Are zoom lenses counterproductive in photography?

<p>Yes, having multiple focal lengths in a single instrument is useful. I own one zoom, a 16 to 35mm f4 one, that is cost effective and of very good quality. For the rest, I prefer prime optics, even manual focus ones (I am not yet so old that focusing has become a concern). Sports and nature photography aside, why lug around a heavy monster, when you can live lighter and do most work with one or two very small single focal length lenses. But read on if you wish as I think there is another equally important reason that zooms can be counterproductive (to an extent).</p>

<p>Zooms counterproductive? To a non-negligible degree, I think so, as rather than scope out a subject and angle of view beforehand, the tendency is often to stay on one spot and zoom the scene and others within eyesight, whereupon you make your decision of what image to shoot. That misses out on a lot, and much better I think is the approach of seeing your subject from different positions, angles, light directions and compositions before shooting and deciding on an appropriate focal length then. Of course, this can be done while lugging around the glass beasty (being careful not to give concussions to small fry on the path), where the zooming comes only later.</p>

<p>Before stating that I am a fun-destroying Luddite, I would ask you whether you think most zooms aid your photography or possibly make you less involved than you might be? Sports and nature photographers excepted (although you can state what you think, even though its validity is pre-recognized in the OP).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For many years I carried a Nikon FB 5 bag with 4 or 5 primes and two Nikon F bodies, did the lens changes, got good photos and enjoyed it. Much more enjoyable now to go out with my DF or D 750 and 24-120. It isn't the tool, it is how you use it. It isn't the lens it is the eye. Move, see, shoot. To each his own.</p>

<p>I shoot everything from commercial vehicles to puppies, event documentary to head shots. Zoom lenses are very useful, and don't detract from either my creativity or my effectiveness. I have plenty of primes across multiple camera platforms, and zoom lenses as well. They all serve their purposes - it's not an either-or proposition. </p>

<p>I think the major issue with zooms is that you have a huge variety of focal lengths available to you (in my case, with a full kit, that would be 16-300mm). There are hundreds of slightly different shots available to you either from standing in one spot, or from moving about and trying out different perspectives. This, one could argue, makes the job of picking what focal length you want more difficult compared to the choice when you have, say, just 3 prime lenses. In that sense, reducing the number of options open to you may make the process more enjoyable when you are out shooting. Personally, I don't really find this, but I can see that it could indeed increase the complexity of the "decision algorithm", which may not be desirable. This chimes with some research that found that many people find lengthy restaurant menus off-putting and prefer ones that offer less choice. I am not convinced, however, that all this means that zooms make poorer resulting photographs.</p>

<p>An assumption that zooms are bigger and heavier than primes is not true. A zoom lens is almost always lighter than a suite of equivalent primes.</p>

<p>It's not so much a matter of zoom vs primes, but of approach. Yes, zooms do tend to make it easier to stand in one place, and frame the shot zooming, rather than walk about and study the options. But that's not the zoom's fault, really.<br>

I mainly use primes; somehow knowing the focal length up front helps me pre-visualise a bit. With a zoom, though, pretty often I set the focal length I want, and then start moving about, as if it were a prime. And sometimes, the flexibility, the instant change of focal length etc. just are exactly what is needed. So as much as I prefer my primes, a zoom in the normal range will always find a place in my collection.</p>

<p>I don't think it matters what lens a photographer uses especially going by some of the images posted in No Words forum where the photographer rattles off a slew of lens and camera specs to indicate they spent a over $3000 on the system that included a prime and/or zoom lens.</p>

<p>All a lens can do is provide a POV that makes it as easy as possible to create tasteful compositions that break up the frame into lights and darks, positive and negative shapes that convey an original and interesting idea or subject matter that hasn't been seen before. </p>

<p>From the ten years or so I've been a contributor to this site and viewed quite a few galleries I'm not seeing as much exploration in the way of new ideas both with image quality and/or composition. Is that due to whether they used a prime or zoom lens? You tell me.</p>

