[jstevewhite]

Zooms are just too big for me. Size is the main reason I chose Pentax over other brands. I am sure the Canikon offerings in bodies have more features than my K-r, but you don't get those tiny Pentax primes, you just your average big, bulky dslr, which 80% of users just use one lens with.

I'm a big strappin' fellow, but I agree with you. I like the idea of going out with a DA15ltd, 35 f2 FA, and DA70lt, my K-5, and a spare battery.

If I didn't want to change lenses, i'd probably not be getting a dslr in the first place.

Oh, actually laughed out loud.

[Marc Sabatella]

I really think that you need to be less dogmatic about zoom lenses.

Where did you get the idea I was dogmatic about them? I use them from time to time. And if you really get down to it and put away concerns about "missing" shots due to not having time but instead accept that even with a zoom lens, you will virtually always get a better shot if you change position from when you first spotted the shot, there is no denying that a zoom beats primes in that it allows you to control *both* perspective (position) and framing (FOV), whereas primes make you make some sort of sacrifice, however small, in that respect.

Again, I'm just challenging the notion that the number of "missed" shots from using primes is worth worrying about.

Below is a case in point. I was visiting Monument Valley last week, driving the 17 mile loop, when an amazing scene appeared before my eyes. I slammed on the brakes, leapt from my car and began shooting fast and furiously with my K-7 and DA*16-50, because the light was changing from second to second. I managed to get off about 6 shots, before the sun had moved on and the shot was lost forever.

Nice shot! But I guarantee that same scene appeared again the month before, and you missed it. It will appear again next month, and I'll bet you'll miss it again. Meanwhile, the day you took that shot, you missed a trillion more because you weren't in the right place or looking in the right direction. That's why I find it hard to get too excited about the days where I missed a trillion and one shots instead of just a trillion. If the only way one can hope to get nice pictures is to hope to be lucky enough to beat those odds, that would be pretty sad, I think.

If, by chance, I had had a 77mm or a 15mm lens mounted on my camera at the time, I would never have been able to change lenses and get the image that I got.

But if you knew you had one of those lenses on and were looking specifically for shots that could effectively be shot from that focal length, you would probably have found something else to shoot that would have been just as good. I don't see why you aren't equally upset about having *missed* the shot you didn't find with the 15 or 77.

But this also gets to my point about the non-random nature of these things. How would you not have known where you were or that this sort of light was imminent? This scene shouldn't have come as a big surprise, and you could have been prepared for it. No reason to miss a thing.

[robgo2]

Where did you get the idea I was dogmatic about them? I use them from time to time. And if you really get down to it and put away concerns about "missing" shots due to not having time but instead accept that even with a zoom lens, you will virtually always get a better shot if you change position from when you first spotted the shot, there is no denying that a zoom beats primes in that it allows you to control *both* perspective (position) and framing (FOV), whereas primes make you make some sort of sacrifice, however small, in that respect.

Again, I'm just challenging the notion that the number of "missed" shots from using primes is worth worrying about.



Nice shot! But I guarantee that same scene appeared again the month before, and you missed it. It will appear again next month, and I'll bet you'll miss it again. Meanwhile, the day you took that shot, you missed a trillion more because you weren't in the right place or looking in the right direction. That's why I find it hard to get too excited about the days where I missed a trillion and one shots instead of just a trillion. If the only way one can hope to get nice pictures is to hope to be lucky enough to beat those odds, that would be pretty sad, I think.



But if you knew you had one of those lenses on and were looking specifically for shots that could effectively be shot from that focal length, you would probably have found something else to shoot that would have been just as good. I don't see why you aren't equally upset about having *missed* the shot you didn't find with the 15 or 77.

But this also gets to my point about the non-random nature of these things. How would you not have known where you were or that this sort of light was imminent? This scene shouldn't have come as a big surprise, and you could have been prepared for it. No reason to miss a thing.

