Prime Vs Zoom

[Ben Jennings]

Hi everyone,

I have been pondering my lens set up over recent weeks, trying to work out what I need and what I don't. I have noticed of late that I mainly shoot with primes these days as most of my old canon fd lenses are prime and I always use my 50mm 1.8 on my Canon 5D (except on the odd occasion when I try and do some nature shots where extra length in needed [insert naturist/length joke here]).

Now at the moment I have a collection of EF zoom lenses sat around doing nothing and I am thinking of getting rid and going with a few prime lens instead.

I wondered what peoples preferences were when it comes to lenses?

Is it better to shoot with a mid price zoom but loosing out on aperture?

Is it better to shoot with a mid price prime but having to crop to get closeness to subject (depending on focal length obviously)?

 

[Larry Bolch]

Both are made, because both have advantages and allow a photographer to match equipment to working methods. What is "best" is what empowers you at the moment. My D700 with a 14-24mm and 28-300mm is huge, heavy and noisy. However, traveling by vehicle, it really is no problem. I am able to dial up the appropriate focal length to provide coverage from 8° to 114°, so I can react to whatever sort of subject pops up. This I can do with minimal lens changing.

When traveling with friends, I am not trying their patience while I dig through a bag of primes to find the one that will fit the perspective I want. With these two lenses, I can capture vast landscapes, interiors of fascinating buildings, tiny prairie flowers, birds or other critters, or people strolling past a sidewalk cafe.

On the other hand, most of my shots in the past year were done with my Fuji X100. The lens can not be changed and has no zoom whatever. It is always the equivalent of a 35mm—no more, no less. It is my carry-everywhere camera—just 445g compared to 3kg of D700 and lenses. I accept its limits and choose it when the limits don't matter. It allows me to shoot indoors in ambient light, working close to my subjects capturing life as it is lived. The closeness that it allows enhances a feeling of intimacy with the subjects.

It is OK on the street, but shots are missed when the subject is too far away. The high quality of both cameras allows considerable cropping, however. So the question is, "do I haul three or four kilos of versatility with zooms, live with the limitations of a highly mobile, semi-wide camera on the street or find a better remedy?" Hopefully, within a few days I will have the remedy—the new Fuji X-Pro1 with the equivalent of 28, 50 and 90mm lenses. Camera and lenses total only 967g. For urban shooting, primes are fine. Situations and goals don't happen abruptly, and generally can be anticipated with enough time to switch to the appropriate focal length.

So the answer to your questions is "Yes"—or it could be "No"—depending upon circumstances—or "either". Revisit your zooms, go shooting with just one in the bag and choose your venue or subject to match its capabilities. On other days, test each of the rest—primes as well. Review both the shoot and the resulting photographs. Determine what works best for you. Also question if you are limiting yourself out of force of habit, or in fact simplifying shooting in a way that is to your advantage. Realize too that the least used lens might require a new attitude which just might energize your photography.

Such a vast range of equipment exists, because the needs of photographers cover such a huge range of circumstances. The best way is always the one that works for you, solves your photographic problems and provides you and your viewers with the best photographs that you are capable of making.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Ben - I've gone from being a zoomer, to a primer

Use to think that a zoom made for better compositions - when really, it just made me lazy!

Now I'm hooked on primes - my zooms are crying in their Pelican case

 

[Hamish Gill]

I'm not realy sure what can be added to Larry's post bar personal experience ...
I can't remember the last time I used a zoom lens other than for work...
But it's an odd one really
Prime lenses have a different effect on different people ...
I often go out with fixed lens cameras or cameras with one lens, and wilst I agonise over it sometimes before I go out, once I'm out the door I'm happy with what I have and rarely wish I had a wider or longer lens!
A zoom lens for me offers just a bit of peace of mind... Some photographers, I think, really like to have that peace of mind. These tend to be the same photographers who take a kit bag of 14-24 24-70 and 70-200 where ever they go!
Now arguably they are likely to have a much better chance of covering every possibility ... But how often do those possibilities arise that couldn't be captured just with a 35 or 50mm?
I don't know... I'm not one of those photographers, so I have no idea how much the range of kit gets used...

For me zooms come into thier own for work... Especially weddings and events etc!
The glass is so good, fast and sharp an the d3 so good in low light that I can use a 24-70 for a big part of the day... I have the ability to make very fast compositional decisions between borderline ultra-wide and borderline-tele ... The zoom enables me to not miss a shot! But at a wedding I work very quickly ... I'm not a fast person in the rest of my life so I just don't feel I need that speed for day to day shooting!

If you are comfortable with primes, which it sounds as though you are ... I'd sack off the zooms
Primes are better for learning anyway ... I think I'm still getting better at compo faster than if I had a distracting zoom!

Just don't harp on about only shooting primes to other people ...
I have been on both sides in the shop
The first where you get someone come in who wont accept that for eg the nikon 24-70 is as capable as his 1950's collection of prime lenses ... Just because it's a zoom
"they must be better, they let in more light"

I've also been that guy who has been seen as a prime lens snob after saying "I only really shoot primes for my personal work" ... I learnt very quickly that that sentence seems to get people's back up ... They think that you think you are supirior ... One guy went on to tell me "I have shot with the 24-70 afs and I can tell you it makes the 24 2.8 d and 28 2.8d redundant ... The only Nikon primes worth having are the 35 f2 and 50 f1.4..."
All things that I felt that I was happily aware of, but he felt I should be told as I, in his mind was a prime snob ...
Crazy

I'm waffling

Read Larry's post again and go with that

 

[Mark Hoy]

Realize too that the least used lens might require a new attitude which just might energize your photography.

One of my least used lenses is an Asahi Super Takuamr 50mm f/1.4 While I may not use it much I would never sell it and I totally agree with the quote (see here if you'd like to see some sample shots).

I use primes and zooms, and even though my 24-70L is a bit of a "goto" lens I'll try to leave it behind sometimes and go prime, albeit with the 70-200 f/2.8 in my bag as walk-further-away backup

 

[Gavin Robert]

I find prime lenses can generate more of an artistic approach by forcing the user to move around when framing the subject. Whilst jigging about to compose the shot with a short lens we can sometimes come across a composition which when standing back with a zoom wouldn't have materialised.