"Zooming with your feet"

I go back to 1955 as a serious hobbyist, so "zoom with your feet" was not used until well after the first zooms came out. And that's when the expression was started. Probably in the late 60's/early 70's. At that time, most of us used only prime lenses, as the zooms were expensive, big, heavy, and not all that good. So getting the best out of primes did require walking around to get the framing you wanted, and mostly to fill in between the prime focal lengths. And I do still move around, if I can, to get the shot I want, even with zooms.

Did zooms make us lazy? Perhaps; but as they got better and smaller they became the lens to have. I'd like to point out that on travel particularly, but in other venues as well, there are often times when you cannot move closer or further back, as on a viewing point with a railing. In those cases, you do the best you can, and zooms help a lot.

Dheorl said:

Zooming with your feet is a phrase that has always bugged me. People often state that users of zooms are lazy when you could just use a prime and walk, seemingly ignoring the change of perspective. I ran across a good example video on youtube earlier and hoped it would result in less prime fanatics calling me lazy just because I like to be able to control perspective.

Click to expand...

May be you take others a bit too seriously, but I personally have grown more towards using prime lenses. I don't "suggest" others to zoom with their feet. I don't. I simply look for creative ways to get a perspective I want, get the distance I desire. Do I shoot with zooms? Yep, but less now than ever. In fact, I often go about with just a 35/1.8 lens on my Sony NEX-6. For occasions I might need a wider FOV, I usually have a pancake 20mm in my pockets.

Was that in reply to me? I can't tell.

Dheorl said:

Zooming with your feet is a phrase that has always bugged me. People often state that users of zooms are lazy when you could just use a prime and walk, seemingly ignoring the change of perspective. I ran across a good example video on youtube earlier and hoped it would result in less prime fanatics calling me lazy just because I like to be able to control perspective.

Click to expand...

Both you and the guy in the video.

A 24-70 zoom has an angle of view from 84 degrees to 34 degrees. If you are 10m away that means the field of view is 18m to 6.2m. A Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G lens has an angle of view of 47 degrees, which at 10m distance corresponds to a field of view of 8.6m. To get the same field of view as the 24mm end of the zoom with the 50mm you have to be 21m away instead of 10m, and to get the same field of view as the 70mm end with the 50mm you have to be 7m away instead of 10m.

The 24-70 f/2.8 costs $1900 and weighs 900g and the 50mm f/1.8 G costs $220 and weighs 187g. Is the difference in perspective between 20m and 10m or 10m and 7m really worth $1500, 700g and a stop and a third of light?

No, but you can even buy two or three primes for the price, propably with more DoF control and higher resolution. Only problem you'll encounter are landscapes and two objects you need to see at certain constalation to each other in that shot. For some it's dealbreaker, for some it's not bothering. But you still can grab closest shorter focal lenght, set the scene and your position, and crop later - in those very few cases where it's needed.

It's all about accepting tha there are more valid ways to do the same thing. I don't see this kind of tolerance in this forum. It's just "mine works and yours is bad".

Owning both prime and zoom lenses, I can get what they mean by 'zooming with your feet', but I also respect zoom lenses a lot.

Prime lenses are for those carefully constructed shots where you want to make it look very 'nice'. Nice is a loose word but I think you get what I mean. 35mm, 50mm and 85mm still have their place in the world because they have churned out millions of wonderful shots in the past and they have proven to be the most artistically 'sweet' focal lengths. Yes, you can still use those focal lengths on a zoom lens but you've got such a wide selection of lengths that you end up picking something random that doesn't look as nice. Primes force you think about the shot more and to stick to the known and successful focal lengths. I guess the No. 1 priority out of a prime lens shot is the beautiful composition and perfect proportion. Getting that 'nice shot' for most people has a much higher hitrate on a prime than on a zoom lens. 'Zooming with your feet' is just something that comes prime lenses and thinking more about your shots. It's just something you have to naturally do, whether you 'like' it or not.

Zooms are of course by far more practical and ergonomic and definitely have their place too. The No. 1 priority of a zoom lens is to get the shot from anywhere. No 'moving with your feet' nonsense, just twist and shoot, but you have to be more skilled and experienced to get a really nicely composed and proportioned shot.

