Zooms vs primes for landscape flexibility

I�m considering upgrading my photo system (on a budget) and would

like to use the 645 system as a major system for my photo/landscape

work. Though I�ve been at photography for some time, I have no

experience using zooms. I have no doubt that generally modern high

quality primes equal modern primes in image quality. What I don�t

know about is how greatly they increase flexibility. A three lens

prime system very much less that a two lens zoom system for the same

range of focal lengths. The zooms are a pretty big stretch of my

wallet. A lot of well respected landscape photographers in the

larger formats continue to use single focal length lenses and it

wasn�t all that long ago when 35 mm nature photographers have used

primes exclusively.

 

I�m debating how far to stretch my budget would certainly be

interested in how zooms might increase my photo horizons? Thoughts

appreciated!

<i>I have no doubt that generally modern high quality primes equal modern primes in image quality.</i>

<p><p>

Do you have any empirical/quantitative proof to back up this statement? While I guess that's it's possible in the 645 world, I've never heard of anything like this generalization. And if you predicating your whole argument to get a zoom based on this, you may be getting LESS than you bargained for with a zoom.

<p><p>

On the plus side, I do agree that a WA zoom for landscape does give you more flexibility in framing. For that, I could see making a few trade-offs in quality if money is a serious factor that would prevent getting the image otherwise.

I haven't got any large-format experience but have been doing 35mm work for many

years. Without doubt, zoom lenses are vastly more convenient for landscape work

(and many other things) than primes. And in my experience, zooms do increase my

creativity because they let me control framing much more precisely. But I suspect

that, on average, primes still have the edge optically (sharpness, contrast,

distortion, resistance to flare). There are some zooms that are simply excellent and

would be hard to beat (in my experience, these include the Nikon 80-400 at the

shorter focal lengths, and the Canon 70-200 f4L), but they are the exception, not the

rule.

Does the zoom have a DOF scale? This, and economy, are the main reasons I use primes for landscape photography. Some less expensive zooms also have the front element rotate during focusing, which creates some problems when using a polarizer and grad NDs. Just some thoughts...

From my experience (35mm Canon/Nikon, MF Bronica SQA and Fuji 670III), zooms don't give you much benefit for wide angle. For 35mm, my perfect wide angle is the 20mm prime; for MF: 40mm. Zooms are generally slower, and distort much more. Whenever I tried using a zoom, I found out that a prime does it better.

 

Creativity? for landscape photography you're never too short of time to swap a lens. If you are, then you're probably being too lazy, or shooting underwater... I normally walk around with my 35mm system with 2 bodies and 3-4 lenses, 2 mounted, and 2 tucked in my vest (primes are smaller than zooms), and I swap them on demand. No, I never dropped a lens. =)

 

MF dictates an even slower workflow (unless you're shooting with a RF). I can't believe any MF zoom can match a MF prime in quality. I've played with the Pentax 80-160, and my PS 80 blew the 80 end of that zoom completely.

 

Are zooms easier to use? for tele-photo photography, they're much easier than lugging around 3 tele lenses. I maybe a masochist, but the only zoom I own is the 80-200/2.8 (Nikkor). Yes, it's really sharp. But I also have 2 more tele-lenses (105,135) which are better, and are MUCH MUCH easier to lug around.

 

Cheers,

I am increasingly frustrated by the lack of depth of field scales on zoom lenses for landscape work. If you do a lot of work with a close foreground that sweeps away into the distant mountains (or whatever), then the ability to use hyperfocal distance and DOF scales is crucial. I am currently in the process of switching for this one reason alone.

Del, I don't know the configuration of your zoom, but for some of the push-pull models, I'm suprised there are no dof decals one can buy to apply to the barrel. Are the tolerances just too tight?

Personally I just can't see any advantage to using a zoom for that type of work, you have time to frame as you please. Zooms may be useful when you are in a hurry or when you have little control as to your position in relation to your subject, but when you have time and space you can frame exactly as you please using a prime lens.

 

IMO you should decide on the focal length before you compose the picture, so even if you're using a zoom you set it to the desired setting before looking in the viewfinder. Any other approach is simply sloppy as you are not thinking about the perspective and are letting laziness dictate your composition. Any slight adjustment in framing can be done by moving the camera position.

 

Even the best zoom lenses are full of compromises, they can never be as sharp as primes, they distort and are prone to flare. The good ones also weigh a lot more than primes, I honestly don't see where the convenience comes in. I own one Canon L zoom and it's screamingly obvious to me that my primes are better, lighter and more convenient to carry around.

The answer to the "quality" debate is as ever dependent on what

you're going to do with the output. A friend of mine often

accomanies me on trips /assignments with his 645N and

zooms. On a Hasselblad projector blown up to 6' across, you

frankly can't see a lot of difference between his results and mine

with my Bronica primes. Now I know that projected images are

not the best way to determine real world lens quality so lets

consider prints. I have a 16" x 12" Ilfochrome print of his on my

wall that I'd regard as very sharp and was taken with his Pentax

zoom. It's certainly as good as just about anything I've had

produced commercially as analogue r types. If you're scanning

and printing then it isn't likely you'll see much difference until you

reach very large sizes- like say 30" x 24" or bigger. So, my take

on the "quality" issue is that practically speaking you won't see a

meaningful difference between Pentax zooms (can't speak for

anything else) and primes unless you frequently push against

the edges of what's possible in terms of print sizes or have

unrealistic viewing distances.

