Why do photographers use zooms and primes together??

<p>When starting my business in wedding photography I researched what lenses photographers usually use on a wedding day and I saw that a lot of them use zooms and primes together... eg the canon 24-70mm and a 50mm 1.2. So this is the equiptment I started out with too. I get that the 50mm 1.2 is going to be good when the light is low but really I find myself using both at the same time even if the lighting is good? I'm not even sure why I use both to be honest lol<br>

Also why do photogrpahers sometimes use a zoom lens like the 24-70mm and then a few months down the line switch to using all primes instead of zooms at all?<br>

Sorry if i'm not making sense but its something i've always wondered :)<br /><br />It's like Jeff ascough... I read his blog and one minute he's talking about using the 24-70mm and an 85mm for eg... and then a month later hes saying that he uses a 24mm, 50mm and the 85mm.<br /><br />I just wondered why wedding photographers switch like this?</p>

Primes are generally

-Weigh less and are physically smaller, both of which make hand holding the camera less physically taxing.

-Less massive, which, depending on the circumstamstances can be less psychologically intimidating to whoever you are

photographing

-Can be sharper than a zoom used at the same focal length and aperture, especially at larger apertures.

-Have a larger maximum aperture, making for easier and faster focusing

 

High quality zooms are

-more versatile and faster to get the best framing of a scene.

-very sharp

<p>Wide apertures give a different look where the subject is highlighted by the gradation in sharpness, giving a 3D feeling and it also nicely cleans up superficial details that could otherwise clutter the images. Zooms can be safer in that you don't need to be concerned about changing lenses as often, or the limitations that a particular angle of view imposes. I can't speak for why someone else chooses a particular set of lenses for a given day, but for me personally it depends on what kind of images I want, what kind of lighting exists and how important the freedom of choice of the aperture is vs. freedom in the choice of angle of view in a given situation. Generally I find using a 24-70 less stressful but primes let me emphasize and stylize the images more.</p>

<p>When I started Wedding Photography, there were only Prime Lenses for my 645 kit. I did have one zoom lens for my 135 kit, but I didn’t use it very often because it was too slow (too slow and varying maximum aperture) – which still drives me nuts. Basically the zoom drove me nuts then because of manual computation for Flash as Fill when the aperture changed relative to a focal length change – now I very rarely use any varying maximum aperture zoom for similar reasons.</p>

<p>So for me using Primes is simply: <strong>what I learnt on</strong> – there is a lot to that.</p>

<p>On the list of other reasons: it seems intuitive (and seemingly easier) to me to know where to be positioned for a particular set of shots when I use Prime Lenses. I carry two cameras most of the time (with film I usually carried three) – so I can be happy as a clam with two Prime lenses loaded, one on each camera.<br /> When a Prime loaded on each my cameras (35 and 85 is a pair I use often) I know where I need to be and that is really simple for me to do that automatically - rather than to have a zoom loaded and then have to think where to set the Focal Length for position (the Perspective) that I have chosen for that particular shot.</p>

<p>Another reason why I use the (Canon) 135/2 much MUCH more often than the 70 to 200/2.8, is because the 135 is smaller and it is black. I don’t necessarily need the attention of a white lens. <em>"Psychological intimidation"</em> of the Subject is a really good phrase - moreover it is really important for the Photographer to understand HOW important it actually is, not to intimidate the Subject(s).</p>

<p>Don’t misinterpret this commentary for meaning that “the old way is the best way” – I am simply answering the question of why I do things the way I do them.<br /> In my DSLR kit I (only) have four zoom lenses . . . and I only added the last two zooms last year and both were ‘gifts to myself’ that is to say these two extra zooms were ‘not necessary - but nice to have’ . . . these were added ten years after I moved to Canon DSLR. I still only have one zoom lens in all my film kits.</p>

<p>I see great value in using Zoom Lenses for Wedding and Social Events shooting – I advise that a ‘standard zoom’ is a very useful tool – but probably one only needs one - or two zooms at the most: where as three or four Primes will always find a use in my kit – and probably with practice and vision and experimentation three four or five Prime lenses could be useful tools in many Photographer’s kits.</p>

<p>I also think that the mantra <em>"primes are better than zooms"</em> is <strong><em>mostly</em></strong> poppycock for <em><strong>most </strong></em>shooting scenarios. . .<br /> > zooms are very high quality optics nowadays<br /> > the high quality high ISO capacity of DLSRs and the PP noise reduction programs allow any F/2.8 zoom to make good quality capture in low level Available Light<br /> > the high quality high ISO capacity of DLSRs today also allows a Shutter Speed adequate to stop <strong><em>most</em></strong> Subject Motion<br /> > for <strong><em>mostly all shots</em></strong> the <em><strong>difference</strong></em> in Shallow DoF between a fast zoom (F/2.8) and a Fast Prime (F/2~F/1) is negligible.</p>

