[Marc Sabatella]

If I were you, I'd listen to what someone who has a formal education as a painter has to say. Although Marc Sabatella is a prime man ( ) he knows better than to spread dogmas about fixed focals.

Oh, I don't know; I'm sure I've done my share of that :-). I'm quite honestly on both sides of this particular discussion, depending on how the question is framed. I mean, bottom line, it is absolutely true that if you want complete control of both perspective and framing, a zoom is the way to go. But i'm not sure that using a zoom is the best way to *learn* this skill. And I also can't speak for anyone else regarding the other tradeoffs one might have to make in deciding prime versus zoom - size/weight, price, IQ, maximum aperture, etc. I think it important to understand the issues involved and then figure out how to reconcile them for yourself.

FWIW, I tend to use my basic kit) zooms mostly when hiking or otherwise wandering about outdoors - when I play to stop down anyhow and have the freedom to "zoom with my feet" to really optimize perspective, and then wish to have the maximum flexibility in focal length for framing. In other settings, I am more apt to carry my favorite primes with me instead, for the advantage in speed and/or IQ, plus just *liking* them better.

[Marc Sabatella]

In my end of the business (portrait studio), lighting is more important than IQ, as is the PR that goes along with being one of the higher end studios in my market area. Getting a salable picture is more important than the IQ, as long as the IQ is up to a reasonable standard.

Analogous situation in the world of painting, too. IQ becomes far more subjective, of course, but to put it bluntly, people will buy a poorly-painted puppy before a finely painted gum wrapper any day of the week. I'd imagine in the portrait world, the expression on the face is probably *huge*. Certainly is just in sharing pictures with friends and family.

[gnaztee]

It seems like whenever this discussion comes up, the tension begins when people are firmly in an "either-or" mode. One of the problems may be that people look at photography from the standpoint of the kind of photographs they take. Grabbing your camera and a fast fifty to head out and about town and find photos is quite a bit different than finding yourself on a trip, limited by how close (or far away) you can get to a subject, how much time you have to "frame" a shot, how much your spouse is willing to put up with, etc. Pro/Expert vs. amateur/novice arguments really don't hold water in this kind of discussion either, as many (most) pros "in the field" will have a 24-70 and 70-200, and maybe a prime or two to get what they need, and they produce beautiful images for Nat Geo or others. On the other hand, as Cartier-Bresson was mentioned, primes can produce as well. I just think there are so many variables in situations and purpose that it's very difficult to point to one or the other and say "this is better." And I think it's obnoxious to say it with an air of elitism, as if somehow you're not a real photographer yet because you only use zooms.

By the way, I use both primes and zooms and love both, depending on my purpose. And I'm no expert, just for the record.

Todd

[Class A]

Getting the customer in the door, selling the service.

Fair enough, these and other aspects are very important but they are pretty unrelated to the discussion. Breathing and eating are important too.

On the rare occasions I shoot something for them, they always comment on how much crisper the images that I produce are

Undeniably most primes are better than most zooms in terms of IQ, but then it doesn't always matter outside of professional applications.

I am shooting with the A*85/1.4 or the A50/1.4, sometimes with the Nokton 58/1.4, or the 70mm or 77mm lens.

No wonder your images are crisp.

You can learn this stuff on a zoom, but I do think it will be learned faster with a prime that approaches the format's normal focal length (presuming you believe that there is such a thing).

AFAIC clearly there is a normal focal length for each format and I agree that using a prime approaching this focal length is a good way to start shooting with.

Where we perhaps disagree is how long you should limit yourself by coupling perspective and framing. And then, whether you implement the uncoupling with discrete steps (a set of primes) or continuously (a zoom).

I just think there are so many variables in situations and purpose that it's very difficult to point to one or the other and say "this is better."

True. Except when one solution is a superset of another. If zooms give you sufficient IQ, aren't too heavy, are fast enough, and affordable enough, plus you have the discipline to use them correctly (walk where you need a perspective change & zoom where you need a frame change) then they give you everything and more compared to a set of primes. All these issues, for instance IQ, may be the ones that matter the most for you and then please by all means choose a prime (I do it myself ), but if not, there is no point in implying that one is a better photographer by avoiding a zoom (I'm not saying that anyone participating in this thread did this; this is just a reference to many such viewpoints I came across). In fact, I'd say not using a zoom where it is called for makes you a worse photographer.

[Wheatfield]

Fair enough, these and other aspects are very important but they are pretty unrelated to the discussion. Breathing and eating are important too.

You did ask what was more important than IQ....

Undeniably most primes are better than most zooms in terms of IQ, but then it doesn't always matter outside of professional applications.

Actually, exactly the opposite is true more often than not. In the pro world, as long as the IQ is "good enough" for the job at hand, we get on with the job. Amateurs are way more interested in IQ than any of the professionals that I know. You won't see any of the photographers or retouchers in my studio pixel peeping, for example.
They might be working an image at 100% doing retouching, but they aren't there to gloat about how sharp their lens is, they are there to remove zits.
It seems to be amateur photographers who are obsessed with the whole IQ thing more than the pros.

