Why do I have a zoom?!

<p>So i've been researching and toying with the possibility of going to a 200 2.8L Prime lens (from my 70-200 F4). They are roughly the same price on the used market so I did some searching on here and other forums / websites.</p>

<p>One thing that most people recommended was to take a look at all of the photos that were taken with your zoom and see if a prime lens would work.</p>

<p>OH MY GOSH. I couldn't believe it. I pulled up Lightroom and the 2-3k photos I have from my 70-200 F4... 200, 200, 200... on and on and on. I thoght to myself... do I ever really touch that zoom ring?</p>

<p>Ok, so there are a few at 70. But, I am absolutely blown away, I thought I used the zoom all the time, but I guess it always ends up finding the limits at either 70 or 200 about 90% of the time. Anyone else taken the time to find out similar results?</p>

<p>(hope you don't mind a Nikon guy commenting)<br /><br />I surveyed about 8,000 images the other day, thinking about this exact thing. A 70-200 (2.8, in my case) is my go-to lens for a great deal of the field stuff I shoot, and I found the stats showed about 70% were in the 105-135mm range, with the rest falling pretty evenly on the long and short ends of the lens. But what was more interesting was when I looked at the use per event/scene-type. Certain kinds of work clearly involved the lens's entire range of focal lengths while other types did not.<br /><br />The main lesson I got was that I couldn't function (well) without the zoom for certain kinds of gigs. For what it's worth, those are also the situations that seem to generate the most sales. But for other types of outings, a couple of lighter, smaller primes would be a better choice. So for me it's not an either-or in terms of which to own, it's an either-or in terms of the nature of the work. This leaves my case of NAS unaffected by pesky statistics :-)</p>

<p>One advantage of the zoom, even if you take the shot at 200mm, is that you can start at 70 and zoom in to your subject. It may be hard to find with the prime at 200, especially if you end up sticking a TC on it.</p>

<p>I'm wondering, how do you survey images in the way you describe? I'd imagine that you didn't spend hours actually looking at the stats on each image, right? Does Lightroom or some other program have a feature to generate a report based on lens and focal length?</p>

<p>I think it depends on what kind of shooting you do, and where you do it. I do mostly landscapes and old buildings, shooting from a tripod, so my 50mm prime works just dandy. But, even then, I sometimes find myself in a situation where I can't get close enough to a subject without trespassing, getting shot or getting eaten (or all three), and that's when I need one of my zoom lenses to make it work. That's not to say that some of those shots don't turn out to be near a 50mm focal length; it's just that having the zoom option is important in those circumstances. And, of course, when I'm doing walk-around shooting, a zoom lens is my best friend...</p>

<p>I am not sure how getting a 200/2.8 is any help here - they are about the same size, about the same price, and about the same performance, except that the 70-200mm is a stop slower, but it allows you take a few shots in the range 70-200mm - doesn't really seem a particularly compelling reason to change unless you hate white lenses.</p>

<p>I traded my 70-200mm f2.8L IS for the 200mm f2.8 prime and I have never looked back. The prime is half the size, half the weight, image quality is far superior wide open, it's black and less obvious and, best of all, it's half the price. The only thing I miss is the IS but I can live with it.</p>

<p>I know the OP has the f4 zoom but using the 200mm prime will earn you a stop a light, improved bokeh, better IQ (in my opinion), better AF in low light and a more discreet appearance for candids.</p>

<p>The 200mm is my favourite lens of all.</p><div></div>

<p>The main advantage of a zoom, the oft-underestimated ability to divorce cropping from perspective, is an invaluable asset. In certain kinds of work, primes are the way to go.</p>

<p>Jay: there are all sorts of EXIF stat programs out there. Many, alas, only chew on JPGs (though that's fine for me, my "keepers" all get batched to JPGs for online preview anyway, so I've got a directory tree of just such files anyway). Somewhat randomly, here's an example of such an app:<br /><br /> <a href="http://www.snapfiles.com/get/ExposurePlot.html">http://www.snapfiles.com/get/ExposurePlot.html</a></p>

<p>I shoot exclusively primes. Works best for me and I love the lighter weight and better optical performance. I use the <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=983742"><strong>EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM</strong></a> a lot for candid street portraiture. I can highly recommend it!</p>

<p>Several years ago, I replaced the 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM with the 300/4L IS USM. This was in the film days, so I couldn't do statistical analysis on my shooting habits, but I had realized that I usually used the zoom at 300 (and often wished for something longer, which is why I added the 1.4x II a little while after getting the 300). I didn't really miss the 100-299 range after making this trade (and, of course, I also enjoyed the fact that the new lens was faster, sharper, and had IS).</p>

