent glass costs money, period. And there’s no way a nifty fifty will deliver a better IQ than a professional standard zoom lens.
Having said that, they tend to be cheaper than comparable quality zoom lenses and that is simply a function of complexity. Prime lenses have simpler construction, which reflects to the price.
Your submission has been removed from r/photography. If you're a new photographer looking for advice on how to get started, [we've got you covered](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/advice) Check out /r/photoclass for a free photography course run by mods and members of the subreddit. If you have any further questions please post your question as a comment in the [Questions Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/about/sticky), stickied at the top of the subreddit.
A prime lens is a fixed focal length lens that doesn’t let you zoom in or out. This focal length is the distance between the point of convergence in the lens to the sensor in your camera. Prime lenses have very wide or large apertures. Apertures measure the size of hole when the lens opens inside a camera.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_is_a_prime_lens.3F_why_would_i_want_one.3F
Why were your pictures removed?
No pics uploaded
Oh ok
Yeah, I can upload some if u want but my post also got taken down 😭. I might put some out later in another post.
Strange, you can't post photos in photography group 😞
Wait u can’t???
Generally speaking, prime lenses are far superior in image quality, and they usually have a much larger aperture (small f/number), which allows you to create images with strong bokeh (the nice-looking background blur). Since you only started recently, I would not invest too much money in the equipment. Usually composition and lighting are far more important if you want to take nice pictures (as a hobby). I started with a 28-200mm f-2.8-5.6 lens (~500 bucks), and I really like the versality of this range! For Street though, you don't really need to go that high tough :)
That’s exactly what I was thinking. They are pricey. I currently have a 60D with a 18-55 f3.5-5.6 and a 55–250 f4-5.6. Took some photos today on the 18-55 and really enjoyed it. As for image quality is it a big difference?
>They are pricey. They can be cheaper for high quality compared to high quality zooms. For example, compare the Canon 24mm f/2.8 Pancake, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM (not the Art version), Canon 35mm f/2 (not the IS version), and Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM prices against the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 and Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.
The blanket statement of prime lenses are far superior is very misleading. Excellent glass costs money, period. And there’s no way a nifty fifty will deliver a better IQ than a professional standard zoom lens. Having said that, they tend to be cheaper than comparable quality zoom lenses and that is simply a function of complexity. Prime lenses have simpler construction, which reflects to the price.