AFAIC clearly there is a normal focal length for each format and I agree that using a prime approaching this focal length is a good way to start shooting with.

Where we perhaps disagree is how long you should limit yourself by coupling perspective and framing. And then, whether you implement the uncoupling with discrete steps (a set of primes) or continuously (a zoom).

In practical terms, I'd advise limiting oneself until you find yourself standing in the right spot for the picture you want to shoot, with little adjustment to the camera position after looking through the viewfinder.
At that point, you understand your lens' "language" for lack of a better term.

[edhannon]

As several posters have pointed out perspective depends on where you stand - not on the focal length of the lens. The focal length of the lens determines the field of view.

Ansel Adams ( and a lot of authors after him) suggests that you walk around until you find a perspective that is appropriate to your visualization of the image you want to capture. Then you choose the focal length (using a zoom or a set of primes) that gives a field of view appropriate to your visualization. Adams and others recommend use of a cardboard cut out to help visualize the field of view and perspective as you walk around.

[danielchtong]

My thoughts exactly. Long focal lengths make boring shots. Wide angles create the "wow-factor".

It all depends. Particularly on the photographer himself/herself



Daniel

[dugrant153]

As several posters have pointed out perspective depends on where you stand - not on the focal length of the lens. The focal length of the lens determines the field of view.

Ansel Adams ( and a lot of authors after him) suggests that you walk around until you find a perspective that is appropriate to your visualization of the image you want to capture. Then you choose the focal length (using a zoom or a set of primes) that gives a field of view appropriate to your visualization. Adams and others recommend use of a cardboard cut out to help visualize the field of view and perspective as you walk around.

At the moment, that's what I've been doing. I've been bending my body and legs to a certain way so that camera lens can take the picture from a certain perspective. Having prime lenses helps too as I am starting to pre-visualize the image more and more before I press the shutter button. For me, I guess having the zooms would confuse me as I would use it to choose the perspective AND the focal length... Now, while it takes more work, I find my images have better 'perspective'.

Learning how to shoot a picture by thinking of the perspective of it first, I'm finding, is a very essential photography skill... one that must be learned and can be taught only to a certain degree.

Soooooooo... so far so good!! I have pretty much fallen in love with primes in the process, and for that matter manual focus also.

[SpecialK]

It seems like whenever this discussion comes up, the tension begins when people are firmly in an "either-or" mode. One of the problems may be that people look at photography from the standpoint of the kind of photographs they take. Grabbing your camera and a fast fifty to head out and about town and find photos is quite a bit different than finding yourself on a trip, limited by how close (or far away) you can get to a subject, how much time you have to "frame" a shot, how much your spouse is willing to put up with, etc. Pro/Expert vs. amateur/novice arguments really don't hold water in this kind of discussion either, as many (most) pros "in the field" will have a 24-70 and 70-200, and maybe a prime or two to get what they need, and they produce beautiful images for Nat Geo or others. On the other hand, as Cartier-Bresson was mentioned, primes can produce as well. I just think there are so many variables in situations and purpose that it's very difficult to point to one or the other and say "this is better." And I think it's obnoxious to say it with an air of elitism, as if somehow you're not a real photographer yet because you only use zooms.

By the way, I use both primes and zooms and love both, depending on my purpose. And I'm no expert, just for the record.

Todd

Well put, Todd.

[stewart_photo]

After using primes for many years, I was utterly thrilled when upper end zoom lenses finally reached a quality (IQ) level sufficient for most images. From the flexibility and convenience standpoints alone, zooms just can't be beat. As such, I now reach for a zoom unless a prime is absolutely necessary.

At the same time, I don't recommend beginners start only with the basics (manual cameras, prime lenses, etc) and have never heard a convincing argument supporting this notion. Opinions, yes. Convincing, no. To me, the idea is as silly as telling a person to learn a single-gear Model-T before using a modern automobile. If the person is going to drive a modern automobile, than he should learn how to drive a modern automobile. Thus, I recommend new users start with the core functions of a modern camera and work out from there.

By the way, I use zooms because they fit my purposes quite sufficiently in a professional environment, Wheatfield, not because I "have yet to learn photographic refinement" or am "visually lazy."

stewart

[Wheatfield]

By the way, I use zooms because they fit my purposes quite sufficiently in a professional environment, Wheatfield, not because I "have yet to learn photographic refinement" or am "visually lazy."

stewart

Whatever floats your boat.
My advice is to the beginner, not the experienced user.
My admittedly limited experience with beginners (I've only taught a couple of dozen beginner workshops) is that one leads to the other.

[GLXLR]

Had to live with a 100mm macro since September. Taken over 2000 exposures with that lens, but I really never got interested in macro but learned that what I wanted to do was portrait and event work, but I could never get the perfect event shots b/c I was always too close to take a good shot (too tight) so I knew EXACTLY what I was going to get with the 50-135mm.

