"The Case Against Zooms"

Michael Long said:

I'm kind of tired of the prime purists. It's fun occasionally to
limit yourself to a single lens to learn and play, but on the other
hand some people have to shoot and work in the real world.

Click to expand...

I get kind of tired of the theme in these forums that if you don't have every focal length from 16 mm to 200 mm covered at f/2.8, you can't take pictures. Because if you don't have a 126 mm lens, you're f@cked.

Michael Long said:

Tell a PJ or wedding photographer, who frequently has to shoot from
a confined or fixed location, that he can't use a zoom to get the
right framing and he'll laugh in your face.

Click to expand...

Speaking of the "real world," do you know how killer whales hunt? 'Cause they have to be sucessful hunters, or they'll starve.

They go after a school ( is that the right term ) of seals, who swim off in every direction to confuse the whales. As kids, they'll get confused, trying to catch all the seals, and wind up catching none. But the ones who survive learn to zero in on one particular seal, and ignore all the others. If they're going to make it to adulthood, they usually catch the one seal they set out for.

So, tell me I need to bring back X good photos, including some of this and some of that, and I'll do it. But tell me I have to bring back one particular photo, and I'll laugh back in your face.

Michael Long said:

Tell me a prime will give me better quality when I can't frame the
subject tight enough and I have to throw away 50% of the pixels.

Click to expand...

But the zooms all stop zooming somewhere ... I'd rather have a lightweight 300/4 prime in my bag, than a heavy 100-300/4 zoom at home, on the shelf...

Troponin said:

He is right that they both have their place---- but it seems hard
for me to understand why primers view the world differently than
zoomer--- I suppose that primers most view the world differently
for each of their many primes thus consitituting a virtual discrete
zoom .

Click to expand...

I don't think his arguement holds a great deal of water ( although it's still an interesting read! ), but I think the excersize he suggested was a very good one.

Although I have to say, I kind of view the world like a 24 mm prime ( on FF ) ... and if you look through my site, maybe I'm not crazy.

"...a zoom lens has no point of view." Quite the contrary, it has points of view. "...you can learn to impose its point of view on the world." True, but with a zoom one can make many choices, e.g. you can "compress" the action or relation of subject matter in a scene or go wide and emphasize the depth or space between objects/people. I think he is 180 degrees wrong on this one. I spent quite a few years with just an FD 50/1.4 and as much as I liked it and my current EF 50/1.4, zooms are superior at doing the very things he claims they can't do. He presumes one cannot "learn" a zoom lens but does not explain this assertion at all. And his argument about how they add another control that takes time is just silly. Which is faster, zooming or changing prime lenses? It's often said that a prime is needed to teach "composition," I think the exact opposite is true. So I walk to and fro with my 50/1.4 all day as opposed to zooming? That is time consuming and silly. I'll agree with him that generally photogs who use zooms don't frame pictures as well as those who use primes. Duh, but the reason is that beginners and pure amateurs use zooms more while pros are much more likely to use primes. So this is really comparing the Indians, not the arrows. And there has been a big movement to zooms by pros over the last 10 years or so if you look at the media of today where they tell what they used and compare to older media.

Forrest said:

http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column20/

Interesting reading, and the guy's primary reason for being
prejusticed against zooms is something I haven't seen mentioned in
this forum...

Click to expand...

--
'A Hard Day's Night' was the 3rd best 'Marx Brothers' movie ever made.

Forrest41926 said:

So, tell me I need to bring back X good photos, including some of
this and some of that, and I'll do it. But tell me I have to bring
back one particular photo, and I'll laugh back in your face.

Click to expand...

Laugh in the face of enough ADs, who actually WANT a particular shot, and you'll starve. But at least you'll die happy.

Forrest41926 said:

But the zooms all stop zooming somewhere ... I'd rather have a
lightweight 300/4 prime in my bag...

Click to expand...

I was thinking more of the time when you can't move, your 85 is way too short, and your 200 is too long. Since, with your viewpoint, you're not going to be carrying every prime made in your bag either.

