Reading mode: Light Dark

Limiting one's self with a prime - useful or BS?

Go to last post
Tim F 101 said:
Mine!

I bought primes because (1) everyone should have the PL20 and (2) all of my other primes are legacy manuals that did not cost much and take gorgeous pics wide open. The Panasonic 14-45 is on my personal roadmap but I don't have it yet, and both 14-42 kit zooms suck eggs. Ergo I use primes.

If I had a lot more money and micro four thirds had red- or gold band-type zooms I would use those. Then when I want to go light I would take a prime. And then when I got home I would relax with a tasty serving of unicorn bacon-and-tomato on rye.
Click to expand...
beer would you have with that?
Tim F 101 said:
We can agree to disagree but I am right.
Click to expand...
Man, a beer really sounds good right now.

Damn, it's only 9:00 AM!

Is it OK to drink beer at 9:00AM?

TEdolph
 
A zoom only zooms when YOU zoom it. So if you want to limit yourself, that can be done on a zoom, merely by leaving that zoom ring alone. There is no reason you can't force the same creativity on yourself with a zoom lens.

Personally, I think the whole logic is BS. Would the same people claim that zooms make you more creative because you can't use as large an aperture range? Why wouldn't aperture limitations enhance creativity if focal length does? Or we could add sensor size, shutter speed, max ISO range, etc. All are limitations which I see as compromises, not creative advantage.
 
I have a few f/1.4 primes that I use on my m4/3 cameras. One the Leica 50mm f/1.5 Summilux first version is very sharp wide open and it has excellent micro contrast which provides a clear air to the images. So for impromtu portraiture I can not think of any lens made that will perform better for me. Especially since it's not all that large or heavy. Generally primes are faster than zooms as well as smaller and lighter. I also have other primes that work well on m4/3 from 17mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm f/2, 90mm and 135mm. The 17mm through 50mm lenses are very small.

I also now have two m4/3 zooms and I may start using them as well. Generally you can zoom to whatever focal lenght you may need with a zoom and this is also a good feature.

The old addage that you are questioning does still apply. It's good to use primes as you become good at seeing images in one FL and then another FL some months later. This is good training. With a zoom because it is so flexable you do not really get any training and you do not really learn from them. So there is no actual improvement in your photography skills. I sense Bob that this is important for you right at this stage in your development.

So as far as becoming a more well rounded photographer I would still recommend using one sigle prime for up to a month or better yet two months before you try another FL prime. Once educated and knowledgeable with seeing the possabilities ahead of time in your mind you will have those skills for the rest of your life. What can possible wrong with that?
-Peter
--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes
 
Bob,
You've started a nice discussion! I appreciate it very much.

First, I enjoyed reading your thought processes. It's very instructive for me, and reminds me of the book, "The Photographer's Eye." Very insightful!

As for Primes vs. Zooms, my analysis is that the reason why there is a debate at all is because people lose site of the different objectives. I'm going to simplify things and list just two objectives to make a point. Objective 1 is learning and training. Objective 2 is getting the photo that exists in your mind's eye.

Restricting to a prime is one way to exercise photographic skills. You work on moving to find different compositions. That's training in essence, just as musicians, athletes, painters, etc. working on their craft, skills, try new ideas. This experimentation and exploration is part of the process of improving our photography. This is objective 1.

Using a zoom in the field to get the best image is optimizing the process for objective 2. In this case, the point is to use the tools, skills, and vision to get the images.

Neither is better. Neither is BS. What is BS is our misconceptions about this debate. Then there are things that makes people come into the discussion with different perspectives. Some of these confounding factors are actually not related directly to the objective above, and they get in the way of thinking about the core issues.

Confounding factors:
  1. Primes and zooms are not optically equivalent, and have different strengths. This is why one type of lens doesn't replace the others for all people.
  2. Primes and zooms have different prices, sizes, features, and ergonomics.
  3. Some people feel the need to justify their purchases... so they look for rationalizations and use one of the above reasons to justify their purchases.
  4. Photographers come in an extremely wide variety of people, personalities, backgrounds, etc. We all work on different things. We are at different stages of development. We value different things. People enter these debates from varied perspectives.
  5. Some of these debates get derailed by poor logic and reason. For example, people who think their intuition = truth.
The heart of the matter is that we should do photography, which includes the two objectives we are discussing here (and more). You have shown us a good process for developing your craft, and why you have been able to accomplish what you have. That is the ultimate take home message for many of us. The artificial debates of primes vs zooms to me is missing the point. My belief is that it is very narrow field of view to look at these two classes in this light. If instead we consider the "landscape of learning" in photography, then we have to traverse our own paths, explore our own vision, and overcome our own, personal obstacles to creating photographs. The lenses are there for us to use as we see fit.