I guess dugrant, that to a certain extent it makes SOME PEOPLES' shots look "lazy", but sometimes like Marc said, it just isn't practical to move around properly and get the shot in time, so to be able to just move your fingers to get the proper composition is great, and even after playing with the 50-135mm for a couple of days before I had to send it back, I learned that I got use to the whole "zooming with your feet" idea. I always kept the lens at 50 or 70mm (Thanks Marc ) and 80% adjusted my body slightly to get the right composition (the other 20% was when I really needed the 135mm). I know you also have the 50-135mm, but it seems to be habit. I never bring my camera to an event where I feel lazy. When I feel lazy, I just get up, grab a coffee or gatorade, step outside, run around the neighbor hood, come back, and then run around the neighborhood again but this time with my camera. Getting pumped up before a big event always made my shots look more interesting (not to mention more shots overall).
I KNOW my shots are but I am just starting my little hobby (hopefully it will get more serious now that I have the 50-135mm range), but when I go to that event after jogging, i feel pumped and ready to take any picture and that is the whole reason why I even started. Plus, I love the intensity of when there is a perfect shot and you just RUN and you are so anxious putting on your camera and adjusting settings to get that shot WITH A PRIME. I guess for some people they won't enjoy that feeling . Maybe I will forget it too when I get my 50-135mm back but I doubt it b/c I've been using 2 primes (excluding the 18-55m b/c i only used it at 18) for so long that I have gotten use to zooming with my feet.

Sorry if this was a bore to read, but I got so bored that I just wanted to keep typing. Hope this helped in anyway!?@

Nice LTD collection btw.
Done with rant.

[dugrant153]

Thanks! I love my limiteds.

Wow... I had no idea I would ever find this thread again.
It's been 6 months or so and I've been focusing on prime lenses the entire time... but as I get closer to travelling and as I contemplate my next purchase... I'm kind of stuck! A Tamron 17-50 zoom or Sigma 30mm prime lens? haha... gotta love this dilemma.

The good thing is that over this half a year, I have learned quite a lot about lighting and perspective and moving with my feet with primes. However, I realize that there have been times when the DA*50-135 zoom lens comes in REAL handy... especially when I cannot move.

So I guess in my quest to improve my photography, I've learned that both zooms and primes can come in real handy. Lens changes can become an issue without some sort of platform... but that then becomes a part of the learning curve...

But above all this lens stuff, I've learned a lot about the art. About the interaction of lighting and object. About angle of view and how it affects the shape and the scene.

But I know I've still got a long way to go.

Haha... the funny thing with primes is I've learned how to "not move my feet" with them at times. I have to start re-thinking this part and make sure I'm always on the move to pre-visualize and be in a place to get the best perspective. What helps me is to focus on "lighting the subject", and that means moving me, the subject or both... to get the best picture and best angle of light.

[jstevewhite]

I've read this thread a couple of times, and from the perspective of someone reading something they weren't part of when it happened some time ago, it seems that the participants are 'talking past' one another...

It seems to me that one "side" of the discussion is saying, "Sometimes it's good to limit one's visual options in pursuit of artistic inspiration and focus", while the other side is saying "Zooms were invented for a reason!"... both true, I think, but orthogonal. I chose Pentax when I went digital because of their beautiful prime lenses, incredible IQ, and the bang-for-the-buck factor (I shot Canon in MF/film), but I bought the 16-50/50-135 before I started collecting limiteds... versatility. But the day my 35mm F2.8 Macro LTD was delivered was one of the most exciting photographic days of my digital life, and I immediately strapped it on and hit the streets. I think "zooming with your feet" causes you to think about your shots more because they cost you something. I'm not saying it's superior - only a different approach that's sometimes valuable. I've had as many good shots come from sudden inspiration as from careful consideration - it's just useful, I think, to shake it up once in a while.

And of course, you can't beat a 35mm f2 FA or a 50mm f1.4 for low light candids. Combined with the Pentax SR? That's a prime choice.

[interested_observer]

I like the discussion on this topic and thread. I mainly have zooms and a single prime - an old 50/1.7 manual, and would not give up my zooms. I say this for several reasons...

In considering a number of my best images that I have taken - and they were with zooms, they were, I think - treated as primes or at least considered as primes.

• One image, taken at sea, I wanted both ships in the image, thus was stuck at 10mm for 180 degrees of view. I could not move forward - I would go into the water, and if I moved back (which I did for other shots), I would just have the deck of the flight elevator as a foreground.
  
• In another series of images of a yacht harbor, I was already at the edge of the seawall, again going forward I would be swimming, while moving back would obscure the reflections in the water, replacing with a boring view of cement.
  
• Every year up at the Grand Canyon we read about tourists zooming with their feet and going over the edge, or their subjects (wife telling the husband to back up so that she can get a better shot and then he disappears from the viewfinder).

So, using a zoom essentially provide an additional dimension of flexibility so as to be able to frame the shot, that you really want.