It's just as easy to go overboard one way than the other. Primes and zooms both have their strengths, both have weaknesses, both support different styles of shooting, and both have times when they're needed.

The real question is, can you identify them...

Unfortunately this is the truth. Which is why I own full sets of both. LOL.

Michael Long said:

It's just as easy to go overboard one way than the other. Primes
and zooms both have their strengths, both have weaknesses, both
support different styles of shooting, and both have times when
they're needed.

Click to expand...

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

I agree with the fact that you can simulate multiple fixed focal lengths with a zoom lens (like the exmaple of yours, 50mm and 100mm). However, I wonder if there could be differences between a self imposed limitation (using only 100mm focal length from a zomm lens) and a true limitation from a fixed focal lens. I would say that we could be more desperate(?) with a fixed focal lens, hence causing more efforts for better excercise. I am still a newbie in photography. I just had this sort of feeling as I can't walk on 1-foot-width steel beam on a high-rise building while I have no problem walking on 1-foot-width passage drawn on pavement (difference in desperate levels ;-) ) I am a person who has to look through the view finder for framing (lack of talent, yes), and after reading the fixed-length-advoate's article, I am considering to purchase a fixed focal length lens hoping for better exercise.

-10s10d

Vern Stevens said:

Now, I may be stating the obvious here, but given only one lens,
only the zoom lens can exercise the creativity of evaluating the
same subject at two different focal lengths, say 50mm and 100mm.
This is where I would disagree with him. It's not the lens that
hinders the visualization and creativity, it's the person behind
the lens.

VES

Forrest said:

I think, besides being an interesting quick read, the excersize he
mentions is a good one, helps people think "outside the box" when
it comes to creativity and photography. It's definately got me
pictures I would have never seen...

Click to expand...

--
My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a
Photographic English Composition course.


Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos,
composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

Click to expand...

Forrest41926 said:

He only briefly ran over the main reasons I prefer primes to zooms:
optical speed, weight and size, and optical quality.

Click to expand...

Now you're back to making trade-offs. Many primes are in fact faster than their zoom counterparts. That said, if you buy the faster lenses then many of them individually weigh nearly as much and cost nearly as much as the zoom in it's range.

Buy two, and you're overboard.

Check out the 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 85/1.2L, 135/2L, and 200/1.8L.

That would be a dream prime kit purely in terms of speed and optical quality. But it weights twice as much, takes up twice as much room, and costs twice as much as the L zoom triad it replaces.

You keep speaking in absolutes, but the point here is that they're not always faster and lighter and smaller and better.

I have exactly that setup (and the three f/2.8 zooms).

Without the 200/1.8 (use the 135/2 and 1.4x TC instead), the weight/portability factor isn't so bad (relative to the three zooms).

But the price is definitely higher.

Anyway, don't worry. Prime purists would tell you that you only really need the 24/1.4, 50/1.4, 100/2.8, and 200/2.8

Michael Long said:

Now you're back to making trade-offs. Many primes are in fact
faster than their zoom counterparts. That said, if you buy the
faster lenses then many of them individually weigh nearly as much
and cost nearly as much as the zoom in it's range.

Buy two, and you're overboard.

Check out the 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 85/1.2L, 135/2L, and 200/1.8L.

That would be a dream prime kit purely in terms of speed and
optical quality. But it weights twice as much, takes up twice as
much room, and costs twice as much as the L zoom triad it replaces.

You keep speaking in absolutes, but the point here is that they're
not always faster and lighter and smaller and better.

Click to expand...

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

Or just buy a zoom and fix it at a particular focal length for the exercise.

10s10d said:

I am a person who has to look
through the view finder for framing (lack of talent, yes), and
after reading the fixed-length-advoate's article, I am considering
to purchase a fixed focal length lens hoping for better exercise.

Click to expand...

