Do you guys shoot zooms and primes together?

[jorish]

<p>I have a 28~70 and a 80~200 zoom, and 24, 35 and 50mm primes, so yes, they're in the same focal lengths. And like I said, besides the wider apertures the reason for choosing one over the other might be the smallness and unobtrusiveness of the primes.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>the reason for choosing one over the other might be the smallness and unobtrusiveness of the primes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These are also key reasons why I prefer primes even in bright light.</p>

<p>Other reasons include the ability to keep the prime at your eye for longer without getting tired, it's easier to switch primes quickly (eg. if you need to change from 14mm to 135mm quickly, the size and weight of a zoom make this awkward, with the primes my fingers tend to be juggling them in my camera bag while I'm taking pictures, I may even be balancing the next lens in my hand while taking the picture - I can do that and hold the camera at the same time, not possible with a 24-70mm).</p>

<p>I also like the discipline of working with the prime - I tend to choose the lens I'm using according to the perspective I want for the aesthetics of the picture (flatter or wider perspective, background objects smaller/larger, shallower/deeper depth of field) while a zoom might tempt me to zoom in and out to fill the frame with the subject, which I think would encourage me to be sloppy. With the prime you get less tired less quickly, you can keep raising it and dropping the camera without your arms aching. For the subject it is (arguably) less intimidating. I also find the discipline of thinking in a particular focal length easier for the brain. Again, even in bright light you may want very shallow depth of field not available with a zoom.</p>

<p>So for all of these reasons, I'd choose the prime over the zoom for daylight work, not only in low light. For me, the ability to zoom is by comparison with that lot small beer, and could even be a disadvantage.</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<p>I could probably add to that lot, and perhaps the most important of all, I think the primes encourage me to think ahead. The discipline of anticipating which lens will be needed next is al part of the process of anticipating the next image, which helps me to look for it. I have the feeling that zooms tend to encourage reactive photography, probably not helped by the nature of digital cameras.</p>

 

[john_tran14]

<p>1. I use primes and zooms covering the same focal length ranges. The primes are for more serious pictures, zooms are for "backup" and unimportant pictures</p>

<p>2. I rarely use F2.8 or any wider apertures, I want fast lenses (mostly primes) only to focus (manually) easier. I think anything manual is easier and better with primes than with zooms</p>

<p>3. Most my primes are manual and I stay with manual exposure most of the time. Once a while, I use my zooms, it's when I use autofocus and autoexposure</p>

<p>4. I prefer to buy cheap lenses, not the expensive ones</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>Do some of you duplicate FL by using a prime lens? Eg. you carry a 70-200mm and a 85mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rarely, but only because I don't like to carry more than the essential lenses for a given outing. But if I were like many/most photogs, particularly the younger ones, I might drag around with me all of the lenses I use in the field:</p>

<p>17-40/4L<br />24-105/4L<br />70-200/4L<br />100/2<br />Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye<br />1.4x TC</p>

<p>However, I do think ahead, prior to my outings, and contemplate what my subject matter will be and how I want to approach it. I can almost always narrow down to no more than 3 lenses (including the one on the camera). I can usually narrow down to 2 lenses, and sometimes even just one. (For instance, I was delighted that the entirety of Yosemite Valley could be photographed with just the 24-105! ;-) If there is a god, she apparently loves photographers with zoom lenses on full frame cameras.)</p>

<p>In further answer to your question, there have been times I've gone out to do some candid photography with both my 70-200/4 and my 100/2 and nothing else. The 70-200 is a great candid zoom (an opinion not widely shared), but the 100/2 is a wonderful lens to use whenever I want that razor thin DoF and mega-blurry background.</p>

<p>=========================</p>

<p>Simon, there is no reason to be undisciplined with zoom lenses. I read that argument much too often -- that primes force a photographer to plan, think, previsualize, or whatever, and that zooms make photographers sloppy and lazy. It seems like nonsense to me. To me a zoom is an essential tool for achieving the previsualized perspective that brings foreground and background elements into a desired balance. I pick the vantage that provides the perspective I want, and then I determine the focal length needed to frame the shot correctly from that vantage. I do it with the twist of a zoom ring and/or perhaps a change of lenses, and when I'm done, I'm dead-on with the perspective I wanted. You do it with a change of lenses, and when you're done, you're dead-on in perspective only if you happen to have the right prime. Otherwise you have to move to a slightly different vantage point than you had in mind. How does that make you more disciplined than me?</p>

