[dadipentak]

Sigma 18-35 f/1.8.

I don't leave home without it.

[normhead]

From my perspective , a guy without zooms has made a decision. "There are certain shots I'm not going to get, in order to maintain absolutely optimum image quality." You simply cannot carry enough zooms to adequately cover the range I get with my 8-16, 18-135 and 60-250.

SO here's what happens you need 120mm, but you only have 100mm and 200mm primes. So clearly you have to shoot with the 100mm lens and crop. My 60-250 is already equal to what you're going to get with the 100, but now you're cropping 20 %. SO in terms of resolution, you are getting 20% less lw/ph compared to my DA*60-250 image, yet, you are thinking that you're getting a better image because you are using a prime.

I would suggest, you only get a better image with a prime if the best framing happens to coincide with the primes field of view.

Look at the following sequence of images. They are taken within three minutes of each other at 4 different focal lengths at a time when the light was changing constantly. For this type of image, you can have a very short window during which the light is the best. The entire sequences is taken within 3 minutes. Short of having a "boy friday " to hand you different cameras with different focal length primes, I'm not sure how you even accomplish this with primes, and before zooms were good, that's what people did. There is one photo taken in the 22 minute, 2 each in the 23 and 24th and 3 in the 25th. Lens changes would both result in missed images and or lower IQ in most of the images. The images are also shot at 4 different focal lengths. That probably would have extended the time spent a this location and reduced the time I spent at other location nearby.

I hear the "primes thing over and over again... but personally, I just don't get it. There will be few images where a prime gets you a better image where a zoom would. There will be lot's of instances where you end up with no image at all because you had the wrong lens on the camera. And there will be lots of images where the zoom is just as good as the prime.

I always shoot zooms when timing is critical, and primes when i have time to lallygag around and fiddle about... but that is rare. I hate missing a great image, because I had the wrong focal length prime on my camera.

I work from the premise that, the first image I see is not always the best, the first focal length I choose is rarely the one that works out best, often I see an image within an image while taking a photo. I take the shot, and then , if I have time, I look at the focal length to see if one of the primes in my bag will cover it. If it's at 24 for the 18-135 or anywhere on the 60-250, I won't even bother. I've taken these lenses off the camera often enough to know, there are focal lengths where a prime isn't going to ad anything.



My experience would be, if you're shooting primes only, you are missing a lot of great opportunities. You can see there are 3 images in the sequence I looked at, thinking of printing them. How many would there be if I'd taken a couple minutes to change lenses? It's quite possible that the instant those images were taken would have been missed, because I was changing lenses. There is a reason why so many pros rely on zooms these days.

And to top it off, because, I was only 4 minutes at this location... I also got this, at a nearby location.



And this...


and... well,you get the point.

[GeneV]

Norm, that is true from an absolute perspective, but many, if not most, of us (myself included) do not do infinite possibilities well. My zooms come back to the same focal lengths repeatedly.

Four years ago I put this to the test by taking a two week trip on the DA primes. I never missed a FOV, though fighting sensor dirt was an inconvenience.

[normhead]

Norm, that is true from an absolute perspective, but many, if not most, of us (myself included) do not do infinite possibilities well. My zooms come back to the same focal lengths repeatedly.

Four years ago I put this to the test by taking a two week trip on the DA primes. I never missed a FOV, though fighting sensor dirt was an inconvenience.

Where as in the sequence above, I would have had 3 or 4 lens changes within 2 minutes. When I get into light like I had on that morning, I just start shooting and try and engage with any possible image. Sometimes speed counts. If I was shooting with a prime, would I even know at this point what I missed? I suspect many prime shooters would have shot two or three of those images at the focal length they had on the camera. I took 8 images, one every 30 seconds on average, one every 20 seconds in the 25th minute. It's very rare I come on a scene that can effectively be shot at one focal length. Often I shoot, then move in, then another images then go long for the last one. I find the idea that there's only one true focal length to be shot from each standing position a bit limiting. But then I shoot largely in natural environments, which you would expect to be more random. I guess in urban environments distances are more restricted by standard street widths, house and car sizes, yard sizes etc.

[VoiceOfReason]

I don't leave home without it.

Same. It will always find a home in my bag. My small kit is my Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, and DA 18-135 in case of bad weather and because it is so small, along with my K3. If I am doing infrared or full spectrum I bring the K-01 with me too, and I toss in my 1.7 AF adapter. I used to toss in my DA40 and F50, but I found I never used them.

[dadipentak]

My small kit is my Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8,

Mine is the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and 100-300/4. I don't go out in the rain.

[VoiceOfReason]

Mine is the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and 100-300/4. I don't go out in the rain.

I want to get the Sigma 100-300 f/4, and with the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 I have I'd have a great dry weather kit.

[Nicolas06]

Same. It will always find a home in my bag. My small kit is my Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, and DA 18-135 in case of bad weather and because it is so small, along with my K3. If I am doing infrared or full spectrum I bring the K-01 with me too, and I toss in my 1.7 AF adapter. I used to toss in my DA40 and F50, but I found I never used them.

I wonder what is the big kit ? That's already more than 2kg !

[VoiceOfReason]

I wonder what is the big kit ? That's already more than 2kg !

Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, Sigma 8-16, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, Sigma 150-500, 1.7 AF adapter, DA 18-135 WR, K3, K5, and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 on the K-01 with a 720nm IR filter on it. I also have a monopod along and both my backpack and a normal bag with me. That's the prepared for everything hiking kit. I also have a few bottles of water and some trail mix and jerky with me.

[clackers]

Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, Sigma 8-16, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, Sigma 150-500, 1.7 AF adapter, DA 18-135 WR, K3, K5, and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 on the K-01 with a 720nm IR filter on it.

Your chiropractor's future is glowing! :-D

[reeftool]

One of the values I find in a short zoom is that in shooting events and parties, having a good zoom keeps you from loosing shots. There often isn't time to move and you may not have the space to move forward or back up. Changing a lens can cause you to loose the moment. At this time, I'm using the Sigma 17-70. I find it acceptably sharp and has enough range to cover just about any shot I would need at an event or party. There aren't many zooms that can match the IQ of a prime but a zoom always beats a lost shot. Of course there's always the option of doing events and parties with a lens like the DA 15 or 21 and cropping when you need to but a short prime has you getting in peoples faces a lot. If you never shoot at events and parties, then all this is meaningless.

[Nicolas06]

One of the values I find in a short zoom is that in shooting events and parties, having a good zoom keeps you from loosing shots. There often isn't time to move and you may not have the space to move forward or back up. Changing a lens can cause you to loose the moment. At this time, I'm using the Sigma 17-70. I find it acceptably sharp and has enough range to cover just about any shot I would need at an event or party. There aren't many zooms that can match the IQ of a prime but a zoom always beats a lost shot. Of course there's always the option of doing events and parties with a lens like the DA 15 or 21 and cropping when you need to but a short prime has you getting in peoples faces a lot. If you never shoot at events and parties, then all this is meaningless.

That's true for events/parties and I'll add for many of theses events one get the isos a bit high and this doesn't play way with heavy cropping.

[Nicolas06]

Where as in the sequence above, I would have had 3 or 4 lens changes within 2 minutes. When I get into light like I had on that morning, I just start shooting and try and engage with any possible image. Sometimes speed counts. If I was shooting with a prime, would I even know at this point what I missed? I suspect many prime shooters would have shot two or three of those images at the focal length they had on the camera. I took 8 images, one every 30 seconds on average, one every 20 seconds in the 25th minute. It's very rare I come on a scene that can effectively be shot at one focal length. Often I shoot, then move in, then another images then go long for the last one. I find the idea that there's only one true focal length to be shot from each standing position a bit limiting. But then I shoot largely in natural environments, which you would expect to be more random. I guess in urban environments distances are more restricted by standard street widths, house and car sizes, yard sizes etc.

You got maybe many pictures and that's nice.

What I read from a book is that the landscape photographer typically study in advance the place, he is aware of the weather forecast, the sun direction and so on and go back when the condition are great for shooting. Because he took time to prepare the framing etc so on in advence he will directly go for the 1, 2 or 3 key shoot that are really interresting and get them better than if he tryed to grab everything in a hurry.

Honestly, I'am not there, by far. I prefer to just wander arround and take pictures. But I don't feel like I need to take all the pictures I can or that if I change more often lense etc the pictures will be better.

It is as likely to get a stunning shoot by taking many shoot at different focal length or by keeping only one. Even if one can think of it as trick it seems that for me prime work well as a creative tool and allow to concentrate on the shooting.

I don't know maybe it is more linked to the person but I'd say that in your situation I may decide to keep only 1 focal length for the shooting and shoot with it. I can stay with the same focal length for 1-2 hour without issue and without feeling any limitation to my creativity.

It is true as said by others that for a given event you may have to hurry or unable to move. As a professionnal you may have to deliver and that might included quantity along with variety in shootings. Here zoom can indeed help. Some pro come with 2 bodies 1 zoom in each body or 1 zoom and a prime for a reason.

Now who is more likely to get 1-2 more interresting pictures? The guy that shoot everything with a zoom and different focal lengths or the guy that stick to 1 prime for the whole shoot? I'd not conclude that one has obviously superiority over the other. This is dependant of the situation.

To me the 2 practices are valid and I would not think the one sticking with the prime would have to expect inferior results overall.

[VoiceOfReason]

Your chiropractor's future is glowing! :-D

Nah, you balance stuff out right!

[Des]

SO here's what happens you need 120mm, but you only have 100mm and 200mm primes. So clearly you have to shoot with the 100mm lens and crop. My 60-250 is already equal to what you're going to get with the 100, but now you're cropping 20 %. SO in terms of resolution, you are getting 20% less lw/ph compared to my DA*60-250 image, yet, you are thinking that you're getting a better image because you are using a prime.

Interesting point Norm, and well made.

The equation depends a lot on the quality of the zoom (and the quality of the primes).

I've got the 55-300 and while it's a good lens, images are never going to touch those I would get with my FA 77, DFA 100 or Sigma 400. So if I take the zoom on a walk it's already a compromise. The trade off for IQ is I'm saving weight and I'm going to get shots that I would otherwise miss, on the theory that half a loaf is better than none (assuming the half-loaf isn't mouldy.)

My point earlier about the 12-24 is that the versatility is really useful for me at the wide end. And while the quality might not be up with the DA 15 or DA 21, it's still very good. Three-quarters of a loaf is definitely better than none. And hey it's cheap by comparison - either of the primes costs roughly as much as the zoom.