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

Yes, willpower helps but sometimes it needs more than that. That's why I m wondering if there can be any differences between the self imposed limitation and the true limitation. I quit smoking after 13 years since I started but only with the aid of some helpful products ;-) Btw, I am not saying that people should quit smoking. It should be personal choice.

DavidP said:

10s10d said:

I am a person who has to look
through the view finder for framing (lack of talent, yes), and
after reading the fixed-length-advoate's article, I am considering
to purchase a fixed focal length lens hoping for better exercise.

Click to expand...

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and
tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

Click to expand...

Mainly because I don't have years of experience in photography and I find his insights to be interesting. I understand where Mike is coming from with this article as I've felt it myself to a degree. But, I still don't buy prime lenses. Thats not to say that Mike's point isn't valid, because I believe you can perform the same exercise with zoom lenses but it requires more discipline. Its similar to me choosing only a single lens when I go out to shoot and only shoot with that single lens regardless of how the photos turn out. I do this every now and then as an exercise to learn the lens and to learn the perspective that the lens provides.

I find that perspective is an aspect of composition that many people don't talk about. Whether its really a component of composition or not, I really don't know and I'll let someone with much more experience answer that. But its definitely a component of the image making process that doesn't seem to get a lot of attention except for when they mention that roughly an 80mm FL provides the best perspective for a portrait.

I'd like to think that part of what Mike Johnston is alluding to in being able to 'visualize' is also to understand the perspective that you want in addition to the basic composition that you want. Of course this might be my general lack of understanding betraying my general lack of experience.

I would tend to think that it would benefit most photographers to perform the exercise mentioned every now and then.

Joo

Forrest said:

http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column20/

Interesting reading, and the guy's primary reason for being
prejusticed against zooms is something I haven't seen mentioned in
this forum...

Click to expand...

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.
• http://www.singularlight.com/

There is NO case for the fact that whether or not you use zooms or primes, a given person can produce equally impressive output depending on their application and knowledge of how to extract the best from the gear used. It's nearly irrelevant if you use primes or zooms. It's all about using the tools you have to the utmost. Good zooms provide "near prime" performance these days anyway..........

Forrest said:

http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column20/

Interesting reading, and the guy's primary reason for being
prejusticed against zooms is something I haven't seen mentioned in
this forum...

Click to expand...

I understand that the Amish are embracing LED lights on their horse drawn buggies.n I'm always amazed how logical people can think they are when they try to defend their predjuces. If the Amish can change, I think the rest of us can handle the temptation of Zoom lens.

But what your suggesting here is that since you had a particular willpower problem, that everyone else will as well. That's not true. Different folks have differing levels of willpower and committment. Self-imposed limitations aren't limitations if you give in. You can be just as desperate if your exercise or mission is the same, i.e. operate at only 50mm to get the shot. If you change the focal length, you aren't following the exercise.

However, congratulations on quiting smoking!

VES

10s10d said:

DavidP said:

10s10d said:

I am a person who has to look
through the view finder for framing (lack of talent, yes), and
after reading the fixed-length-advoate's article, I am considering
to purchase a fixed focal length lens hoping for better exercise.

Click to expand...

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and
tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a Photographic English Composition course.

Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos, composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

Agreed. I'm not knocking the exercise, I'm knocking the thinking.

VES

Forrest said:

Forrest41926 said:

Now, I may be stating the obvious here, but given only one lens,
only the zoom lens can exercise the creativity of evaluating the
same subject at two different focal lengths, say 50mm and 100mm.
This is where I would disagree with him. It's not the lens that
hinders the visualization and creativity, it's the person behind
the lens.

Click to expand...

Of course. This is an outdated way of thinking, and it's pretty
clear that this guy "grew up," photographically, back when you had
to use primes. This was the weak point of his arguement, which is
unfortionate, because this is also the thrust of his arguement.

But I think what he says does apply, a little bit. We all
develop our own photographic style, then we start falling back into
our style ... a fresh perspective is always welcome.

I think the excersize is still a good one, though.