<p>Zooms are imperative in the digital age. You just don't want to be exposing that sensor to the elements while changing lenses under any conditions.</p>

<p>If you have unfolding action (lets say wildlife)....good zoom as much as a prime, both could be limiting. The subject may be wondering off behind rocks, etc. and one has to take the camera/lens combo and rely on VR (off the tripod)...or perhaps using a bean bag. Tripod is normally essential, but it can also spook the animal....and folding it and eventually unfolding is time consuming and often (by the commotion alone) the animal simply leaves the area or stop it's activity. Hiding tent may provide different dynamics.</p>

<p>But, a manual 400mm may offer certain view, where a 200-500mm is much more flexible....and perhaps one prefers a 400mm VR F2.8. Not withstanding, the latter requires rather hefty bank account (or sale of the house)....yet, the photographer is forced to take the lens off the tripod (per above) - any lens -....to get the desired image.</p>

<p>Anyway, zooms tends to give more options even if the clarity is slightly compromised. I think most would agree that zooms have gotten better in the recent years.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Zoom and fixed are both helpful depending on the circumstance.</p>

<p>For starters into "serious" photography I always recommend the use of a prime-lens as first lens. A slightly longer focal-length, like a 50mm on a crop-sensor-body or a 85mm on a full-format-camera, might help (or force) the photographer to work the desired image out instead of snapping away.<br>

A TLR as first camera might be even better ;-) Just my personal opinion.<br>

Georg </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You just don't want to be exposing that sensor to the elements while changing lenses under any conditions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I change lenses wherever, whenever with digital; just think about where the wind is blowing, and things are fine. The fear of getting a spot of dust on the sensor, which is easil cleaned, shouldn't dictate the choice of lenses. If you like primes, shoot primes. If you need to changes lenses, change them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Zooms counterproductive? To a non-negligible degree, I think so, as rather than scope out a subject and angle of view beforehand, the tendency is often to stay on one spot and zoom the scene and others within eyesight, whereupon you make your decision of what image to shoot."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Beginners might do that, but I think any photographer with any artistic sense will place composition above all else and frame accordingly using zoom only as a facilitating tool. </p>

<p>The alternative is to foot-zoom which is often impractical and can alter perspective in a way which might be unfavorable to the photographer's intention. </p>

<p>Most photographers will no doubt prefer to own an arsenal of prime lenses if budget allowed, on the other hand, doing your best with available tools is no less an artistic challenge which in the final analysis, an image is judged on its own merit and no one will care what gear was used to make it in their aesthetic analysis. <br>

</p>

<p>It's a just a tool. How can it be "counterproductive"? <br>

I use mostly primes for my work, but there are times that a zoom is the only option. <br>

- Fast moving events where you can't 'zoom with your feet'<br>

- When you need to get wide and tight shots one second apart<br>

- When weather or atmospheric conditions don't allow lens changing<br>

I know professional photographers, mostly from news organizations, who use zooms for 99% of their careers.</p>

<p>Ian beat me to it. Using a zoom or not is a choice made depending on the circumstances. Don't see how using one can be counterproductive. Not that it's relevant, but I use primes and zooms. They both work, letting me make the photographs I set out to make. <a href="http://www.citysnaps.net/showkase/recent/">Here are some photos</a>, some made with a zoom, some a prime, and some from a cellphone - I've forgotten which are which.</p>

I shoot large format. What is this zoom lens

you speak of?

<p>With the higher ISO for digital cameras, and the quality of zoom lenses today, I don't see why not.</p>

<p>As I understand it, Nikon delayed producing a zoom lens until they could build one up to their image quality standards. As quality improved, there was less and less reason not to use them, the smaller maximum aperture being one reason. </p>

<p>In dark situations, I sometimes use a prime lens with larger aperture, but that is rare.</p>

<p>And with VR, usual in zoom lenses now, you can hand hold them to pretty slow shutter speeds, though still have to watch for subject motion.</p>

<p>I don't see so much reason to discuss composition. You can always crop later.<br>

(Though for slide film you don't have a chance to crop, maybe a good reason for zoom lenses in those days.)</p>

