[Rondec]

I think the whole point of the prime and zooming with your feet is that standing in one spot and zooming doesn't really give you different photos (compared to taking a photo and then cropping). The way you get different photos is by physically moving. I typically do use a 24-70 zoom, but if I go out with the FA 31 and nothing else, my photos are often a bit better because I have to exert more effort to use it.

I just think it is human nature to stand in one spot and twist your zoom ring and then say to yourself "Done that, what's next" When you use a tripod, or a prime lens, you are forced to think and see more and that can be a good thing.

(Just speaking for myself. I'm sure the rest of you see the world beautifully regardless of the lens you have on your camera.)

[Merv-O]

Every now and then I tell myself I'm going to have day dedicated to primes, but I''ve never actually made it through the day without putting a zoom on at some point

Norm: I agree except when I'm shooting at night and a fast prime will give me several F/stops of speed and reduced noise. Example: the 50mm f/1.4 is sharper than the 28-105mm at f/3.5-5.6. That's a fact. When I travel cross-country and/or trans continental I will pick a zoom lens (like the D-FA 28-105mm or the) to conserve space and limit any damage. Even then, I will bring the 40mm XS f/2/8 or my 70mm limited--smaller lens, smaller effort.
However, I always use my KP with the large grip and the SIGMA 18-250mm on walkabouts because of the range it gives me.
different courses for different horses, but your point is well made. The evolution and quality of zoom lenses does enhance your versatility...I guess sometimes I like the old school of using your legs as the 'zoom'.

[reh321]

I think the whole point of the prime and zooming with your feet is that standing in one spot and zooming doesn't really give you different photos (compared to taking a photo and then cropping). The way you get different photos is by physically moving.

That is almost the whole point. I move my feet to the place from which I want to take a photo, and then zoom to get the framing I want. I would rather zoom in than crop, because zooming in makes use of all the pixels in my camera; if I crop away 1/2-th linear dimension in each direction of a shot taken with a 50mm lens, then I throw away 3/4-ths of the pixels, but I preserve all of them if I zoom to 100mm. Of course, if I zoom out to 25mm instead of using 50mm, I cover area that I couldn't recover by cropping. For years, using a 50mm lens forced me to walk backwards to get the entire scene in the frame, sometimes getting extra stuff into the frame; for example, back when I was using a rangefinder camera with a 45mm lens, I wanted to take a photo of a railroad station, but it was visible only from a highway bridge and once I had backed up enough to {theoretically} include all the station in the frame, the bridge itself blocked the station!

added: that is why a "5 minute photo stop" can take 30 minutes or more ..... I am moving my feet all over the place in an effort to find a perspective pleasing to me.

[repaap]

I think the whole point of the prime and zooming with your feet is that standing in one spot and zooming doesn't really give you different photos (compared to taking a photo and then cropping). The way you get different photos is by physically moving. I typically do use a 24-70 zoom, but if I go out with the FA 31 and nothing else, my photos are often a bit better because I have to exert more effort to use it.

I just think it is human nature to stand in one spot and twist your zoom ring and then say to yourself "Done that, what's next" When you use a tripod, or a prime lens, you are forced to think and see more and that can be a good thing.

(Just speaking for myself. I'm sure the rest of you see the world beautifully regardless of the lens you have on your camera.)

I do hear you. And agree. And also I think that what suites to one will not be good for other. But generally forcong your self to not zoom and look more close of what you want to take a picture of, prime lens will give to you new perspective, just because you can’t zoom with it. Lot of people are happy for just documenting of what you see in front of you. Ofcourse one can use zoom really well too. It is practical tool. But especially nowadays when zooms are so amazing, comparing them to primes is silly. One of advantage of prime is either great macro or fast aperture. But zooming with your feet and really composing your shot is another advantage, even if it is more difficult. I was about to buy 28-105, because of big wow and hype of it. And I found one with really nice prize, new. Could not do it. Why? Because I have lot of primes covering it.. But it would be more handy..! Yes, but more boring too.