Cheers!
--
SLOtographer

"If we limit our vision to the real world, we will forever be fighting on the minus side of things, working only too make our photographs equal to what we see out there, but no better." -- Galen Rowell
 
For once I agree.

I think 14, 24, 90.

Sometime I see something and think "crush it up!" and head for a long tele, sometime I think "ooh! fisheye!", sometime it juts won't go between 24 and 90 and out comes the fifty, and sometimes I need a macro.

But yes, my mind's eye see 14, 24, 90 (efl).

And when I go out to lunch (or whatever) I have the 24 and the 90 with me.
tedolf said:
artifical limitations in an actual production setting do not make a lot of sense, as a learing/trianing exercise fine but not when you want to produce.

OTOH, having too many tools can lead some of us to confusion, and particulary with respect to the vision we have in our heads. If Phototransformations looks at a scene and sees dozens of possibiilties, well good for him. Down here most of us mortals see one, maybe two.

So, it would appear that for the most part you only need two focal lenghts, one long, one short to bring those visions to fruition. History shows that is the case as a two lens system was pretty much what Leica envisioned with thier rangefinders. One lens on the camera, one in your pocket.

I think only a very accomplished photographer can effectively handle and infinite number of focal lenghts.

One final thought. I have herd it said that EXIF data shows that zoom owners take the majority of thier photos at just two focal lenghts, the extremes.

Doesn't that support my contention?

Tedolph, Ph.D.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
 
don't they use primes 99% of the time photographing feature films? dolly v. zoom?
 
Tim F 101 said:
Yeah but zooms are more flexible. Sometimes you need that!

...doing my part to keep this thing alive...
Click to expand...
:)

The OP tryed to confuse te issue, introducing the problem of classical proportion.

In fact I had the same and solved with a 9-18 :)

But that doesn't have anything to to with learning perspective laws by using a prime only. They are very separate issues.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
Louis_Dobson said:
For once I agree.
Click to expand...
that is twice now.
Louis_Dobson said:
I think 14, 24, 90.

Sometime I see something and think "crush it up!" and head for a long tele, sometime I think "ooh! fisheye!", sometime it juts won't go between 24 and 90 and out comes the fifty, and sometimes I need a macro.

But yes, my mind's eye see 14, 24, 90 (efl).
Click to expand...
Do you ever feel like a Zombie?
Louis_Dobson said:
And when I go out to lunch (or whatever) I have the 24 and the 90 with me.
Click to expand...
The classic Leica combination was 28 and 90mm.
Louis_Dobson said:
tedolf said:
artifical limitations in an actual production setting do not make a lot of sense, as a learing/trianing exercise fine but not when you want to produce.

OTOH, having too many tools can lead some of us to confusion, and particulary with respect to the vision we have in our heads. If Phototransformations looks at a scene and sees dozens of possibiilties, well good for him. Down here most of us mortals see one, maybe two.

So, it would appear that for the most part you only need two focal lenghts, one long, one short to bring those visions to fruition. History shows that is the case as a two lens system was pretty much what Leica envisioned with thier rangefinders. One lens on the camera, one in your pocket.

I think only a very accomplished photographer can effectively handle and infinite number of focal lenghts.

One final thought. I have herd it said that EXIF data shows that zoom owners take the majority of thier photos at just two focal lenghts, the extremes.

Doesn't that support my contention?

Tedolph, Ph.D.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://thegentlemansnapper.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
TEedolph,

Supreme Commander of the Brrain Dead Tedolph Zombies(tm).
 
SLOtographer said:
Bob,
You've started a nice discussion! I appreciate it very much.

First, I enjoyed reading your thought processes. It's very instructive for me, and reminds me of the book, "The Photographer's Eye." Very insightful!

