>>4412997>What are the reasons someone would use a prime lens, away from a kit lens?You are mixing up some terminology here.
Kit lens: Relatively low quality lens you get "for free" with a new camera. They are usually zooms that cover a relatively short range, somwhere between 24 and 85mm, and variable f-stops between 3.2 and 5.6.
Zoom lens: Lens with a zoom range
Prime lens: Lens with a fixed focal length
Zoom lenses come in many shapes and sizes, but "professional" zooms are usually f2.8, with internal stabilization (not in the new mirrorless versions) with internal movement (the length of the lens does not change as you zoom).
Mid-tier zooms, like the 24-120mm f4 change in size and are mostly cased in plastic, instead of metal.
Low-tier zooms have variable apertures (ex. f3.5-f5.6) which are darker than the mid and high-tier equivalents.
The cheaper they are, the more barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, etc. you can expect. Softer corners are also common, and less sharpness in general.
Prime lenses are generally much better, but also
>much more expensive>much bigger/heavier>much less versatileThe notable exception being reflex or "mirror lenses", such as
>>4412993Which are light and cheap, but
>usually manual focus only>extremely dark (F8 is normal on a 500mm, while a regular 500mm prime can be f4)>strange bokeh, shaped like "donuts" (just google it)Reflex lenses are seen as very good for astro photography though. Mostly useless for anything else.