[photoptimist]

I think the whole point of the prime and zooming with your feet is that standing in one spot and zooming doesn't really give you different photos (compared to taking a photo and then cropping). The way you get different photos is by physically moving. I typically do use a 24-70 zoom, but if I go out with the FA 31 and nothing else, my photos are often a bit better because I have to exert more effort to use it.

I just think it is human nature to stand in one spot and twist your zoom ring and then say to yourself "Done that, what's next" When you use a tripod, or a prime lens, you are forced to think and see more and that can be a good thing.

(Just speaking for myself. I'm sure the rest of you see the world beautifully regardless of the lens you have on your camera.)

Exactly! "Zooming with the feet" is a falsehood.

True zooming or swapping primes (or cropping) changes the final print magnification of every object in the scene by the same ratio. If there are objects 3 feet, 30 feet, and infinity from the lens and camera, then zooming/swapping from 50mm to 25mm, cuts the size of everything in half and brings in a bunch more scenery at all distances.

In contrast, moving the camera changes the magnification of different object by different amounts in inverse proportion to the object's original distance. If there are objects 3 feet, 30 feet, and infinity from the lens and camera, then moving backwards 3 feet cuts the size of the foreground object in half, the mid-ground object by only 10%, has no effect on the horizon objects, and only brings in lots more scenery in the foreground, a little scenery more in the midground, but no more scenery in the background. (You can't zoom in or out on the Milky Way with you feet.)

Thus, you can zoom with a crop or a swap or a zoom but you can't zoom with your feet. Your feet can only change the perspective point.

[monochrome]

We've been trough this with our telephoto lenses. One of the best lenses ever made the Tamron 90 macro, in heads up testing was very marginally better than my DA*60-250. As in you had to get real close and squint marginally better. There was nothing there that would have shown up on a print. This not in that you get better with primes than with zooms is vastly overstated. Especially since if you shoot with the 90 and crop 10% then shoot with the 60-250 at 100mm, the 60-250 image will be best. Looking at the last 10 years and the lenses that have come out during that time, zooms like the 18-85 and 28-105 surpass in quality many of the older primes, especially in the wide end.



Maybe in t age before IBIS. The thing you keep leaving out, and this is typical of prime advocates, is what about the shots you physically can't get with prime? That was the point of my post. All the prime images were taken from a spot where I could move backwards forwards to frame the image. But I was also moving up and down hill, changing my angle to the subjects. The simple fact is not everything you can do with zoom can be done with prime. I find this "taking more time" thing somewhat amusing. We haven't established that I take less time than any prime shooter. It hasn't been established you can't go through the whole thought process you go through with a prime that you do with a zoom. All these arguments being trotted out seem to be along the line of "I don't have as much discipline with a zoom, I tend to settle".

A piece of advice, don't settle with your zoom. Only you can solve that mental defect.

I think there is a place for both primes and zooms. A prime has a unique and fixed character that I might prefer for a certain situation - or always - while a zoom is often different from the preferred prime at each FL.

I carry the DA21, DA 40 and DA 70 Limiteds always in my KP bag. The FA 31, FA43 and FA 77 are always in my K-1 bag. But I also carry the 28-105 or 50-135 in my KP bag. I sold the DFA*70-200 (I already regret it), but I’ll also carry the 24-70 and/or 28-105 in my K-1 bag. I take the zooms for the shots I can’t get with a prime, but I zoom with my feet more often than not. Of course I’m rarely bound by shorelines, and if I know I will be, I’m more inclined to take a longer prime than a longer zoom.

It’s just how I roll - neither right nor wrong.

[normhead]

We have not established there are any shots you can't get with a prime. The only shot that can't be done in camera with a prime is the long-exposure zoom-with-the-shutter-open shot and that shot can be done in post. Unless I plan to print really big, a small set of primes can take every photo that a zoom can take. If the print resolution goal is to get decent quality on a 4k monitor/TV, then a 50mm prime lens on the K-1 is really a 50-100 zoom lens. If the print resolution goal is just to post on web or social media, then a 50mm prime lens on the K-1 is really a 50-200 zoom lens. A small trio of primes (28, 50, and 100) can physically take every picture that the 28-105 can take.