<p>You'll note, BTW, that there are only two prime lenses I take into the field, although I do have others for studio work. One of them, the fisheye, is a one-trick pony. The other lens -- the 100/2 -- lives at f/2.0 and is used for its one trick of foreground separation and background blur. I don't carry other primes because I don't need them. For instance, a 50/1.4 would become largely redundant with the 100/2 when used wide open, because the blurred background becomes rather indistinct anyway. Once depth of field broadens a bit, then foreground/background relationships become more important. At that point I'm already into my f/4 zoom optics and have a broad range of focal lengths at my disposal. A fast wide and a fast (longer) telephoto might be useful for low-light photography, but I've never found a compelling reason to buy (and carry!) either. I strive for broad DoF on my wide shots and don't have much need for long shots in what I do anyway.</p>

<p>Anyway, Simon, different strokes for different folks. You love your primes, and that's fine. I don't fault you for it. It gets frustrating, though, when prime lovers look down their noses at those who use zooms, accusing them of being lazy and undisciplined. Also, the logic of your lens juggling argument completely escapes me. Why would anyone want to juggle lenses while simuntaneously shooting? There's much to be said for the discipline of a firm grip and a solid stance, and shooting one-handed while juggling lenses with the other hand sounds quite hap-hazard to me. I would bet you I get sharper images from my crummiest second-tier backup zooms than you get with a one-handed hold on your nicest prime.</p>

[dangoldman]

<p>for sure. aside from my recently aquired 80-200 FD lens for my A1, all of my film stuff is prime. and, since i often shoot film alongside my digital stuff - then yes... i do shoot both together.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>Simon, there is no reason to be undisciplined with zoom lenses. I read that argument much too often<br /> It gets frustrating, though, when prime lovers look down their noses at those who use zooms, accusing them of being lazy and undisciplined.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wasn't saying that people using zooms are lazy or sloppy. You will notice that I very carefully phrased it as "while a zoom might tempt <strong>me</strong> to zoom in and out to fill the frame with the subject, which I think would encourage <strong>me</strong> to be sloppy".</p>

<p>I am purely talking about the way that I work and the effect that zooms have on me, compared to primes. And I am quite certain that what I am saying is right - for me. Whether other people find the same thing is up to them to try it and experiment.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Also, the logic of your lens juggling argument completely escapes me. Why would anyone want to juggle lenses while simuntaneously shooting?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Weddings are fast-moving. Sometimes I don't have time to put the len back in the bag, or think I may want to put the lens I've just switched out of the camera back onto it in a moment. I don't have to put it in the bag if I don't want to, because it's small. Can't imagine doing it with a 24-70mm.</p>

 

<blockquote></blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I would bet you I get sharper images from my crummiest second-tier backup zooms than you get with a one-handed hold on your nicest prime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suspect you may not have understood my description of the way I was holding the camera and lens - it's a two handed grip, not one-handed, and it doesn't compromise the steadiness of camera support or the sharper picture at all.</p>

<p>All this doesn't really matter, it's not central to this discussion, I just mentioned it as an aside on the ability to switch prime lenses faster and more easily than zooms. In other words, a zoom is only faster to change focal lengths if you're trying to get from 24mm to 70mm, it's slow if one wants to get from, say, 14mm to 50mm.</p>

<p>That's my way of working, I am describing, not saying people who use zooms are wrong or looking down my nose at them. I'm sure many excellent photographers use zooms. Actually as it happens, all the photographers that I admire and have seen at work or know their favourite kit, and can think of at the moment did use primes, but that is probably a coincidence! I'm sure there are many brilliant photographers using zooms. I am just describing what works for me, and why <strong>I </strong>don't like zooms.</p>

<p> </p>

[denniswms]

<p>I shoot only primes and 99% of my output is at 100 ASA in natural or manipulated (reflectors) natural light. Nothing faster than 2.8 and my most used lens, the 135 macro is 3.5- I have a lovely 55 but rarely shoot wider than 90. Distortion is unappealing. </p>

[mjferron]

<p>I usually hit the road with one camera and one lens. Perfect for me is a 35mm equivelent.</p>

[lewis_smith]