<p>BUT - there is still the valid argument when <em>one is at the <strong>LIMIT</strong></em> of either Shutter Speed or acceptable ISO or one requires <strong><em>shallower</em></strong> DoF: for those particular shooting scenarios then a faster Prime must be a better choice than a slower zoom, even if the difference is only one stop.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Craigh Bennett wants to know about primes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... a lot of [wedding photographers] use zooms and primes together... eg the canon 24-70mm and a 50mm 1.2. ... I get that the 50mm 1.2 is going to be good when the light is low but really I find myself using both at the same time even if the lighting is good? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>First, let's review the basic advantages of prime (fixed focal length) lenses<em>.</em></p>

<ol>

<li><em>Wider maximum aperture</em></li>

<li><em>Shallow depth of field </em></li>

<li><em>Physically smaller, lighter</em></li>

<li><em>Mechanical reliability</em></li>

<li><em>Optical reliability</em></li>

<li><em>Prime lenses alter the way you SEE (the "Zen thing")</em></li>

</ol>

<p>Details <a href="http://williamporterphotography.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/are-you-ready-for-prime-time-or-why-would-anybody-use-a-prime-lens-these-days/">here</a>.</p>

<p>#4 and #5 in this list are less compelling than they used to be. High-quality zoom lenses certainly rival primes in those areas now. I don't think most photographers will see a difference between two photos of the same subject, both taken at, say, 50mm, f/3.2, same shutter speed and ISO, framed in exactly the same way — but one shot using a 50 f/1.4 prime and the other using a high-quality 24-70 f2.8 zoom. Maybe the engineers at DxO can see the difference with their instruments. But I can't, and I've looked.</p>

<p>So why do I shoot now exclusively with primes? </p>

<p>Like William W., I started shooting with primes. That's how I learned and it's always made sense to me. But the real reasons that keep me shooting with primes are 1, 2, 3 and <em>especially</em> #6. </p>

<p>Now that I've sold my full-frame kit completely and switched to micro four thirds, I really need primes (with their wide apertures) to get the same results I used to get — shallow depth of field, better performance in low light, etc. And part of the reason to switch to micro four thirds was to lighten my load. Using primes helps there too.</p>

<p>However, it should be noted that, if you're shooting a wedding or other events where you don't control the scene — in other words, outside the studio — prime shooters will want to have two cameras around their necks, with different lenses. I've occasionally shot with three. </p>

<p>.</p>

<p>Now, about the "Zen thing." This really is the key element. I believe that shooting with primes exclusively makes me a better photographer. Shooting with primes doesn't make me a <em>good</em> photographer. I'll stipulate that there are many photographers better than I who use zooms. But I feel that I need primes to be the best photographer I personally can be.</p>

<p>To non-prime shooters, using a fixed focal length sounds restricting. To which I reply: the restriction is more than half of the point. It's difficult to describe the appeal of primes to someone who doesn't see it for himself, because any advantage you put into words (other than 1–5 in my list above) can be disagreed with. It's like trying to explain to a pianist why you prefer to play Bach on the guitar or lute (or like trying to explain to an organist why you prefer to play Bach on the piano). So what follows is my quick effort to explain something that doesn't fully have an explanation.</p>

<p>When I have shot with zoom lenses (and I have worked with them now and then) I found myself zooming in and out before clicking the shutter. I was really only seeing my shots after putting the camera to my eye and looking through the viewfinder. If you shoot for a while with two or three prime lenses, on the other hand, you 'll be able to see your shots before you lift the camera to your face. You can look at a scene and know in advance what your 28mm lens (say) will capture, if you shoot from where you're standing. </p>

<p>Me personally, I find this liberating. When I'm shooting, <em>I'm not thinking about focal length.</em> I can't adjust it, so it's not a decision that I have to worry about. Instead, I've "zoomed with my feet" beforehand — that is, I've positioned myself where I know I need to be to take the shot with the lens I'm using. You ever see movie camera operators or directors holding up their hands to frame a shot? Working with a prime — when you learn a handful of focal lengths — is kind of like seeing the world that way. You spend less time worrying about infinite number of alternatives you could achieve if you zoomed in or out and/or moved around, and instead you see the shots that are there right now.</p>

<p>I think it's like every kind of artistic discipline. Too much choice can be paralyzing, stifling. I have an M.A. in creative writing (poetry). In my view, the prime vs zoom choice is a lot like the choice of a fixed verse form (say, iambic pentameter) vs anything-goes free verse. </p>

<p>.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also why do photogrpahers sometimes use a zoom lens like the 24-70mm and then a few months down the line switch to using all primes instead of zooms at all?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can answer this from my own experience. The market now offers us lots of choices, too many choices. You can pick among three or four or more formats, a dozen or so different makers of really good cameras, and scores and scores of lenses. Naturally, different people make different choices. And if you're an old prime shooter like me, you're likely to be tempted now and then to try a zoom lens or two, because you see other photographers getting wonderful results with them. This seems pretty natural, especially if you can afford to try different things.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>p.s. Do I need to add — perhaps I do — that my choices in this matter are mine. I know lots of other really good photographers who get great results using zooms. <em>Whatever works best for you is what you should do.</em> But you only discover this through trial and error — through experience. If I could get the photos I want by shooting with a 28-200 (FF equivalent) zoom, in P mode, I'd do it. You earn no moral bonus points for shooting with primes, or shooting in full-manual, or shooting film — or for practicing whatever form of artistic discipline you practice. My clients couldn't care less whether I use primes or zooms, whether I shoot Olympus or Canon, whether I process in Lightroom or DxO Optics Pro, whether I work on a Mac or a PC. In the end, the only thing that matters is the photo.</p>