Marc,

You are philosophizing about the contingency of life, and I am talking about getting a particular shot when it happens to present itself to me. The two subjects are not unrelated, but realistically, I am far less concerned about potential photos that occur in my absence than about those that occur in my presence. Isn't that how life should be lived? I can only be present at one place in any given moment, and if I happen to have a camera with me, that is the place and time when I am going to take pictures. All of the countless missed photos do not trouble me in the least, as they are not part of my own life experience.

Returning to a real world situation, I might have a prime telephoto lens mounted for some distant subject, and I turn around only to see a fantastically interesting subject very close at hand that requires a wide angle lens. Now, I can choose to pass up that photo, or I can change lenses. You're right. The world won't come to an end if I pass it up, but since I do enjoy taking pictures, I'm going to hate to miss it. If I have the time, I will change lenses. If I don't have the time, it would sure be nice to have a high quality zoom lens mounted on my camera. I am well aware that even with zooms, one has to take care with composition, but there is no denying the versatility of a zoom lens. Are versatility and convenience bad things?

Just to remind you, I love my Limited lenses, but there are times when I feel that I am better served by my DA*16-50.

Rob

[DRabbit]

Rob,

I understand what your saying about versatility, however I can tell you there have been times I wish I had my "better" lens on the camera to capture a particular shot. For example, I love the way my 35 Biogon renders, but on leaving it home in favor of another lens, even a versatile zoom, I might inevitably see a shot and wish I had the Biogon with me.

We could all make the argument about missed shots... I don't think they are inherent to primes vs. zooms.

[robgo2]

Rob,

I understand what your saying about versatility, however I can tell you there have been times I wish I had my "better" lens on the camera to capture a particular shot. For example, I love the way my 35 Biogon renders, but on leaving it home in favor of another lens, even a versatile zoom, I might inevitably see a shot and wish I had the Biogon with me.

We could all make the argument about missed shots... I don't think they are inherent to primes vs. zooms.

Life is full of tradeoffs. The choosing of lenses is just one of them, and, in the grand scheme of things, not one of the biggies.

Rob

[Marc Sabatella]

You are philosophizing about the contingency of life, and I am talking about getting a particular shot when it happens to present itself to me.

As you say, these are not unrelated. I'm saying that I don't think it is that *important* to get that particular shot (any particular shot), and it does take a little philosophizing to get one's priorities into such an order where one might see it that way.

Returning to a real world situation, I might have a prime telephoto lens mounted for some distant subject, and I turn around only to see a fantastically interesting subject very close at hand that requires a wide angle lens.

No doubt, but see above. Also, I believe people greatly overstate the frequency with which this happens, as well as the "greatness" of the resulting photos that might be missed.

I think I stopped thinking I needed to take a picture of every thing that popped in front of my face somewhere within my first year of owning a DSLR. I now have all the pictures of distant squirrels and fantastically interesting fields I just noticed when turning around after shooting those distant squirrels (but apparently hadn't noticed before seeing the squirrel) that I can possibly use. So I am becoming more selecting in what I shoot. Even I did turn around after shooting a squirrel and saw yet another fantastically interesting field that I had to photograph despite having thousands of such pictures already, there's almost no chance I'd settle for the shot I could take from that spot just by changing focal length. I've got way too many of those shots as it is, most with uninteresting or downright awkward compositions determined by where I happened to be standing at the time rather than any creative input of my own. If it's going to be worth taking the shot at all, it's worth spending the next couple of minutes scouting out the best position and angle on the shot. Conversely, if it's not worth spending those minutes on, chances are excellent it just wasn't worth shooting.

I am well aware that even with zooms, one has to take care with composition, but there is no denying the versatility of a zoom lens. Are versatility and convenience bad things?

Nope. But nor is occasionally missing a shot that most of the time wasn't really worth taking in the first place because I wasn't in the right place and besides, I've got a thousand more just like it already.