<p>I use zooms most of the time, but I use primes with studio flash because zooms can cause problems in the studio due to the changing aperture as you zoom. With primes that is one less thing to worry about screwing up.</p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p>I found primes to bulky and heavy for my work, could never find a use for the 50mm. The lens I carry are in my main kit 14-24mm f/2.8, 28-105 f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/2.8.<br>

In my backup kit I carry a DX 12-24mm f/4, DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and 80-200mm f/2.8. I do both editorial & commercial work.</p>

[jim_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>"Assuming you don't have anything longer than 200mm because longer than 200mm is pretty much the territory of primes only."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>eh, . . .</p>

<p>Unless I'm on a specific mission, I carry everything except the Kitchen sink! I shoot mostly whatever interests me.<br>

My normal bag has two zooms, 17-50 f/2.8 and <strong>100-400 f/4.5-5.6</strong><br>

Two primes 50 f/1.4 and 100 f/2.8 Macro</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Simon, it appeared you were being marginally respectful of zooms and photographers who use them until I read this...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have the feeling that zooms tend to encourage reactive photography, probably not helped by the nature of digital cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... and then it all seemed more like an elitist "primes are better than zooms" sort of thing. I could even hear Topol singing "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKHTabTYl_M">Tradition</a>" in the back of my head. Anyway, that's what prompted me to respond. ;-)</p>

<p>FAIW, Simon, I select between primes and zooms when needing to draw from their respective strengths. IQ advantages of primes largely disappear with hand-holding -- probably even more so when the hold is not a good one (even two-handed, but not with a hard "grasp" on both camera and lens). Then there are weight differences, but the need to drag around a heavy bag of glass quickly kills that advantage. The one situation where the zoom so clearly shines over the prime is exactly the situation you describe, a fast-paced wedding shoot, where focal length requirements are all over the place. Twisting a zoom ring is always faster than changing a lens.</p>

<p>But as I said before, different strokes for different folks. If you're happy with your workflow and your clients are happy with your product, that's all that really matters. As for myself, I charge by the hour, so I get very self conscious on the job when my work isn't as efficient as possible. Zooms help me to be efficient. When I'm on my own time, I use whatever lenses make me happy, and they are often primes.</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<p>Hi Sarah, I don't know where you read elitism into my post - I was just trying to describe my view of the advantages of primes against zooms for the kind of photography that I do. Yes, I do believe primes are all round superior for that kind of work, so in that sense I suppose I am being elitist about them. I think they give us a significant competitive edge over people who use zooms for the same kind of work. I was describing why. If others want to come to different conclusion that's fine - in fact, I'm glad they do!</p>

<p>Well, if what I was saying really was elitist, then long live elitism. Choosing the best tools for the job is more important than political correctness towards zooms, if such a thing really exists.</p>

<p>Your para about:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IQ advantages of primes largely disappear with hand-holding -- probably even more so when the hold is not a good one (even two-handed, but not with a hard "grasp" on both camera and lens). Then there are weight differences, but the need to drag around a heavy bag of glass quickly kills that advantage. The one situation where the zoom so clearly shines over the prime is exactly the situation you describe, a fast-paced wedding shoot, where focal length requirements are all over the place</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just heartily disagree with, all round. You have no idea how I am talking about holding the camera and how steady it might be, because I haven't described it to you , so little point in your theorising about it. As anyone who has done pistol shooting will know (incidentally, sports pistol shooting is IMHO one of the best ways to learn to take a steady picture handheld), it's not about having a 'hard grasp' of the camera. Holding a camera steady while taking a picture is a whole subject in itself, probably one for another thread. On the weight issue, my bag of primes is a lot lighter than 14-24 + 24-70 + 70-200. But the important point is that the weight of my primes is in the bag, not making my arms ache. And your idea of where a zoom shines over a prime at a fast paced wedding - I wonder how many fast paced weddings you do each year? Because I am up to my ears in them, three in the last few days, and really don't feel like I need a lecture on lens choice at them. Suffice to say, I believe that 'The one situation where the zoom so clearly shines over the prime is exactly the situation you describe, a fast-paced wedding shoot' is just good old plain wrong.</p>

<p>But you do things your way, I'll do them mine!</p>

[janos_kovacs]