 

<p>So if you've determined that you rarely use the 70-200 as anything other than a 200, then it's worth considering this swap.</p>

<p>I should also mention that I picked up a used 70-210 for $100. While the performance isn't as great as the L series, I think this is going to cover the times when I would enjoy the flexibility of a zoom.</p>

<p>I think the overall plan is Trade the 70-200 F4 for a 200 2.8, and pick up a 85 1.8 or 100 F2.</p>

<p>I think this setup will leave me with some amazing IQ / $$ (which as an amateur is important in keeping the marriage happy... Happy wife = happy life? )</p>

<p>I recently did a similar exercise for my 16-35. I am interested in a 24 or 35 prime and wanted to know which I actually used most. It is funny with the 16-35 I use 35 predominantly, when I have the 24-70 I use 24 much more! Ah statistics.......</p>

<p>In the end I realised, with different camera sensor size usage, I am better off with a 35mm prime. In your case, Erik, I wouldn't hesitate to get the 200 prime. </p>

Matt: thanks for the tool!

<p>Cool, isn't it? Those sorts of stats can be real eye-openers. The only thing that would make that sort of reporting any more cool would be a 3D graph that maps all of that stuff with one more dimension: <em>exposure time. </em>That might help with planning event shooting logistics, especially where daylight or shots-per-minute ebb and flow depending on the time of day. Hmm. Maybe I should start writing some code ... !</p>

<p>Great idea Matt! If photographers could determine where they were spending (wasting) most of the time during their shots, I think it would definitely help with the flow of a portrait session. I'm not completely sure that we would have to have a program in order to do that, but... I think it would be interesting (i'm a numbers geek by heart).</p>

<p>I find a similar gravitation to the wide end with my 17-40. I find I need to force myself to explore the focal length range. It's very temptiing to just crank it to the extreme wide end, not necessarily the best for all situations.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"OH MY GOSH. I couldn't believe it. I pulled up Lightroom and the 2-3k photos I have from my 70-200 F4... 200, 200, 200... on and on and on."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe what you really need is a <strong>longer</strong> zoom, so you don't hit that 200-wall all the time ;)</p>

<p>Personally I couldn't imagine letting go of my zooms, especially the longer ones. They allow me to get the framing just right, which often is impossible/impractical to achieve by "footwork".</p>

<p>not to get off topic but in response to jays query if you go to view in lightroom and enable show filters and metadata you can see what lens was used for each photo </p>

<p> </p>

<p>To go off topic a little. The 70-200/4 IS is my least used lens of the 7 in my collection. I prefer the 85/1.2 II for my type of photography. But there are times where the 70-200 does the job.</p>

<p>To answer your question, you may be better off renting the 200/2.8 for at least a weekend to assist in your decision.</p>

@Matt:

 

ExifTool allows you to export EXIF data in CSV format (http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/faq.html#Q12).

 

From there you can then import into Exel and chart the data in every imaginable way...

<p>A little off-topic, Peter, but interesting. The 85/1.2 L II is also <em>my</em> most used lens, but only indoors; outdoors, it's the 70-200/4 L IS. I also have the venerable 135/2 L and 200/2.8 L, but find myself at 135mm and 200mm in about equal measure, hence my preference for the zoom. And it doesn't hurt that it has IS, either.</p>

<p>Not entirely on topic, but ... Jamie, awesome photo!</p>

<p>Thanks, Matt. I do the same with my best pics, so I'll give it a shot.</p>

<p>Erik,<br>

I don't know what you shoot, but I shoot mostly landscapes and wildlife (mostly birds). I had a 17-40mm, 50mm, and 70-200mm. I, like you, shot almost everything at 200mm, but the truth was that on all those shots 200mm really wasn't long enough. I ended up selling my 70-200mm to get a prime, but it was a 400mm prime. I have a gap from 50-400mm, but I don't really miss it. I have the wide end covered for landscapes and most often the 400mm is either just right or still not long enough for wildlife. I decided to go with the prime b/c I used a 100-400mm for awhile and had it pegged at 400mm most of the time. Just something to think about. Just b/c most of your shots are at 200mm doesn't mean a 200mm would be best for your needs. For me the better lens was longer.</p>

<p>Thanks Nathan. </p>

<p>I think that is a good observation. For the time being I'm not putting a whole lot of new money towards lenses. So the 200 was my only option. Luckily lenses are holding their value pretty well and if / when I have some more saved up for a bigger prime, I might head that direction.</p>