<p>Forget about zen and just get the job done. If you're going to alternate between zooms and primes, do it with a two-body setup, so you can quickly move between the two.</p>

<p>Besides all the sane tech stuff people mentioned so far: one of the most important things in wedding photography is: "backup mania." - Pardon the term, but if you do it in a quirkily obsessed way, it is likely to work out for you. - So if you have one body with the zoom and another with the corresponding prime mounted: take an important shot on both. - I haven't heard of somebody shooting redundant zooms for that yet - Alex Majoli's influences aside. (Journalist who brought 2 early P&S cameras to shoot the 2nd, while the 1st wrote.)<br>

About the switching back & forth: I guess its a way to keep life interesting? - Doesn't it take a bit of confidence to drop zooms and go just primes? - If so, it should generate a "kick" for the photographer and some folks appreciate those. - Its all about constant personal growth & development...</p>

<p>If it is the "Zen thing of Primes" that goes to one getting out there, right in the centre of "the zone" and achieving a Personal Best: then I am 100% behind that Photographer using that particular "Zen thing" . . . or using whatever other particular "Zen thing" works.</p>

<p>More is the pity that some Photographers never find their own "Zen thing"<br>

Pity more so, those who never look for it.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Many people have touched on weight and speed advantage of primes. I think the modern day zooms like the 24-70 f2.8 II is a bit as sharp as prime. </p>

<p>But I still like my 35 f.14 because when I shoot prime, I have already framed the picture in my mind. I tend to be at the right spot more often than not.</p>

<p>When I use the 24-70, sometimes I got lazy and didn't stand far enough before bringing the camera up. But I generally don't do that with the primes.</p>

<p>I think people use a 24-70 for weddings and events because that one lens covers a good portion of the ranges you will need for the majority of shots. saving time, and allowing one to be ready to capture things without having to change cameras and lenses. <br>

Primes are often used for all the reasons given above. It doesn't have to be and usually isn't an either or situation. Its all a matter of tool choice.<br>

I've switched to M3/4 and still use an equivalent 24-70 as it provides good coverage for weddings. With the light weight, I can also carry another body and primes and another zoom, 70-200 range all weighing less than a Nikon D700 with its 24-70 or worse (weight wise) 70-200.</p>

<p>To answer why do we switch Lens choices or preferences from time to time. Sometimes I get bored with the current lenses and want to use something different for a period of time. Other times I get excited about a specific lens and I incorporate that into my flow. As far as using both primes and zooms together i do that all the time. You can't shoot an event without a medium to wide zoom. You need to shoot quickly and zooms are the best. Once you get your shot then you can pull out your prime and get some more creative shots.</p>

<p>Flashes and strobes have a GN (guide number) that determines how much will be exposed by the light of the unit. For wedding and portrait photographers using non TTL lighting prime lenses become more attractive as your field of view remains more constant and you don't need to adjust your lighting (worry about your GN) as much. The advantages of zooms are always there so having both is still useful. </p>

 

<p>I use a zoom when I know I will be in a fixed place … such as up front shooting the Processionals where I can get a couple of shots at different focal lengths as the subjects move toward me, then turn and zoom in to get the groom's "first sight" reaction, then back to the Bride/Dad coming down the aisle. </p>

<p>I like faster primes (f/1.4 etc.), for a number of reasons besides those already mentioned:</p>

<p>In lower ambient light the viewfinder is brighter, easier to see, even if I'm shooting stopped down;</p>

<p>I can shoot in low light with TTL flash and use the wider aperture to open up the background;</p>

<p>At today's level of resolution, I can shoot in ambient light from a bit of distance using a wider aperture and a higher shutter speed or lower ISO, letting distance increase the DOF, then crop in later if I want. </p>

<p>My fastest prime is a 50/0.95 … I can shoot a black cat in a coal mine at midnight with that lens : -)</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

There are two ways I look at lenses. First is what "needs" to get done and with the most readiness and efficiency. Second

is what "wants" to get done. The second are the more creative and personal expression possibilities. In general I'm

always ready for both no matter what type job I'm shooting. I hardly touch weddings any more now unless I'm doing an

emergency cover or assist for someone I know. But, I still do various social/political events, commercial/editorial

assignments and personal work. Regardless of the circumstances, my kit never changes, I always use the same go-to

basics, but might bring more along if I feel I might need it.

 

On 90% of the jobs I do my ready set is a body with mid zoom on an old Stroboframe 645 flip bracket with TTL flash and

a basic Gary Fong hood. My second body will have a prime, whatever one I feel will best fit the needs. If I need a flash, I

will slide in a shoe flash with a Gary Fong collapse hood.