[normhead]

I use the clearly superior prime lens over zooms a lot lately. I probably haven't used a zoom in months and I've shot hundreds of pictures with my cameras in that time. I do so because I'm using inferior film to capture the image and need all the speed and compactness I can get.

Where does that get me on you smugness scale?

It all depends on whether or not your are looking down your nose when you say it. We can't tell.

---------- Post added 03-30-19 at 06:18 PM ----------

Did Tanaka-san spill the beans about primes being better than zooms (or vice versa)?

He's a lucky man. When I spill the beans I have to clean them up.
And I don't get any dinner.

[reh321]

I use the clearly superior prime lens over zooms a lot lately. I probably haven't used a zoom in months and I've shot hundreds of pictures with my cameras in that time. I do so because I'm using inferior film to capture the image and need all the speed and compactness I can get.

Where does that get me on you smugness scale?

Thirty years ago I was using my Super Program loaded with Kodachrome 25 film. Even though I had a 50mm f/1.7 lens, in decent daylight I was still able to use apertures like f/8 to get a "comfortable" DOF, and I viewed the wider apertures as something I was stuck with in darker weather. See, I can be smug too

I sure am glad those days are over!!

[deus ursus]

This autumn I went on a mountain hike with my two oldest kids and their mother. I had my 16-50 on the camera, and got a few nice shots. The thing is, the 16-50 is so heavy that I prefer to put the battery grip on the camera when I use it, just to balance out the lens. When I think back on the trip now, I believe I'd have a lighter rig with the camera w/o the grip and two or three primes in about the focal range of the 16-50: A 15 mm (if I'd had one), a 21 mm (if I'd had one), the 40/2.8 or the M 50/1.4 which I do have, and maybe I could even bring the M 120/2.8 and still have a nice, compact package.

A zoom is convenient, but on that trip I had time to change lenses between shots, and a light, compact camera would be easier to carry than the combo I had with me that day.

[monochrome]

We should all take a deep breath right about now.

No kidding. Second thread today. When my inner voice says, “well _ you too then” twice in a day it is probably time to take an extended break from the Forum.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 03-31-2019 at 09:31 AM.

[reh321]

This autumn I went on a mountain hike with my two oldest kids and their mother. I had my 16-50 on the camera, and got a few nice shots. The thing is, the 16-50 is so heavy that I prefer to put the battery grip on the camera when I use it, just to balance out the lens. When I think back on the trip now, I believe I'd have a lighter rig with the camera w/o the grip and two or three primes in about the focal range of the 16-50: A 15 mm (if I'd had one), a 21 mm (if I'd had one), the 40/2.8 or the M 50/1.4 which I do have, and maybe I could even bring the M 120/2.8 and still have a nice, compact package.

A zoom is convenient, but on that trip I had time to change lenses between shots, and a light, compact camera would be easier to carry than the combo I had with me that day.

The 16-50 weighs 19 ounces.
I can use the 14 ounce 18-135 all day on my KP with the small grip and no battery grip - using my left hand under the lens to provide the 'balance'.

I didn't realize 5 extra ounces make a lens that much more difficult to handle.

[Sandy Hancock]

I didn't realize 5 extra ounces make a lens that much more difficult to handle.

Again, it's all about balance. Put the battery grip on the KP and the DA*16-50 will feel like the right lens. Same goes for the DA*11-18 and DA*50-135.

But we're all different. Whatever floats your boat

[reh321]

Again, it's all about balance. Put the battery grip on the KP and the DA*16-50 will feel like the right lens. Same goes for the DA*11-18 and DA*50-135.

But we're all different. Whatever floats your boat

That's correct.
Those of us who learned to support lens with left hand don't necessarily need extra mass of a battery grip regardless of weight of lens.

[Sandy Hancock]

Those of us who learned to support lens with left hand don't necessarily need extra mass of a battery grip regardless of weight of lens.

Are you assuming "those of us" does not include me?
No matter how good your technique, a better balanced system will hold steadier.

[photoptimist]

Are you assuming "those of us" does not include me?
No matter how good your technique, a better balanced system will hold steadier.