<p>Sarah thank you for your post. I second that.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>No, Simon, I don't shoot weddings. My work is mostly commercial. However, I do use zoom lenses for hours on end, and it doesn't wear me out. (And I'm an arthritic, middle aged woman.)</p>

<p>I'm perplexed by your comments about pistols. Have you actually shot one? If it shoots anything larger than toy bullets, you'd <em>better</em> have a hard grasp on it! And if you don't want your camera to shake when the mirror slaps and the shutter trips, you'd likewise better have a firm grasp on your camera. It's for the same reason a tripod should be sturdy. But as you say, that's a subject for another thread.</p>

 

[rossb]

<p>I use primes and zooms. With my FM2 I tend to use primes because it's purpose is to be small and light to take hiking, cycling and just to take with me. On my DSLR since it's an uncomfortable tank anyway I take mostly zooms. Never underestimate the usefullness of a 50mm f1.8 for low light however. It's very handy.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm perplexed by your comments about pistols. Have you actually shot one? If it shoots anything larger than toy bullets, you'd <em>better</em> have a hard grasp on it!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup used to shoot with the university pistol team, everything from .22 through .44 to a flintlock pistol! Mostly small bore .22 in competitions, and 9mm with the army, but also shot a reasonable amount of larger calibres. Also a lot of rifle shooting of all sorts of calibres), but pistol shooting was really my thing. Incidentally, single handed shooting was pretty much as accurate as two handed-shooting. It's all about relaxation, technique, breathing, mental relaxation, the way you squeeze the trigger/shutter without jerking the camera/pistol, and doing exactly the same thing again and again! Relaxation is at the core of it - I wouldn't describe grasping the pistol hard as the best way to get good results.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And if you don't want your camera to shake when the mirror slaps and the shutter trips, you'd likewise better have a firm grasp on your camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You won't stop mirror shake by grasping the camera hard. But you will introduce muscle shake instead.</p>

<p>On weddings, you might be interested to read the approach of some of the world's most famous wedding photographers, like <a href="http://jeffascough.bigfolioblog.com/category/747">Jeff Ascough</a>:</p>

<p><em>"Currently I utilise two <a href="http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/technical/eos_5d_mark_ii_jeff_ascough.do" target="_blank">Canon 5DMKII</a> camera bodies and three Canon prime lenses - <a href="http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/lenses/ef24mm.do" target="_blank">24 f1.4LII</a>, <a href="http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/lenses/35mm.do" target="_blank">35 f1.4L</a>, <a href="http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/lenses/50mm.do" target="_blank">50 f1.2L</a>. I also have the available <a href="http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/lenses/85mm.do" target="_blank">85 f1.2LII</a> just for the speeches if I can't get close enough to the subject.... </em><br>

<em>So there you go. There are no big cameras. No big lenses. No big camera bags containing tons of equipment. Two small bodies, three small lenses, and my eye for a picture. What else do I need."</em></p>

<p><a href="http://www.interviewsbycrashtaylor.com/2008/10/15/crash-taylor-interviews-ben-chrisman/">Ben Chrisman</a>: "<em>What is your favourite photography accessory, other than your camera? My 35 1.4 lens.</em><br>

<em>If you had to choose one lens which one would it be and why? My 35. I could go the rest of my life and only use that lens. It’s perfect for the way I see everything."</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

I'm not saying that using zooms is wrong. I'm sure there are many great photographers using them. But if the fast paced action of a wedding is when zooms are at their best, and some of the world's most famous wedding photographers are using something else, then maybe that is a hint that the supposed advantage of zooms in that situation isn't all it seems to be?</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Simon, I guess you and I are built differently. I'm more accurate with two hands than with one (both pistols and cameras), and I can grasp either a pistol or a camera firmly (even hard) without trembling or yanking the trigger or shutter button. But alas we're into thread drift.</p>

<p>Jackson Pollock preferred to paint without a brush, so perhaps the concept of using a brush is flawed too. Whether a brush is good or bad or whether a prime is better than a zoom or vice versa is also thread drift. Photographers and painters use all manner of tools.</p>

<p>It suffices to say, for the purpose of this thread, that some photographers (like me) do use both primes and zooms and do sometimes carry ostensibly redundant combinations at times. I believe that was what the OP was asking -- not whether primes are better than zooms or vice versa. It's a pity that any thread with the words "prime" and "zoom" in it turns into an argument about how one is better than the other.</p>