<p>As a dedicated dilettante, and my major topics being landscapes, travel, and documentary, I find my 18-105 on APS-C to be the right lens over 90% of the time. I have other, special purpose lenses that get used for special conditions, but that cheap, handy, lightweight lens seems to fall into the sweet spot more often than not. My first zoom lens was Nikkor's pre-AI 43-86mm, that was so deservedly panned at the time and gave zooms a bad name in general. Even cheap zooms now can give amazing IQ, if used correctly. I find that the quality of my own images is far more dependent on my taking the time to compose and expose them carefully, rather than upon what lens/body combination I am using.</p>

<p>I like primes well enough, have lived with nothing but a couple for many years, and tend to see most photo opportunities in the normal perspective anyway, but I do not think there is anything wrong with zooms from the point of view of productivity. We do not always have the luxury of being able to carry multiple pieces of equipment, or to change lenses in the midst of what we're doing, or to stand where we wish we could to get things framed just right.</p>

<p>Of course I'm not a fine artist. I shoot more pictures than I should and save more than I should. But to the original post's exception for nature and sports photographers I would at the very least add people who travel. </p>

<p>I miss a lot of shots when I carry only primes.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I, too, started before zoom lenses were affordable and good enough. I carried a whole bag of lenses and bodies.<br>

You might as well say "prime" lenses are a detriment, since the difficulties of swapping lenses in many situations meant that you tended to shoot whatever was on the camera instead of juggling equipment in difficult and crowded circumstances.<br>

With either primes or zooms, it's the determination of the photographer to exert themselves* that matters.<br>

If you're lazy, primes are arguably worse than zooms.</p>

<p>____________<br>

*see OED on the long established use of this pronoun for "<em>single</em> persons of indeterminate gender"</p>

<p>As your comments show, zoom lenses are very useful and have surely benefitted your photography in cases where an image of changing conditions means that it must be made quickly and in cases where the particular prime lenses on camera or at hand will not do (there being a limit of how many can be transported at the same time).</p>

<p>In this age of very high ISO full frame or cropped frame sensors and firmware the need for large aperture (f2.8...) zooms is probably diminishing and it would be great to see lighter and less bulky high quality zooms. And as has been noted, the quality of zooms has increased greatly, and very high quality ones, often of somewhat more limited zooming range, are probably less expensive than they were before (just a feeling, I'm not sure on that point as I do not follow the market that much).</p>

<p>If you have an approach, as many here seem to have, of doing more seeing and less looking at subjects to photograph, it is likely that your approach is not compromised by the question of which type of lens you have. You explore your subject and the possibilities of its capture before using your camera, and there, no doubt, a zoom gives equal or more opportunity regarding perspective and framing. And the element of time, if the choice of moment is important, is not compromised by the delay of a change of lens.</p>

<p>All that is pretty evident, I guess. As one with only one zoom (and fairly recent), I was wondering also if having a zoom can encourage the approach of looking at everything via the lens and its ability to provide multiple framing of various views, clicking on the instantaneous view, instead of looking with our eyes alone and then exploring (and seeing more of) the particular chosen subject of interest and its framing.</p>

<p>This may be related a bit to that point:<br />On my only outdoor photo workshop ten years ago there was a photographer that made approximately 1500 images on a day outing to my 39. She was using a very good single zoom lens. Happily we were obliged to present the best 10 the morning after rather than the best 40 or 50 images for critique. I probably got to sleep earlier that night after choosing mine. Of course, she may have made much better images than mine, but I wonder how the zoom affected her approach with her 1500 captures.</p>

<p>I don't think "less involved" is accurate with respect to zoom lenses. You do, after all, have to select which focal length to use. I don't expect that others will have the same interests as me, but I can describe my thought process and justification for making lens decisions. In broad terms, I rank image quality more than size, but the ability to cover a variety of situations higher yet. If I can do this with a smaller footprint, more the better.</p>