Those of us who learned to support the lens with left hand find every lens from a 156 gram 28/2.8 prime to a 1,500 gram 70-200/2.8 to be equally and perfectly balanced without a grip. The left hand naturally supports the camera-lens combo under its center of gravity whether that CG is under the camera, under the mount, or somewhere in the middle of a long heavy telephoto lens. If anything, a grip interferes with left-support balancing because the bottom of the grip sticks down too far and prevents the left hand from straddling the camera and lens for mid-size lenses where the CG is below the mount line.

[MikeyBugs95]

Methinks his skin was probably as thin as his DoF.

Belated witty retorts:
"Sorry to hear you can't afford a lens with a working aperture."
"So your lens is as wide open as your mouth."
"That's too bad...maybe if you practice more, then you could learn how to use f/5.6."
"You know, a better camera would let you use a lighter lens."

-----

As for zooms versus primes, I use both types of lenses and see both sides of the argument. And like most arguments in photography, it comes down to personal preferences and shooting style. I seriously doubt that anyone could review a bunch of images and reliably categorize which came from a prime or from a zoom.* And if it doesn't make a difference in the final image, then maybe the difference is less than combatants think it is.

*The exception might be niche genres with uber-thin-DoF, tilt lens, or macro shots where zooms tend not to be used.

I was thinking about this earlier. One could also say "I don't care. I use what suits me, not what suits you. I don't care about what you use and you shouldn't care about what I or anyone else uses."


I also carry a range of primes and zooms. I usually use zooms at the extreme focals, extremely wide and extreme long, for convenience sake. Then I have constant fast aperture zooms for the middle range but I also have a few primes for the narrow depth of field and the specialty purposes like macro. Every lens has some strengths and weaknesses and some application that it excels at. In my opinion, to dismiss a whole segment of lenses as being inferior just because you don't like to use them, and then to dismiss every photographer who does use them as inferior or some other way 'lesser' (by the way, I am an amateur so you can dismiss me as an amateur and it would nonetheless apply) is arrogance that's almost beyond the pale.

[Sandy Hancock]

Sigh.
The further you have to separate your hands to balance a front heavy lens, the less stable the hold.

[photoptimist]

Sigh.
The further you have to separate your hands to balance a front heavy lens, the less stable the hold.

Hmmm... I would have said the opposite. With my right hand on the grip and the camera against my face, the camera end of the system is pretty stable. The left hand supports the center of gravity and does the little micro-motions to refine the pointing of the camera. In this configuration, the further the left hand is out under the barrel, the less a given millimeter of hand motion turns into some number of degrees of angular motion.

Note that the manual for my first camera (am OM-1) taught me to hold both elbows of my arms tucked against my torso when I shoot. For long heavy lenses, my left elbow tends to move forward to brace against my ribs, making it even more stable. I'd only run into trouble if the CG of the lens-and-camera was more than 300-350 mm from the back of the camera. That covers almost all the lenses in the Pentax arsenal with the exception of the 560/5.6 which looks like it might have a CG around 400 mm from the back of the camera and probably isn't very hand-holdable even with a grip.

[photoptimist]

I was thinking about this earlier. One could also say "I don't care. I use what suits me, not what suits you. I don't care about what you use and you shouldn't care about what I or anyone else uses."


I also carry a range of primes and zooms. I usually use zooms at the extreme focals, extremely wide and extreme long, for convenience sake. Then I have constant fast aperture zooms for the middle range but I also have a few primes for the narrow depth of field and the specialty purposes like macro. Every lens has some strengths and weaknesses and some application that it excels at. In my opinion, to dismiss a whole segment of lenses as being inferior just because you don't like to use them, and then to dismiss every photographer who does use them as inferior or some other way 'lesser' (by the way, I am an amateur so you can dismiss me as an amateur and it would nonetheless apply) is arrogance that's almost beyond the pale.

Exactly! Such gear-shaming dismissals show arrogance, narrow-mindedness, and a desperate lack of creativity.

I judge a photographer by their photographs, not their equipment. I've seen crap come out of $20,000 Hasselblad rigs and sublime art come out of a Polaroid SX-70. I'm much more impressed by the photographer that gets awesome shots on a point-and-shoot than the one that requires 20 FPS spray-and-pray for the occasional keeper.

[normhead]

The further you have to separate your hands to balance a front heavy lens, the less stable the hold.

With longer lenses I often make a triangle with my elbow braced against my side. Way more stable than two hands together.

Brace, exhale, snap off a frame before you inhale.

[rawr]

If only I was a monopod salesman ... I'd do great business around here.