Didn't you establish that you take less time with a zoom than you take swapping lenses? I know that zooms are faster for me and that sometimes I lose shots if I have a prime on the camera because swapping lenses misses the moment. But if I have the time to wander around, then swapping lenses is not big deal and I'm more likely to put on a prime.

The simple fact is that most shots can be done with either a prime or a zoom but some shots really do require a prime (e.g., f/1.4, tilt/shift, decent 1:1 macro)

P.S. I am not a "prime advocate." I'm an advocate for picking the right tool for the job. If job is to get the interesting sights or people while hiking or traveling, then a super-zoom lets me get the most images with the least delay. If the job is macro, then I switch to a prime (100/2.8 macro). If the job is casual or event photography, I switch back to a mid-range zoom (35-80). If the job is wide-field astro, then I switch to a prime (14/2.8). If the job is not photography but I want to take an occasional picture, then I'm back to a zoom. If the job is architecture or high-point panorama, then I often switch to a shift-lens prime (28/3.5 shift). And if the job is "let's see what this lens can do," then I take only that lens which might be a prime or a zoom.

At the moment, I straddle the two strategies and travel with the best-of-both worlds (or worst of both worlds) bagful of 3 to 7 lenses with a mix of primes and zooms. That bag might have 1 or 3 zooms (selected from 12-24, 35-80, 28-200, 70-300) plus 2 to 6 primes (selected from among 14, 20, 24, 28, 50, 100, 135).

My favourite travel kit is usually two zooms 18mm-300mm, My 100 macro WR, (for macro and shot tele prime, and these days my DA*50 1.4 for low light and narrow DoF. Zooms are more general, primes are more purposeful. And if I have room, and it's APS-c I'll throw in the 21 ltd and 40 XS just because I can.

[reh321]

We have not established there are any shots you can't get with a prime.

My KP bag contains 3 lenses - Sigma 10-20, DA 18-135, and DA 55-300 PLM.
That is all the weight I choose to carry around with me.

[normhead]

My KP bag contains 3 lenses - Sigma 10-20, DA 18-135, and DA 55-300 PLM.
That is all the weight I choose to carry around with me.

Not to mention 32-34,36-39mm 4mm, 46-49mm 51-4mm, 56-59mm etc, etc. all FLs available with zooms. Of the 55 keepers I've taken this month, 10 were taken with primes, 45 with zooms and of those 9 taken with focal lengths for which a prime would not be avialable. And if it weren't for Pentax's 31, the number would be higher. 31 seems to be a popular zoom destination for me.

[rawr]

Zoom vs prime - a perennial thread exploder.

My 2c - most event shooters [gigs, weddings, news] who has to work in crowds or confined spaces will use zooms, rather than swap multiple primes or bodies around as events progress. Fast zooms rule in such scenarios. Hence the 2.8 zoom trinity (12-24-ish, 24-70-ish, 70-200) that every maker has adopted as core to their lineup.

[house]

Normhead I like your continuous attempts at understanding primes. I read a frustration in your post on the topic and find it a bit funny but nice how you vent about it.

There are just so many different environments, photographic styles, personalities etc you can't really get to an objective conclusion's on the topic.


I'm firmly in the prime camp. All my cameras always had zooms. From my first compact to the kit lenses of my first DSLRs. Getting the da 35 was a revelation. My enjoyment of photography improved a lot. I prefer just having a single prime but I'm to much of a coward to do this whilst travelking forr instance and many subjects do require a number of focal lengths.

For me the advantages of primes are

- small . I like chunky camera, small lens. A prime is much more convenient in crowds etc whilst not taking pictures.

- fixed fl's steer your thinking and moving into fixed steps again ensuring the subject is covered in distinct ways. This comes at the expense of "perfect" shots. My photography is always serial .

- both the experience of shooting and handling a more "dumb" system and the actual photos have a sense of freedom.

[Rondec]

Zoom vs prime - a perennial thread exploder.

My 2c - most event shooters [gigs, weddings, news] who has to work in crowds or confined spaces will use zooms, rather than swap multiple primes or bodies around as events progress. Fast zooms rule in such scenarios. Hence the 2.8 zoom trinity (12-24-ish, 24-70-ish, 70-200) that every maker has adopted as core to their lineup.