<p>I use zoom lenses primarily to crop in the camera. Secondary but important usage is to accommodate situations where you can't move closer or further away, or the situation is too fluid for lens changes (weddings, news ops). The "cropping" aspect is essential for slides, less so for print film, but the die was cast. With early digital, every pixel was precious, so cropping in the camera was the best way to preserve detail.</p>

<p>Now we have another dilemma. With high resolution scanners, digital cameras and computer editing you see every flaw in your equipment and technique. Once you get used to results from high quality prime lenses, it's hard to step back, especially with a high resolution camera like a Sony A7Rii.</p>

<p>That said, the Sony 70-200/4 and 16-35/4 do not disappoint, even used wide open. The former I find indispensable, and use it about 1/3rd the time by frame count. The latter is useful for ultra-wide shots, which I don't do enough to warrant buying prime lenses in that range. Until recently, there was nothing for the Sony in a mid-range zoom with image quality comparable to prime lenses. The new Sony 24-70/2.8 changed that paradigm. Although it is big, heavy and expensive, it will prove as valuable for the A7 as it's counterpart is for my Nikon system.</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of video, and zoom lenses are indispensable in that application. Sony has recently introduced a couple of (relatively) affordable Super-35 (~ APS-C) video cameras which take E-mount lenses, and don't have the ridiculous 30 minute clip limit of still cameras with video capability (due to import tariff rules). 4K is becoming the new standard (usually downsampled to HD in post), and 1/3" or 1/2" cameras don't have the moxie for 4K.</p>

<p> </p>

Arthur, my zoom is fairly big and heavy. I much prefer its substantial feel to the lightness of my iPhone. I don't take the

zoom on long hikes because it hurts my shoulder after a couple of miles. But I don't often photograph when hiking so my

iPhone suffices for a anything that comes up on a hike. For portrait work, I have a fixed lens but often use the zoom

anyway because it's usually on the camera.

 

JDM, though it's certainly acceptable, I find "themselves" used for the singular case awkward. I would have changed your

sentence slightly to get pronoun agreement: ". . . it's the determination of photographers to exert themselves . . ."

<blockquote>

<p> I was wondering also if having a zoom can encourage the approach of looking at everything via the lens and its ability to provide multiple framing of various views<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do this- try several angles and zoom settings. Oddly, the first shot, taken after careful consideration, is usually the best one. It is usually more profitable to turn around and look in another direction altogether than to take many variations of the same scene. Unfortunately, I'm a slow learner.<br>

<br>

I take way too many shots of large groups, orchestras for example. Out of 80 to 100 people or more, someone has their eye shut, is talking to a neighbor, or whatever. With an A7Rii you can see all the nasty infractions, so someone has to decide what the priorities are. The joke comes to mind, about the early astronauts taking pictures of earth from orbit, ruined because somebody moved ;) The best they could do was with Hasselblads.</p>

<p>There are certainly two aspects of using zooms that have come up here, one is the practical aspect about ease of changing lenses, quality etc. The other one is approach related. Standing in one place and letting the zoom 'bring in' the subject closer (without regard to perspective of course), rather than learning to 'see' in a certain focal length and composing the shot, keeping the associated perspective in mind. Arthur's last post is about this second aspect.</p>

<p>When I get out to shoot, I use the zoom as a prime. It is often set to a standard focal length (say 35 or 50 mm) that I think is the most suited for the situation in hand. Sometimes if a different perspective is needed, I switch to that focal length, then revert back to the original (the practical aspect of using zoom). When shooting, I make fine adjustments to the zoom to get a certain crop that does not radically alter the perspective.</p>

<p>This way, binding myself to a discipline of thinking through a certain focal length helps me 'see' and study subject matters effectively and that results in better shots. This approach results in less number of shots, but I get to think and study more diligently. Later on while analyzing the shots, I distinctly remember the background of each shot and what I did and what I could have done better. It improves my learning.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: I don't think my above perspective would be relevant for action photography.</p>

<p>I very much value F2.8 zooms, but I like to avoid bulky cameras. For this reason, I use a lightweight compact camera Panasonic LX100 which offers F2.8.</p>