 

The thing that has struck me is that despite the increased ability

to frame accurately I haven't noticed much if any advantage in

composing with zooms. Partly this is because I carry 4 primes

plus a TC and frankly there isn't a lot I can't do with that in

combination with a few steps forward or back, or a marginally

different angle of view to make the best of what I've got. The

number of times I find myself caught seriously "between lenses "

is minimal, and then I don't mind cropping to give me the view I

intended. If I have a debate with this guy it's much more likely to

be about the entire approach to the subject (ie wide vs std lens;

square vs rectangular format) than about nuances in framing.

 

This guy's camera bag is as big as and weighs as much as

mine. There doesn't appear to be much of a bulk or weight

saving in MF zooms, probably 'cos the range isn't too great.

 

The thing that absolutely puts me in the "primes" camp is dof

control. At the sort of apertures used for landscape work a Dof

preview is useful but isn't definitive since it gets pretty gloomy in

there. I make extensive use of lens barrel markings to assess

whether I'm likely to be happy and I couldn't do that with a zoom.

I can't see any real advantages from zooms against which to

trade this off . Irrespective of the inherent qualities of a lens

system you have to be able to realise its full potential, otherwise

you are likely to draw conclusions such as "zooms are a lot less

sharp than primes" that might well be resulting from the inability

to control dof rather than lens quality. I think that realising that

potential is more difficult with zooms.

Thank you for the advice so far. Should it matter I am looking at the Pentax 645. I currently use the DOF markings on my 35mm lenses quite extensively and that would be an issue with me. While most of the advice is leading towards the prime lens options, I still connsider that it seems like most of the better know 35mm shooters have switched over to zooms for many applications, that might exclude macro and wide angle for near far perspectives?

I use a P67 system for landscapes, as does Art Wolfe and others. It works great, but zooms? Zooms are compromises . . . as everything goes in photography. In general, many have learned that the the larger the film format, subsequent image circle required, optics challenges, thus the resulting shallower depth of field compared to smaller film formats. Zooms have fine optics, but in MF, are heavier than primes, may have compromises in DOF and F-stops compared to primes. Zooms work for some types of landscape photos and generally, MF zooms have good optics. Pentax 645 optics are a tremendous value IMHO. Mastering your tools is probably a bigger challenge and life-long quest, than deciding which MF system. If you are really serious about landscapes, in general, consider LF! Bigger, slower, crispier! No zooms! Consider some serious money on a gonzo tripod regardless of the format!

I use the Pentax 645 system and in my opinion the new zoom lenses for this system have revolutionized outdoor MF photography as you now can have zoom lenses covering focal length range (in 35mm terms) from 20mm to 200mm and come out about a 1kg lighter weight than similar high-end Nikon or Canon zoom based 35mm systems. With matrix metering, motor drive and AF it is now possible to make �dynamic� landscape photography with MF with the same flexibility as with 35mm. There is no such thing as �medium format� photography with this setup compared to 35mm; it is the same thing just larger format.

The Pentax FA645 33-55 is sharper than the 45mm prime lens at all apertures (they are similar from F:16 and smaller). Others claim that the FA645 45-85 is sharper as well. Lens quality is generally not an issue for MF. The zooms are sharp but you will experience more distortions and perhaps a less flat focus plane. Neither is of much problem for landscapes. The main benefit with these zooms is that you can have many lenses in one (and all those focal lengths in between) and save significant weight. I will shortly replace my 120/4 Macro with the new 150-300 ED IF.

I�ll recommend that you search the medium format section of Photo.net for MF zoom lenses and you�ll see that all of them get basically rave reviews.

<i>"Zooms may be useful when you are in a hurry or when you have little control as to your position in relation to your subject, but when you have time and space you can frame exactly as you please using a prime lens."</i><p>

 

Actually, the idea of using zooms is to be able to choose your point of view and then crop in-camera. The "zoom with your feet" argument is false because changing position changes perspective, thus the photograph.<p>

 

Sorry Roger, can't help you with your specific system but you mention three primes or two zooms. What about one zoom for the "normal" range (should the cheapest zoom, no?) and one prime for wide or tele?

Roger,

 

I think a telephoto zoom is great for landscape shooting but I don't see as much use for wideangle zooms. At the risk of sounding like a Galen Rowell groupie for most of my 35mm landscape shooting I've used a 24mm wide angle and an 80-200 zoom.