As you say, it is a discussion that has no answer. It's a bit like the RAW versus jpeg discussions that sometimes pop up. Sure, jpeg engines are really good, but shooting straight out of camera jpegs is like throwing away your negatives, right?

The reality is that zooms are about flexibility. Fast zooms do tend to be bigger than similar primes and they often have some weaknesses -- distortion, not so good edge performance, and maybe not as good sharpness at the extremes. And of course, if you want/need f1.4/f2 lenses, you are stuck with primes. Primes do tend to be smaller, have better corrections and better flare resistance. Obviously they lose flexibility -- you have to take at least a couple of primes with you to cover the same focal lengths that your zoom covers with one lens. At the same time, you don't really need every focal length covered in your range and if I go out with a DFA 24-70, I would probably be just as happy with a 20mm/50mm/77mm set of primes -- maybe happier.

I suppose it is the sort of thing that we will never decide on. If I'm on a trip with my family, I do usually use zooms because I don't want to be taking time to switch lenses, but if I go out on my own shooting in a morning or evening, I often will mount a prime purely for the enjoyment and challenge of a single focal length and just see what happens.

There is no wrong answer here, but certainly plenty of fodder for arguments.

[Sandy Hancock]

It is easier (within reason) to handhold a heavier rig than a lighter one.

As long as it is well balanced. And the photographer is strong enough.

[Wheatfield]

Normhead I like your continuous attempts at understanding primes. I read a frustration in your post on the topic and find it a bit funny but nice how you vent about it.

There are just so many different environments, photographic styles, personalities etc you can't really get to an objective conclusion's on the topic.


I'm firmly in the prime camp. All my cameras always had zooms. From my first compact to the kit lenses of my first DSLRs. Getting the da 35 was a revelation. My enjoyment of photography improved a lot. I prefer just having a single prime but I'm to much of a coward to do this whilst travelking forr instance and many subjects do require a number of focal lengths.

For me the advantages of primes are

- small . I like chunky camera, small lens. A prime is much more convenient in crowds etc whilst not taking pictures.

- fixed fl's steer your thinking and moving into fixed steps again ensuring the subject is covered in distinct ways. This comes at the expense of "perfect" shots. My photography is always serial .

- both the experience of shooting and handling a more "dumb" system and the actual photos have a sense of freedom.

Some people just can’t understand how no matter how much they pontificate, and how erudite they try to sound, they are farting in a windstorm. They might raise a good stink that they can enjoy, but it’s pretty much gone before anyone else catches wind of it.
I’ve had zoom lenses from time to time. I had a 43-86 Nikkor and 35-105 Tokina when I shot that brand, and almost never used them. Sold them both. I had a a Tokina 24-40 for a while, and let it go because I ended up not liking it.
I still have a Tokina 80-200/2.8 that is pre A series. I keep it in a drawer, and use it now and again, maybe once every few years.
When I bought my *istD, it came with an 18-35 or something. I sold it to a girl in Australia. I wanted to get it as far away from me as I could.
I got an 18-135 or some such with my K3. I sold it too.
I gave the 20-40LTD a try. It was on my camera once. Never used it after trying it in my back yard.
I had the 60-250. I used it so rarely that the SDM died twice and it was the first lens I sold when I sold off my APS-C lenses after getting a K1 and deciding that the last camera I would be using going forward was the K3, and that it was the last of that format I would purchase.
Zoom lenses just don’t work for some people, and it doesn’t matter how much bullying others do on the subject. Why people can’t get that and just shut up about it is beyond me. I can’t understand why this, of all subjects, would become a personal vendetta akin to the Hatfield–McCoy feud.

---------- Post added 03-30-19 at 10:16 AM ----------

As long as it is well balanced. And the photographer is strong enough.

That would be the within reason part......

[reh321]

Zoom lenses just don’t work for some people, and it doesn’t matter how much bullying others do on the subject. Why people can’t get that and just shut up about it is beyond me. I can’t understand why this, of all subjects, would become a personal vendetta akin to the Hatfield–McCoy feud.

Change "zoom" to "prime" and you have a true statement also.