Click to expand...

--

My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a Photographic English Composition course.

Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos, composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

Just recently, I decided to forego zooms for 75% of my photographs. In the studio and for portraits in general, there's no need, at ceremonies of weddings, there's no need. I would only use a zoom when absolutely necessary (or when I get tired of running around like crazy at a reception). I pulled out my 15/2.8 fisheye, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8 (I did actually use this one frequently already), 85/1.8, and bought a 135/2L. Know what I learned?

First, I must say this: I put away my Canon 16-35L, 24-70: and 70-200L.

I learned that my photos are crisper, I have better low light images and I'm "seeing" better. Wow! Now why did I start using zooms in the first place?

Also, my camera bag suddenly seems lighter!

Brian
--
Personal Site: http://www.doxphotos.com
Professional Site: http://www.nephotostpete.com

Forrest said:

http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column20/

Interesting reading, and the guy's primary reason for being
prejusticed against zooms is something I haven't seen mentioned in
this forum...

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be prejudiced one way or the other by people's opinions that I value LOL. This reminds me, to some degree, of Petteri's challenges--at least the last part (I looked to see if he had posted and he hasn't yet). I have added some primes--and I did it for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure if I agree with Johnston totally about some photographers being better at composing/framing a photo with primes, but I suspect, in the back of my mind, that that IS a possibility.

I've been carrying a 20mm and a 35mm, sometimes a 50mm and my 70-200. I have other good lenses (including my fave, the 24-70L, which IS my favored range), but I think I added mine for sort of the same reasoning that he spoke about--learning to 'see' in a certain way. I have primes in all the ranges I normally shoot in, I might add (15-30, 24-70, 70-200), LOL

Now, I"ll be curious to read everyone else's thoughts.

Diane
-
Diane B
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
B/W lover, but color is seducing me

Forrest said:

Forrest41926 said:

He is right that they both have their place---- but it seems hard
for me to understand why primers view the world differently than
zoomer--- I suppose that primers most view the world differently
for each of their many primes thus consitituting a virtual discrete
zoom .

Click to expand...

I don't think his arguement holds a great deal of water ( although
it's still an interesting read! ), but I think the excersize he
suggested was a very good one.

Although I have to say, I kind of view the world like a 24 mm prime
( on FF ) ... and if you look through my site, maybe I'm not crazy.

Click to expand...

--
Troponin (Trop)
'No Limitation is Limitation'
and I still can't spell worth a dang!

I like moving around, I don't mind changing lenses often, so I wouldn't mind using primes, but I don't have enough $$$ to burn. A few examples:

With primes I'll need:

• 17mm wide
• 35mm
• 50mm
• 85mm

Which is at least $1100.

With zooms I can keep 17mm prime, but replace 3 others with Sigma 28-70mm ($300). Of course Sigma can't beat them at open apertures, but it costs less, weights less and takes less bag space than those 3 combined. However it's max range is 70mm, not 85.

So, just from the financial point of view one needs to find a compromise.

--
Eugueny

your post is almost identical to the one I posted the other day:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=5852108
primes rule! Though there is one sad thing you forgot to mention:

dust :-(

Brian C. Idocks said:

Just recently, I decided to forego zooms for 75% of my photographs.
In the studio and for portraits in general, there's no need, at
ceremonies of weddings, there's no need. I would only use a zoom
when absolutely necessary (or when I get tired of running around
like crazy at a reception). I pulled out my 15/2.8 fisheye,
24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8 (I did actually use this one frequently
already), 85/1.8, and bought a 135/2L. Know what I learned?

First, I must say this: I put away my Canon 16-35L, 24-70: and
70-200L.

I learned that my photos are crisper, I have better low light
images and I'm "seeing" better. Wow! Now why did I start using
zooms in the first place?

Also, my camera bag suddenly seems lighter!

Brian
--
Personal Site: http://www.doxphotos.com
Professional Site: http://www.nephotostpete.com

Click to expand...