Most trips I used a zoom - but I think I could travel with primes

I've had the opportunity to travel a fair bit - when I was working I often just used the x100 series and came away with shots I was very happy with - although admittedly I had to work at the compositions more than with zoom.

Since retirement, we have done a few European trips with my XF16-80 (24-120 FF equivalent) and it did great.

In detailed reviews of the last few trips, I examined the best keepers and 90% of them could have been shot with the 18 & 33 ASPC lenses. I think I tend to see the world best in those focal lengths. Now this is for most situations. Obviously, not for wildlife and such. The quality of the primes is quite a bit better than my zoom (which isn't bad) plus I get the benefit of 1.4 apertures.

So, I think I will try going about with the XT5 & 18/1.4 on the camera and the 33 in my jacket pocket - and forego the camera bag entirely. I guess depending on where I was going I could use the other pocket for either the 14/2.8 or the 56/1.2

Certainly, understand the advantage of the zoom but I find the constraint of primes forces me to think more about what I am including and not including. Perhaps, it is just me but I tend to get a tad lazy with the zooms and end up with more snapshots than photographs that tell a story.

Any of you folks in a similar situation?

It sounds like for you using a prime lens make you think more intentionally about your composition.

If you find something that works better for you I would definitely encourage that. I do believe one can train their eyes to see at a specific focal length allowing you to previsualize photos which can be very beneficial.

That helped me when I was starting out, I used only a single prime lens.

As an example with another piece of gear; personally I find that even though camera stabilization continues to improve using a tripod makes me similarly be more intentional with my composition and slow things down allowing me to make better compositional decisions. So I lose some flexibility and sometimes get too focused on a single point of view but I think the benefits it provides me outweigh the negatives.

Opposite of you, I have grown to really prefer Zoom lenses. I have 1 prime lens I use often but it is for unique characteristics it has ; I really don't see a notable difference in IQ between primes and a high quality zoom lens. Even if the 2 lens are each smaller, it seems more inconvenient to have to carry 2 and change lens vs keeping 1 zoom on the camera and not worrying about it.

I've had zooms from time to time but I seem to keep coming back to primes. It's not 100% logical, but that's okay; we are not Vulcans.

If the zoom frames come out more like snapshots, it sounds like you might just need to train yourself a little to retain those good "prime" habits. Maybe keep using primes from time to time, to stay in shape? Or next time you have a zoom & catch yourself thinking you can get lazy with camera positioning, pinch yourself & say NO!

I dunno – I'll report back if I ever find a standard zoom I like.

aChanceEncounter said:

I've had the opportunity to travel a fair bit - when I was working I often just used the x100 series and came away with shots I was very happy with - although admittedly I had to work at the compositions more than with zoom.

Since retirement, we have done a few European trips with my XF16-80 (24-120 FF equivalent) and it did great.

In detailed reviews of the last few trips, I examined the best keepers and 90% of them could have been shot with the 18 & 33 ASPC lenses. I think I tend to see the world best in those focal lengths. Now this is for most situations. Obviously, not for wildlife and such. The quality of the primes is quite a bit better than my zoom (which isn't bad) plus I get the benefit of 1.4 apertures.

So, I think I will try going about with the XT5 & 18/1.4 on the camera and the 33 in my jacket pocket - and forego the camera bag entirely. I guess depending on where I was going I could use the other pocket for either the 14/2.8 or the 56/1.2

Certainly, understand the advantage of the zoom but I find the constraint of primes forces me to think more about what I am including and not including. Perhaps, it is just me but I tend to get a tad lazy with the zooms and end up with more snapshots than photographs that tell a story.

Any of you folks in a similar situation?

Click to expand...

An inserting discussion point. I too have had the debate with myself about primes vs zooms. I boil it down to one issue. Am I travelling for a reason that is not primarily photographic or travelling primarily for photography?

If I am travelling where photography plays second fiddle to the reason for the trip and with the family whose tolerance for lots of pauses for intentional photography is low, then it is zooms all the way. That said, on a family holiday to Portugal last October, where I knew that my photography was a lower priority for family than hiking, site-seeing and chilling, I took just a X100VI and did not feel inhibited.

If I am travelling where photography is the primary reason behind the trip, such as hiking in Alpine areas that are my passion, then I do like primes. For me the trio of Fuji 'Crons, 16f2.8, 23f2 and 50f2, are wonderful and hard to beat for travel (on a XT5 or XE5).

When it comes to zooms, I challenge the notion they are only for snap shots. Surely, it is the artistic and interpretive skills of the person behind the camera that decide if there is a story to be captured and how that is done.

I rather like carrying a 50 ish (on FF), a 24/28, and a 85/90/100/105.

As I am now using MF, the numbers change but the spacing remains the same.

After retirement I began to reduce weight/bulk where possible, and MF zooms are large/heavy/reduced zoom range. A zoom may indeed be lighter than "a bag of primes", but for my uses I find that a heavy zoom hanging off the camera is more cumbersome for me than several primes in a bag.

We don't travel too much so this past summer's UK trip was a big deal. Only took the 33 1.4 and have zero regrets. It is, imo, the perfect all around lens for travel. I'd readily do it again.

It appears that for feeble minds like mine the less options the better. And with less options you more easily see in 33/50mm and find opportunities everywhere.

Edit: Just wanted to add this thought- if you sent me to the same place twice- once with a 33 1.4 (or 50 ff) and once with say a 16-55 or equivalent zoom there is not a doubt in my mind the shots with the prime would be more thoughtful, engaging and creative.

Remember you're not shooting photos to build a stock photo repository, you're shooting photos to stir emotion and memories and to meet a deep seated need to be creative.