As for Primes vs. Zooms, my analysis is that the reason why there is a debate at all is because people lose site of the different objectives. I'm going to simplify things and list just two objectives to make a point. Objective 1 is learning and training. Objective 2 is getting the photo that exists in your mind's eye.

Restricting to a prime is one way to exercise photographic skills. You work on moving to find different compositions. That's training in essence, just as musicians, athletes, painters, etc. working on their craft, skills, try new ideas. This experimentation and exploration is part of the process of improving our photography. This is objective 1.

Using a zoom in the field to get the best image is optimizing the process for objective 2. In this case, the point is to use the tools, skills, and vision to get the images.

Neither is better. Neither is BS. What is BS is our misconceptions about this debate. Then there are things that makes people come into the discussion with different perspectives. Some of these confounding factors are actually not related directly to the objective above, and they get in the way of thinking about the core issues.

Confounding factors:
  1. Primes and zooms are not optically equivalent, and have different strengths. This is why one type of lens doesn't replace the others for all people.
  2. Primes and zooms have different prices, sizes, features, and ergonomics.
  3. Some people feel the need to justify their purchases... so they look for rationalizations and use one of the above reasons to justify their purchases.
  4. Photographers come in an extremely wide variety of people, personalities, backgrounds, etc. We all work on different things. We are at different stages of development. We value different things. People enter these debates from varied perspectives.
  5. Some of these debates get derailed by poor logic and reason. For example, people who think their intuition = truth.
The heart of the matter is that we should do photography, which includes the two objectives we are discussing here (and more). You have shown us a good process for developing your craft, and why you have been able to accomplish what you have. That is the ultimate take home message for many of us. The artificial debates of primes vs zooms to me is missing the point. My belief is that it is very narrow field of view to look at these two classes in this light. If instead we consider the "landscape of learning" in photography, then we have to traverse our own paths, explore our own vision, and overcome our own, personal obstacles to creating photographs. The lenses are there for us to use as we see fit.

Cheers!
--
SLOtographer

"If we limit our vision to the real world, we will forever be fighting on the minus side of things, working only too make our photographs equal to what we see out there, but no better." -- Galen Rowell
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I find most people advocating prime only photography tend to shoot wide. Most of the time I'm using a zoom giving a 35mm FOV of 100-400mm. Modern zoom lenses and teleconverters are nicer than carrying 100, 200, and 400mm primes with around.

I own wide fast primes, and wide zooms too. When I researched the photos I had taken after narrowing down the look I liked, I was able to settle in on which prime would best approximate that look. For example, with a 12-60 zoom (24-120), I found > 80% of my photos fell in the 25-40mm (50-80 mm) range, with the majority of the remaining 20% at 50mm (100mm). I now have 30mm and 50mm primes for their low light capabities.

I guess I'm not a wide angle type.

I also will spend time zooming very slowly with my eye to the finder while watching the changing images. It's close to zooming with your feet, not as dangerous as zooming with your feet while looking through the finder, and not that lazy if you aren't sitting on a couch.
 
Then you could have switched! :)

It's not really one prime against one zoom; it is a zoom against a pocketful or primes.

I wouldn't be without my zooms now because they are so good, but back in the day, I was all primes because the zooms were rubbish.

I'll be interested to see what you'll make of this scene with a wider lens; prima facie I fear it will have a big, empty foreground and consequently be as boring as bat sh-t! :)

Cheers, geoff
--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html
 
You mean liberated by primes right?

Cheers,
Seth
--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com
 
I can't remember, possibly tonemapping of a single RAW.

Note however that this in one of the few original Cosmatesque cloisters from the XIII century, of which the OP's is a pale imitation.

it is so small that my back was forced against the wall despite the 9mm end of the zoom.

I think that the OP mistakes symmetry for perspective. A prime teaches the latter.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
The answer lies in what does photography mean to you? If you are like the thousands who buy cameras for making a photocopy of what they see around then IMHO, a prime is a bad tool because it makes it harder to make that photocopy.

A zoom provides instant gratification in the sense, you look at a potential subject and an idea pops-up in your mind. You immediately grab your zoom, tailor it to the fit the idea and you have a photograph. Good if all your first ideas are winners. But as most artists will tell you, ideas need to be worked on - the 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration rule.