For me I on trips and generally going out, I take my 24-105mm zoom. It gives me that security that I can get nearly any shot, but if I'm taking portraits or am not rushed, I'll use a 50mm prime and just 'zoom with my feet'.

I think the message from this thread could be summed up as irrespective of what type of lens you use always consider an alternative viewpoint ( if physically possible ) to check if the change in perspective improves or not your composition, the pleasure I get from photography is generated by having to engage with whatever subject is in front of my camera.

Sante Patate said:

Dheorl said:

Zooming with your feet is a phrase that has always bugged me. People often state that users of zooms are lazy when you could just use a prime and walk, seemingly ignoring the change of perspective. I ran across a good example video on youtube earlier and hoped it would result in less prime fanatics calling me lazy just because I like to be able to control perspective.

Click to expand...

Both you and the guy in the video.

A 24-70 zoom has an angle of view from 84 degrees to 34 degrees. If you are 10m away that means the field of view is 18m to 6.2m. A Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G lens has an angle of view of 47 degrees, which at 10m distance corresponds to a field of view of 8.6m. To get the same field of view as the 24mm end of the zoom with the 50mm you have to be 21m away instead of 10m, and to get the same field of view as the 70mm end with the 50mm you have to be 7m away instead of 10m.

The 24-70 f/2.8 costs $1900 and weighs 900g and the 50mm f/1.8 G costs $220 and weighs 187g. Is the difference in perspective between 20m and 10m or 10m and 7m really worth $1500, 700g and a stop and a third of light?

Click to expand...

Ok, even ignoring the fact that to me doubling the distance is quite a substantial difference...

Lets say for instance when framing your subject at 10m away with the 24mm there is a tree at 20m away that is 18m tall. You can shoot this with the 24mm, get your subject framed as you want and get the whole tree in the background shooting a vertical.

Now if you step back to 21m away from your subject with the 50mm, the tree, now at 31m away from you, has the top 4m chopped off. If your lucky your subject might be something you can move, then you can move it further away from the tree and get the intended framing on both, but the relation of the subject to the tree will still have been changed.

Quite simply you can't get the same picture simply by moving your feet.

I'm not quite sure what point I'm missing. Yes, if it matters to you the prime is cheaper, smaller and brighter. As I've said now multiple times, I have primes myself and they sure have their uses, but my choice to use zooms so I can get the exact framing and perspective I want doesn't, as many people say, make me lazy. I was merely using the video to demonstrate what you can achieve by changing focal length that you can't achieve by moving.

Yes, that´s where more prime lenses in the price of that zoom lens kick in.

Things will never be equal, you can´t get many lenses for 18-55 kit lens, but so you can´t get the DoF and light into the camera with kit zoom lens. Everything has its strong advantages and disadvantages. You cannot substitute one with the other. These who need zoom use zoom. Not a big deal.

justgo99 said:

Owning both prime and zoom lenses, I can get what they mean by 'zooming with your feet', but I also respect zoom lenses a lot.

Prime lenses are for those carefully constructed shots where you want to make it look very 'nice'. Nice is a loose word but I think you get what I mean. 35mm, 50mm and 85mm still have their place in the world because they have churned out millions of wonderful shots in the past and they have proven to be the most artistically 'sweet' focal lengths. Yes, you can still use those focal lengths on a zoom lens but you've got such a wide selection of lengths that you end up picking something random that doesn't look as nice. Primes force you think about the shot more and to stick to the known and successful focal lengths. I guess the No. 1 priority out of a prime lens shot is the beautiful composition and perfect proportion. Getting that 'nice shot' for most people has a much higher hitrate on a prime than on a zoom lens. 'Zooming with your feet' is just something that comes prime lenses and thinking more about your shots. It's just something you have to naturally do, whether you 'like' it or not.

Click to expand...

I have to admit I don't get what you mean. I don't think a photo taken at 35mm necessarily looks any better than one taken at 40mm. I don't think they were ever chosen because they were some magical focal length as opposed to say 33mm or 37mm, they were just fairly evenly spaced numbers which sounded nice. I'd reckon most people would never be able to tell the difference between 35 or 38mm when it comes to perspective, especially considering lenses aren't exactly always the focal length they claim. That 50mm you've been using quite possibly is actually physically a 53mm. Do you now feel the photos you've taken with it are less aesthetically "nice"?