Just to remind you, I love my Limited lenses, but there are times when I feel that I am better served by my DA*16-50.

And that's why I still use my 18-55 and 50-200 as well. But these are special circumstances, where it's more the time constraints, or the fact that the 50-200 is actually smaller and lighter than the primes it replaces, that is the determining factor. Not fear of missing a shot. I'm over that.

[wildman]

A clarification:

Zoom or prime?

Are we asking which is "better" considering the practical state of the art of optics at this time

or

Are we asking if there is something intrinsically better between one or the other simply because it's a zoom or a prime?

In other words lets assume the kit lens throughout it's zoom range is identical optically to any prime at any given FL within it's zoom range - is there still some reason to prefer one over the other.?

Perhaps I'm just being thick here but it's not clear to me which question is being asked nor which question is being answered.

---

Last edited by wildman; 05-28-2011 at 01:14 AM.

[Macario]

A clarification:

Zoom or prime?

Are we asking which is "better" considering the practical state of the art of optics at this time

or

Are we asking if there is something intrinsically better between one or the other simply because it's a zoom or a prime?

In other words lets assume the kit lens throughout it's zoom range is identical optically to any prime at any given FL within it's zoom range - is there still some reason to prefer one over the other.?

Perhaps I'm just being thick here but it's not clear to me which question is being asked nor which question is being answered.

I would still say that a prime is better in many situations, because when you are used to a prime you are used to it's view. ANd therefore you already see as the lens. as witha zoom you see a picture, then yous start to zoom out to get more, or zoom in to get less. and then you get frustrated as it can't zoom enough in or out. WIth a prime you already know you cannot zoom (ok, you can with your feet). So when seeing the opurtunity, you already know if you can take the pic, and you know how much you can zoom with walking.
For a big part it is a mind thing

[robgo2]

A clarification:

Zoom or prime?

Are we asking which is "better" considering the practical state of the art of optics at this time

or

Are we asking if there is something intrinsically better between one or the other simply because it's a zoom or a prime?

In other words lets assume the kit lens throughout it's zoom range is identical optically to any prime at any given FL within it's zoom range - is there still some reason to prefer one over the other.?

Perhaps I'm just being thick here but it's not clear to me which question is being asked nor which question is being answered.

In this hypothetical, the only advantage to a collection of prime lenses would be their smaller size when mounted on the camera.

Rob

[robgo2]

I would still say that a prime is better in many situations, because when you are used to a prime you are used to it's view. ANd therefore you already see as the lens. as witha zoom you see a picture, then yous start to zoom out to get more, or zoom in to get less. and then you get frustrated as it can't zoom enough in or out. WIth a prime you already know you cannot zoom (ok, you can with your feet). So when seeing the opurtunity, you already know if you can take the pic, and you know how much you can zoom with walking.
For a big part it is a mind thing

Is there some unwritten law about zoom lens users not being allowed to change their position and compose with a particular focal length in mind? If there is, then I break it all the time.

Rob

[jstevewhite]

In this hypothetical, the only advantage to a collection of prime lenses would be their smaller size when mounted on the camera.

Rob

That would be true if this hypothetical were possible. But without ideal glass ( theoretically ideal ) a zoom lens cannot match the IQ of a fixed lens of equivalently good design. (due to the complex distortions and corrections required in a zoom, and the dispersion of the greater number of elements )

Of course, as sensor and computer technology improves, I think we'll see a day where the pixel count is high enough and the on-board processing is fast enough that the lens manufacturer can allow considerably more distortion, and simply focus on contrast and sharpness, allowing the computer in the camera to correct distortion; this might allow zooms with element counts as low as similar primes.

[Marc Sabatella]

Is there some unwritten law about zoom lens users not being allowed to change their position and compose with a particular focal length in mind?

Nope. Again, no doubt whatsoever zooms have the advantage if one uses them in this way, because unlikely primes, they given you full independent control of both perspective and framing. They are clearly the superior artistic tool in that respect. It's just that in order to realize this benefit, you kind of have to let go of the "fear of missing shots" argument.