[janos_kovacs]

<p>Simon, have a look what <strong>Joe Buissink </strong>says about the optics used at a wedding:<br />“I’m more of a zoom guy for weddings as I like being inconspicuous. I shoot single shot, lock the centre focus, and never use motordrive, so I don’t need high speed shooting,” he reveals. “I’ve always fallen in love with the images files I got out of the 5D.”<br />“The 24-70mm lens is really my workhorse,” he says, “I find this zoom lens to be one of the strongest. It gives me a wideangle and a medium telephoto in one.”<br />If you look in his bag you will find a mix of zooms and primes. <a href="http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/lenses_for_weddings.do">http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/lenses_for_weddings.do</a>"]<br />Have a look at <strong>Denis Reggie</strong> as well, you might be surprised to find a mix of zooms and primes there too. "<a href="http://www.learnphoto.pro/?p=496">http://www.learnphoto.pro/?p=496</a> "<br />At the end of the day what it matters is the <strong>result </strong>and the satisfaction of your customers. It is up to you how you achieve that.</p>

<p> </p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>have a look what <strong>Joe Buissink </strong>says</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely - as I tried to make clear, I wasn't trying to say that all successful photographers, shoot with primes. Far from it. Everyone uses whatever works for them, and I was trying to describe what worked for me, and why, which is why I carefully framed my original answer in terms of "me". Incidentally, there are some interesting comments by Jeff Ascough on telephoto zooms, and in particular Joe Buissink's use of them for weddings <a href="http://jeffascough.typepad.com/jeff_ascough_blog/2009/06/one-of-the-most-used-lenses-for-wedding-photography-is-the-big-70-200-f28-personally-ive-never-seen-the-fascination-for-us.html">here</a>. He describes Joe Buissink 's use of them as "There is always an exception to every rule though..."</p>

 

<blockquote>some photographers (like me) do use both primes and zooms and do sometimes carry ostensibly redundant combinations at times. I believe that was what the OP was asking</blockquote>

<p>I guess it's also relevant to the OP if some of us would answer the OP's question "no, I don't use both", with an explanation of why. I had gathered from the OP's first post that the OP was really interested in finding out to what extent primes are regarded as redundant, assuming that some zooms can now equal some primes for image quality. At least, that's how I read the question at the start of the OP's thread.</p>

 

[rashed_s]

<p>I use my 70-200MM Nikon F2.8 VR most of the time when I aim for street photography, people like aged men and women also when I aim for things like birds or wild life being within my zoom range.<br>

I always use prime lenses when shooting landscape or stationary subject where I do have enough time to focus manually and get my camera in proper operating condition, other wise also for wild life shooting from distant, I use a prime lenses of 300MM F2.8 VR from nikon and now I have a 600MM F4 lens on order hoping to reach here before the end of this week.</p>

[wayne_crider4]

<p>Just in reading the first page of responses I have to laugh about how things have changed. Back in the day around here (hmmm I'm getting old) the primes were popular because the zooms hadn't caught up per se' in resolution or sometimes in maximum aperture. With the advance of digital and computer aided design the field now is pretty much even, but maybe not at all zoom apertures. Still, the popularity of one lens instead of a bag full, the escape from quick lens changes in the field to catch fast changing light, and the ability to frame from one standing spot was a nice change. I've flip flopped on the issue over the years but am now in the prime camp due to small lighter weight lenses and fast apertures at moderate prices. The big honking fast sharp zooms are just to pricey for the average casual shooter, and the older primes too cheap to pass up.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>I do, I mostly use primes from 35 mm upward (both APS and FF but mostly FF now), and zoom below: the Nikon 12-24 f4 on DX, and the 16-35 F4 VR on FX. The reason is simple: I mostly like primes, but below 35 Nikon primes are either out of my budget (the beautiful 24 1.4) or not on par with the zooms. Besides, at these focal lengths I feel less the need for fast apertures. Also, to do the job the 16-35 is doing on FF, I would need two more primes at least (20 an 24) and my bag is already crowded enough as it is.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[johnmyers]

<p>I only own prime lenses. Zooms that come close to comparing with equivalent primes are too expensive, in my opinion. Also, for my subjects and style of shooting, zooms are just unnecessary for me. In fact, for 35mm/digital I only own four different primes and they've suited me just perfectly.</p>