I guess if you do need to be "forced" to think about your viewpoint than primes might result in better photos. I guess in much the same way I often end up with better photos if I leave myself control over everything from shutter speed to focus, perhaps forcing me to think more about it, or maybe just because it slows me down in general. I do however like to have exact control over everything, including my focal length.

I'm just trying to show people who claim that zoom users don't "think about their shot" are possibly mislead, and that zooms, if used properly, actually give the user potentially more to think about in their shot.

justgo99 said:

Zooms are of course by far more practical and ergonomic and definitely have their place too. The No. 1 priority of a zoom lens is to get the shot from anywhere. No 'moving with your feet' nonsense, just twist and shoot, but you have to be more skilled and experienced to get a really nicely composed and proportioned shot.

Click to expand...

I think the No.1 priority of a zoom depends on the user. For me it's not being able to get the shot from anywhere, it's being able to get exactly the shot I want.

justgo99 said:

For me I on trips and generally going out, I take my 24-105mm zoom. It gives me that security that I can get nearly any shot, but if I'm taking portraits or am not rushed, I'll use a 50mm prime and just 'zoom with my feet'.

Click to expand...

Portraits are one time when I would almost exclusively use primes, purely because I wouldn't want my subject standing around whilst I get the framing of subject and background exactly right, and am happy to have one less thing to think about so I can focus on interacting with my subject.

Lee Jay said:

Sometimes zooming with your feet is just impossible.

Click to expand...

It's never "possible" since moving is different than zooming.

Good Point the relative size of things changes when you move vs zoom, though thinking about it

the exception would be say a painting on a wall (or anything rather 2 dimensional?)

Dheorl said:

Sante Patate said:

Dheorl said:

Zooming with your feet is a phrase that has always bugged me. People often state that users of zooms are lazy when you could just use a prime and walk, seemingly ignoring the change of perspective. I ran across a good example video on youtube earlier and hoped it would result in less prime fanatics calling me lazy just because I like to be able to control perspective.

Click to expand...

Both you and the guy in the video.

A 24-70 zoom has an angle of view from 84 degrees to 34 degrees. If you are 10m away that means the field of view is 18m to 6.2m. A Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G lens has an angle of view of 47 degrees, which at 10m distance corresponds to a field of view of 8.6m. To get the same field of view as the 24mm end of the zoom with the 50mm you have to be 21m away instead of 10m, and to get the same field of view as the 70mm end with the 50mm you have to be 7m away instead of 10m.

The 24-70 f/2.8 costs $1900 and weighs 900g and the 50mm f/1.8 G costs $220 and weighs 187g. Is the difference in perspective between 20m and 10m or 10m and 7m really worth $1500, 700g and a stop and a third of light?

Click to expand...

Ok, even ignoring the fact that to me doubling the distance is quite a substantial difference...

Lets say for instance when framing your subject at 10m away with the 24mm there is a tree at 20m away that is 18m tall. You can shoot this with the 24mm, get your subject framed as you want and get the whole tree in the background shooting a vertical.

Click to expand...

Sure, and there will be times you can't change your position at all.

The point is simply that at medium subject distances you only have to walk a few meters to reproduce the effect of the focal length range of a mid-range zoom. Most people, if you ask them, estimate the difference in position between the wide and long ends of a mid-range zoom to be much greater than it is.

Dheorl said:

Quite simply you can't get the same picture simply by moving your feet.

Click to expand...

Quite right. But you could get a different and perfectly good - maybe even better - picture. Or, since the tree isn't going anywhere, you could go away and come back another day with the lens you need.

Dheorl said:

I'm not quite sure what point I'm missing.

Click to expand...

That the advantages of mid-range zooms are, for most photographers, over-rated, and come at a high price. If the price is worth it for you that is fine.

Dheorl said:

Zooming with your feet is a phrase that has always bugged me. People often state that users of zooms are lazy when you could just use a prime and walk, seemingly ignoring the change of perspective. I ran across a good example video on youtube earlier and hoped it would result in less prime fanatics calling me lazy just because I like to be able to control perspective.

Click to expand...