 

I typically use a telephoto lens to either isolate a subject or to compress the image. When using an 80-200ish zoom I roughly figure out where I need to put my tripod and zoom slightly to precisely crop in camera. I don't see this as lazy because by zooming to crop I'm isolating the subject precisely, exactly the reason I chose to use a telephoto lens in the first place. Plus zooming is a lot easier than moving your tripod if your shooting position is restricted.

 

On the other hand when shooting with a wide angle lens I think it's just as easy to move my tripod 4 inches as it is to zoom.

 

BTW, you have some nice pics in your Mountain Nature Showcase and Rocky Mountain Foothills.

Pal (sorry, can't create the proper character),

 

I appreciate the comments on the Pentax 645 system, since I've been looking at that for landscape work. Which body do you use?

�I think a telephoto zoom is great for landscape shooting but I don't see as much use for wideangle zooms.�

 

The main point is that you save weight. A Pentax 33-55 weights 580g. The set of the 35, 45 and 55 primes weights 1450g. This is substantial weight saving plus you get all the focal lengths in between. For the telephotos the math is equally convincing. Eg. the 150-300 weight less than 200g more than the 120/4 macro.

It certainly isn�t the case that you only have to move the tripod 4 inches with your 24mm lens when you really want the angle of view of a 35mm. I would be totally lost if all I had was a 24mm in addition to an 80-200 zoom.

My preferred outfit consist of the Pentax 645NII, 33-55, 75 and 150-300. The whole setup weights 3kg (about the weight of an EOS-1 or an F5 with a 80-200 pro zoom). An alternative is to replace the 75 standard lens with the 55-110; this setup weight only about 300g more and leaves you virtually without any serious gaps in focal lengths. You can add a 1,4X converter and a Pentax close-up lens and you�ll basically set for any kind of landscape or general outdoor photography.

 

Yes, these zoom lenses add that flexibility that traditionally has been in the realm of 35mm photography exclusively.

Ask yourself a question.

 

(1) Are you going to try and squeze the max enlargement out of your format? If so, you might be disapointed, as well as limited by zooms. It all depends on your standards.

 

After many years at this hobby, I have found the best money spent to improve my photography was in a higher quality tripod, and boat loads more film. Get off the equipment band wagon, and shoot, shoot, shoot!!!

Hi Roger,

<p>

Lots of good points here.<p>I just want to say that I have used and use zooms in 35mm, but I never missed them with my MF work (50, 80, 150, 250).<br>I guess that some way it even helps me to get the look I want. Before I take a photograph, I am pondering like: should I go for width, for intimacy etc. Than I choose the focal length accordingly.<p>

Of course, this can be done with zooms as well, but in 35mm they can make me lazy...

<p>

[You can read more of my thought on the use of focal length in landscape photography <a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/webarticle04.htm">here</a>].

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

I used WA & TP zooms with 35mm for a few years then went to all fixed WA for about ten. So I've done it both ways. A few years ago when I went to the Pentax 67, I made the 55-100 my primary lens with 45 and 135 in the bag. That makes a heavy camera on a big tripod even heavier and certainly the biggest negative which I became used to. I'm quite happy. There are other things probably more apt to make a landscape shot less sharp than lens sharpness. With the MF 55-100 I am usually not focused at infinity while with 35mm I lived at the stop.

 

Zooming instead of changing lenses allows one to evaluate the aesthetic of a frame much quicker and more accurately. If the most aesthetic frame size is between two sizes of fixed lenses, one might not easily recognize such with fixed lenses since pleasing geometries are sometimes sensed without immediately understanding why. With fixed lenses a photographer gets good a sizing up the scenery and immediately selecting the correct lens, 24/28/35/50 without having to toss it back in the bag for another. Regarless there were times when I'd go 28 then 24 then 35 then back to 28 all of which waste a lot more time than with a zoom. With 35mm, if the lens on the camera when a scene was sized up was not exactly what I thought was best, I often took a shot regardless since film was cheap. Then would put the other lens on and shoot more and even bracket. With MF the film is more expensive and the workflow slower so I tend to zoom to the best frame then move on instead of taking extra shots. -David

In 35mm, ever since I bought my 17-35mm zoom 2 years ago, it has pretty much been my only wide-angle lens. There is hardly any difference in terms of quality between "primes" and the high-end zooms nowadays, and it is so much easier to view the difference among focal lengths with a zoom. Sometimes I would shoot multiple images at 28 and 20mm just to get the different perspective.

 

I never understand why people claim that you can get the same result with a prime by moving around. I shoot from the cliffs a lot and it is not always possible to walk forward.

I find that primes give me enough freedom in the wide angle and normal departments, but I do use an 80-200 zoom (in 35 mm) at times. I prefer the optical quality of primes in all ranges and find that when I need to crop, it is usually to make a panoramic or more square framing, or maybe cut something from one edge of the frame. Using a zoom does not eliminate cropping and I've found I'm happiest with the primes. Tele shots of landscapes do demand the use of a zoom more often. I've used an 20-35 and loved to use it because of the quick changes possible but it had some sort of aberration which made it impossible to make a near-to-far sharp picture and so I got rid of it.