That is where a prime comes in. It makes you spend more time thinking and less time clicking. The former is harder and we tend not to do that because ideas aren't easy to come by and most of us aren't trained to think creatively. One could say, but if you have a zoom, just click away multiple permutations and combinations of the subject and pick a winner later. Right! And, a million monkeys typing away randomly will eventually rival Shakespeare :-)

In any trade, discipline or art, the most basic tools are used to impart training because the emphasis is on training the student to work with thoughts hard before starting to pick a tool. Once the mind has learnt to assess a situation and come up with the optimal solution, then tools are the easy part.
 
Well said, SLOtographer. It's fascinating to read yours & Bob's insights. The analysis of the artistic aspect of photography in such a technical & systematic approach is very instructive to me as well.

As for the Primes vs Zooms topic, my view is that it's a compromise either way. Even if there is a uwa to telephoto superzoom with a constant large aperture & tilt/shift capability, I suppose there would still be compromises. Isn't that what life's about?
SLOtographer said:
Bob,
You've started a nice discussion! I appreciate it very much.

First, I enjoyed reading your thought processes. It's very instructive for me, and reminds me of the book, "The Photographer's Eye." Very insightful!

As for Primes vs. Zooms, my analysis is that the reason why there is a debate at all is because people lose site of the different objectives. I'm going to simplify things and list just two objectives to make a point. Objective 1 is learning and training. Objective 2 is getting the photo that exists in your mind's eye.

Restricting to a prime is one way to exercise photographic skills. You work on moving to find different compositions. That's training in essence, just as musicians, athletes, painters, etc. working on their craft, skills, try new ideas. This experimentation and exploration is part of the process of improving our photography. This is objective 1.

Using a zoom in the field to get the best image is optimizing the process for objective 2. In this case, the point is to use the tools, skills, and vision to get the images.

Neither is better. Neither is BS. What is BS is our misconceptions about this debate. Then there are things that makes people come into the discussion with different perspectives. Some of these confounding factors are actually not related directly to the objective above, and they get in the way of thinking about the core issues.

Confounding factors:
  1. Primes and zooms are not optically equivalent, and have different strengths. This is why one type of lens doesn't replace the others for all people.
  2. Primes and zooms have different prices, sizes, features, and ergonomics.
  3. Some people feel the need to justify their purchases... so they look for rationalizations and use one of the above reasons to justify their purchases.
  4. Photographers come in an extremely wide variety of people, personalities, backgrounds, etc. We all work on different things. We are at different stages of development. We value different things. People enter these debates from varied perspectives.
  5. Some of these debates get derailed by poor logic and reason. For example, people who think their intuition = truth.
The heart of the matter is that we should do photography, which includes the two objectives we are discussing here (and more). You have shown us a good process for developing your craft, and why you have been able to accomplish what you have. That is the ultimate take home message for many of us. The artificial debates of primes vs zooms to me is missing the point. My belief is that it is very narrow field of view to look at these two classes in this light. If instead we consider the "landscape of learning" in photography, then we have to traverse our own paths, explore our own vision, and overcome our own, personal obstacles to creating photographs. The lenses are there for us to use as we see fit.

Cheers!
--
SLOtographer

"If we limit our vision to the real world, we will forever be fighting on the minus side of things, working only too make our photographs equal to what we see out there, but no better." -- Galen Rowell
Click to expand...
--
http://jonathanho.smugmug.com
 
Sure, all of the limitations you name can be used to make you think outside your particular box. Look at what people do with pinhole and lomo and the iPhone for another set of deliberate limits chosen for creative advantage. Or old-process emulsions. The list is long, and using primes is only one list element.
tkbslc said:
A zoom only zooms when YOU zoom it. So if you want to limit yourself, that can be done on a zoom, merely by leaving that zoom ring alone. There is no reason you can't force the same creativity on yourself with a zoom lens.

Personally, I think the whole logic is BS. Would the same people claim that zooms make you more creative because you can't use as large an aperture range? Why wouldn't aperture limitations enhance creativity if focal length does? Or we could add sensor size, shutter speed, max ISO range, etc. All are limitations which I see as compromises, not creative advantage.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top