"Zooming with your feet" will never produce the perspective and coverage of a 20mm prime on a full frame sensor.

There is a certain amount of foot zooming we should all be doing, but there is a limit. The sentiment is meant to encourage people to use better lenses (primes) and try to move around a bit for composition. You'd be surprised what you can achieve if you just walk around a bit.

Sante Patate said:

The point is simply that at medium subject distances you only have to walk a few meters to reproduce the effect of the focal length range of a mid-range zoom.

Click to expand...

To reproduce the framing: Yes.

To reproduce the perspective: No.

That is the point of this thread which you have missed.

Sante Patate said:

Dheorl said:

Sante Patate said:

Dheorl said:

Zooming with your feet is a phrase that has always bugged me. People often state that users of zooms are lazy when you could just use a prime and walk, seemingly ignoring the change of perspective. I ran across a good example video on youtube earlier and hoped it would result in less prime fanatics calling me lazy just because I like to be able to control perspective.

Click to expand...

Both you and the guy in the video.

A 24-70 zoom has an angle of view from 84 degrees to 34 degrees. If you are 10m away that means the field of view is 18m to 6.2m. A Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G lens has an angle of view of 47 degrees, which at 10m distance corresponds to a field of view of 8.6m. To get the same field of view as the 24mm end of the zoom with the 50mm you have to be 21m away instead of 10m, and to get the same field of view as the 70mm end with the 50mm you have to be 7m away instead of 10m.

The 24-70 f/2.8 costs $1900 and weighs 900g and the 50mm f/1.8 G costs $220 and weighs 187g. Is the difference in perspective between 20m and 10m or 10m and 7m really worth $1500, 700g and a stop and a third of light?

Click to expand...

Ok, even ignoring the fact that to me doubling the distance is quite a substantial difference...

Lets say for instance when framing your subject at 10m away with the 24mm there is a tree at 20m away that is 18m tall. You can shoot this with the 24mm, get your subject framed as you want and get the whole tree in the background shooting a vertical.

Click to expand...

Sure, and there will be times you can't change your position at all.

The point is simply that at medium subject distances you only have to walk a few meters to reproduce the effect of the focal length range of a mid-range zoom.

Click to expand...

But you won't reproduce the effect. You'll reproduce the amount of space around your main subject but the rest will be completely different.

Sante Patate said:

Most people, if you ask them, estimate the difference in position between the wide and long ends of a mid-range zoom to be much greater than it is.

Click to expand...

Well you have to fix a lot of parameters to even ask that question. If your subject is 100m away then suddenly the amount you have to move also goes up a lot.

Sante Patate said:

Sante Patate said:

Quite simply you can't get the same picture simply by moving your feet.

Click to expand...

Quite right. But you could get a different and perfectly good - maybe even better - picture.

Click to expand...

How could you get a better picture perspective and framing wise with a prime than with a zoom that covers that focal length?

Sante Patate said:

Or, since the tree isn't going anywhere, you could go away and come back another day with the lens you need.

Click to expand...

Ok, say it's a bus.

Sante Patate said:

Sante Patate said:

I'm not quite sure what point I'm missing.

Click to expand...

That the advantages of mid-range zooms are, for most photographers, over-rated, and come at a high price. If the price is worth it for you that is fine.

Click to expand...

By mid range do you mean quality wise or focal length wise?

If you require the same framing and perspective it is just a case of fitting a prime of the appropriate focal length.

Art Jacks said:

If you require the same framing and perspective it is just a case of fitting a prime of the appropriate focal length.

Click to expand...

There are disadvantages to that approach.

1. It means carrying primes of many focal length.
2. It takes time to switch lenses, and you could miss the moment.
3. It can cost a whole lot more if you carry higher-end fast primes like 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 135/2.
4. Most primes don't have stabilization.

Art Jacks said:

If you require the same framing and perspective it is just a case of fitting a prime of the appropriate focal length.

Click to expand...

And have 3 times the number of lenses? Wonderful. (and likely loose quality due to cropping to get the exact framing I want)

Art Jacks said:

If you require the same framing and perspective it is just a case of fitting a prime of the appropriate focal length.

Click to expand...

This thread is about the old advice of zooming with your feet instead of changing focal length.