--

C&C always welcome!

I have the XF 16-80/4 and I used to take that for traveling. Now I just take my X-T5 with the XF 33mm/1.4 and it is so much better: sharper, better rendering, more versatile in terms of bokeh/subject separation and low light. There have been time I have wanted a shorter or longer focal length and couldn't find a satisfactory composition with the 33mm. So now I have added the Viltrox Air 15mm/1.7 and 56mm/1.7: they are so light and tiny that they literally fits in my pockets. Yet they provide that uncompromising image quality when I want more of a WA view or portrait framing.

I am also considering getting the Sigma 17-40 f/1.8 to cover the 23mm focal length that I love, but there is something liberating about shooting with fixed focal length.

As I grow older, I am finding that carrying my full frame camera with a zoom lens is getting tougher and tougher. Recently, when my grandson travelled to Japan with three of his frat brothers, I loaned him my Ricoh GR IIIX because he wanted a camera but would only take a small camera. I processed his pictures in LightRoom and they were excellent. In September, my wife and I went to Rochester to visit two of our grandchildren who were at the University of Rochester. I took the GR IIIX and the pictures were very good and it was effortless to carry that powerful little camera. Not only were the images very good but an added benefit was that people did not notice me taking pictures. I am most comfortable with the prime being in the range of 35 to 40mm.

Hal

It's certainly an option some choose.. Some may decide on a single prime, maybe 2 or 3. I'm almost always a zoom user. When I was young, I don't recall that I knew anyone that used multiple lenses and probably most had a fixed, single lens camera. I've tried a few local trips using a single prime but on serious, for me/us trips, I would find it either too limiting or too inconvenient.

I would think that something near 35mm and perhaps a bit wider would do for a single lens. I used a 24mm on both ff and aps-c and perhaps more for the locations at the time either worked fairly well within the necessary limitations.

I used to travel with primes only during my film era (1965-2009). I had no choice. My main system this entire period was Leica/Canon screwthread (LTM) rangefinder. The only lenses were primes. Want a different focal length? Carry a different lens. That can, and sometimes did, end up with a lot of lenses being carried.

With this background, when I tried digital I discovered, for the first time, auto exposure, auto focus, and zoom lenses. There was to be no turning back. I never exposed another frame of film.

Some cite the argument that being limited by carrying a prime or primes only forces one to become more creative and selective with composition, and that such discipline is beneficial. I lived with that limitation for 44 years. Enough for me.

One of the major advantages to digital is the cost to shoot. Once one has the gear, it costs nothing to experiment, and thus learn. My only photographic product is the print I make. Until I boot up the printer, it costs me nothing to shoot. An element of the learning process is experimenting with varying focal lengths and the effect on composition.

Before I go afield or on a trip, I select what to take based on what my photographic objectives are. I have FF, APS-C, and fixed (zoom) lens small sensor available to me. With this choice of gear, I can select a zoom focal length range that will suit my purposes. Thus, one lens. When we travel, we always do a lot of walking. My bride long ago retired from sherpa duties.

Zoom lenses allow me to travel lighter but always have the correct focal length with me.

Hi Paul,

For my cycling and walking trips I like to limit weight by using one or two primes.

On the Nikon Z5 I use the 2.8 28mm SE and the 1.8 50mm AIS plus adapter.

On the Fuji X-T3 I use the 2.8 14mm and the 2.8 30mm Macro which is also an excellent allround performer.

I also have a great copy of the new Fuji 16-50mm zoom that I use for social stuff and more general things.

Oh, and I do like to stitch outdoor scenes

André




Gouda NL, X-T3 and 30mm Macro - stitched from several vertical shots.




Reeuwijk NL, Z5 and 2.8 28mm SE - stitched from 3 horizontal shots.

aChanceEncounter said:

Any of you folks in a similar situation?

Click to expand...

It wouldn't work for me, but I can't argue against your plan, as you've done the work and determined you're not getting any of the benefits from a zoom, so why not enjoy a couple of primes instead.

I think there are benefits to becoming extremely proficient with the self-imposed restraint of only using a specific focal length over and over again, and at some point after benefiting from honing your eyes with just a couple of primes a return to a zoom might yield a different experience than you are experiencing now.

If you had to get the shot, you have to have a zoom. There are always obstructions, things in your way that cannot be removed. A zoom allows more latitude to move around the objections (things you would omit) in your photo.

So yep primes are great and can be smaller and offer better image quality but not always and weight in total of all primes verses an all inclusive zooms can be marginal.

That all being said I am going against my better judgement and buying a light weight prime kit for my S5ll. So go figure. I love my 14-28 Panny zoom and the 20-60 as well but I started digital on cropped sensor with FF lens and became familiar with my viewpoint from 28-105 Nikkor. Its now embedded. So 60 is shy of what I want and the 20 is more than accustomed .I remember backing tight up to a canyon wall with my 24-50 f4 Nikkor to get in most of a Bridge at Natural Bridges NP. So the importance of an Ultrawide angle is not wasted on me. So my new plan is 105 2.8 Sigma macro, 45 f 2.8 sigma prime 24 3.5 Sigma Prime and 14-28 Panasonic zoom 20-60 Panny 70-200 f4 zoom. Not to carried at all times but when expected to be needed, yep that's a guess! So I want a light weight max quality selection of lens.-- So wish me luck as there is never a perfect lens collection. My fav lens is the Sigma DGDN 35 f1.4 but it is so heavy, Thinking the Sigma 105 could be replaced by the Sigma 90 f2.8 for size and weight. So thats my 2P just thinking out loud. Sorry if i stepped on toes.

Dennis