[Marc Sabatella]

In this hypothetical, the only advantage to a collection of prime lenses would be their smaller size when mounted on the camera.

I'd actually partially agree with that, but to me, that's actually a pretty significant advantage. Also, it's not necessarily just smaller size of the camera. The set of primes required to replace a given zoom or set of zooms may well be smaller & lighter than the zoom(s). Consider my usual working set: DA15, M28/2.8, DA40, DA70, M120/2.8, which covers the focal length and aperture ranges one would need the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 to match. Yet my combination fits into a bag that would barely hold *one* of the two zooms, and it weighs only a little more than the 50-135 alone. When I leave the M28/2.8 home, as I often do, my set is actually lighter than the 50-135 alone.

Now, whether or not this is actually important to a given photographer is another matter. Some totally don't mind the greater size & weight of the quality zooms it would take to replace these primes, or consider it a fair trade for the convenience. That's going to be a personal decision. And of course, the whole "fear of missing shots" thing is subjective too; I can't really talk someone out of it completely. At most, I can point out reasons why *I* don't find it a compelling argument, and perhaps some reading my arguments will realize those reasons apply to them as well. But in the end, it's all personal decision, and I have no problem with that.

[wildman]

It's just that in order to realize this
benefit, you kind of have to let go of the "fear of missing shots"
argument.

In this case, however, aren't we are comparing photographers rather than lens'?

The set of primes required to replace a
given zoom or set of zooms may well be smaller & lighter than the zoom(s).

On the other hand my old ver 1 kit lens is just barely larger than my
FA35
Kit length 3 3/8 inchs wt 8 oz
FA35 2.5 inchs wt 7 oz
Granted there may be peculiar combinations of primes where a zoom would
get pretty clumsy and heavy to replace them all. There would also be
certain zoom ranges where a zoom would be very size and weight efficient
given there other advantages.

But in the end, it's all personal
decision,

Indeed.
I put a very high value on gear that gets out of my way and just lets me
concentrate on creating an image. I just hate gear that breaks my train
of thought and intrudes on the process of trying to create the image
that I think I see with my minds eye in the viewfinder.

I recently went out in the woods to get some spring shots. I brought
along the Sigma 105 macro and the FA35. I found a lovely potential shot
of a moss covered log covered with fungus and mushrooms. Deep saturated
colors with a soft mystical lighting that was perfect. I looked through
the 105mm and the lighting was perfect. I took a shot but decided I
needed more FOV so I changed to the 35mm. But by this time, no more
than two minutes, the light had changed slightly and the magic was gone. I had
lost the image.

I could have backed up with the 105 but I was completely tangled in
brush and using a tripod. Also I think the change in perspective might
have lost what I was looking for anyway.

Well you get the idea.

Anyway thanks for your thoughtful comments they were well taken.

[robgo2]

I put a very high value on gear that gets out of my way and just lets me
concentrate on creating an image. I just hate gear that breaks my train
of thought and intrudes on the process of trying to create the image
that I think I see with my minds eye in the viewfinder.

I recently went out in the woods to get some spring shots. I brought
along the Sigma 105 macro and the FA35. I found a lovely potential shot
of a moss covered log covered with fungus and mushrooms. Deep saturated
colors with a soft mystical lighting that was perfect. I looked through
the 105mm and the lighting was perfect. I took a shot but decided I
needed more FOV so I changed to the 35mm. But by this time, no more
than two minutes, the light had changed slightly and the magic was gone. I had
lost the image.

I could have backed up with the 105 but I was completely tangled in
brush and using a tripod. Also I think the change in perspective might
have lost what I was looking for anyway.

Well you get the idea.

I suspect that Marc's attitude would be: Such is life. Fine, but you feel that you lost something valuable. It was your photo, not his, so your reaction is what matters here.

Rob