Primes or Zooms

[luis_g]

<p>Speaking strictly for myself, and no one else (that means you), I own dozens of primes and zoom lenses. I remember when the Nikon 80-200/4.5 came in, and the top corporate guys (like Jay Maisel) began using them for major top-client ad campaigns. I immediately got one, and was pleased with it (save for its slowness).</p>

<p>Other quality zoom optics soon followed. The really important thing about zooms *for me* is the ability to separate (within its range) perspective from framing. That is something no prime lens can do, and perspective is of crucial importance to me, and I am keenly aware that it isn't for some.</p>

<p>The oft-heard "foot-zooming" thing can't break the laws of optics. I happen to value that ability, and acknowledge that for many others zooms have other advantages, and for me, many other disadvantages. In good strong light, zooms do very well optically -- for me. In lower light, primes shine, and in low light, they're the right tool (for me, remember?) for the job.</p>

<p>Each lens has its own optical signature, and that is relevant to me as well. One of my favorite-ever lenses is a slow, cheap MF Nikkor that is devilishly hard to focus well with my Nikons, making me rely on the confirmation light (agh).</p>

<p>When working rapidly, I set my zoom to one focal length, and use it as if it was a prime. Compared to most of my bodies, lens weight with short zooms is relatively unimportant. Long zooms are something else, but I rarely use the longer focal lengths any more.</p>

<p>Curiously, perspective issues aside, I seem to do about the same no matter which type of lens I am using. I could easily live with just a 28 or 35mm lens (in FF or equivalent in Dx), but am glad that I can choose between both types and many focal lengths (though most of my pictures are made within a narrow range of focal lengths) depending on what I'm going to be photographing.</p>

<p>I have no recommendations for anyone except to use whatever synergizes with your vision. I do.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>why not make up your own mind on the basis of your own observations and experience?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then there isn't much point in answering the question, is there? And it certainly doesn't matter what pjs use then. But you just said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>folk would be fools to ignore lessons from photojournalism, whatever their bag is, if they want to make an informed decision</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well those two statements are direct opposites. However, if I was primarily photographing jewelry (just as an example), how would the choice of a photojournalist matter?</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>Well those two statements are direct opposites.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not at all. You <em>observe what others do</em> (which includes asking on this forum), <em>acquire your own experience</em>, then make up your <em>own mind</em>. I don''t see any contradiction there at all.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>if I was primarily photographing jewelry (just as an example), how would the choice of a photojournalist matter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It could matter enormously. With imagination, you can carry lessons from one area to another. Photojournalists learn from fashion and still life photographers, and vice versa. In all sorts of ways. Look at how weddings photographers have learnt from photojournalists. All it requires is imagination.</p>

 

[Ian Taylor]

<p>photo.net has 1000s of these back and forth arguments. <br>

Canon vs Nikon<br>

primes vs zooms<br>

RAW vs jpg<br>

film vs digital<br>

Most of the arguments can be summed up like this - "If you aren't doing it like me, you're an idiot."<br>

If you need to crap on other people's working methods to feel better about your own, well go at it. I am more interested in what my favorite photographers eat for breakfast or what kind of shoes they wear than what lenses they have in their bags.<br>

I mainly use primes myself, but I could care less what other people use.</p>

[simon_crofts]

Actually, you may sneer at it, but RAW vs JPEG, film vs digital, primes vs zooms, small format vs large, and so on is very

important for a photographer. They are the tools of the trade. I don't buy this attitude about "I am an artist, and speaking

about mere tools is beneath me". It's disingenuous. You may not want to share thoughts with others, but you can bet your

bottom dollar that you will be thinking about it intensively for yourself. Workflow, formats, equipment, lighting. And so on.

[don_essedi]

My primes fit better in a coat pocket than the zoom, so I tend to use them more.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>If you need to crap on other people's working methods to feel better about your own, well go at it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems to be the plan, doesn't it?<br>

<br />People should check out Ian's work. If they are into looking for a great photographer to ask about tools and processes, even if they are irrelevant, I can't think of a better place to start. </p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>Seems to be the plan, doesn't it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ironically it was you Ian/ who was doing the sneering:-</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The whole "I only use primes" thing is such a joke.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>

<p>they could care less about this ridiculous posturing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a shame that some people try to prevent useful exchange of information and opinions because they have some kind of agenda.</p>

[andrew_gardiner]

<p>@ Simon Croft<br>

You're missing the point Simon. No one is saying that debating different methods or equipment is not helpful. Its the fact that these 'debates' are always framed in terms of false binary oppositions that makes them so devisive.<br>

Primes or Zooms, who says 'or'? Film vesus Digital - that old favorite, why not both?Canon vs Nikon...Yawn. Like we have to choose a team or something? It encourages a kind of pointless, infantile bickering so common on internet forums which is very far from 'a useful exchange of information'. At best its just plain boring and at worst decends to a kind of childish playground bullying.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Is it missing the point? I was lucky enough to meet people at an early stage who were happy to express an opinion and pass on their experience. By listening to their preferences and why, and then going on to try both, I started to form my own opinions. I'm extremely grateful that it worked out that way. In real life, every photographer has an opinion on the subject. Here apparently, according to Ian, we can only say "both", otherwise our opinions are a "joke".</p>

<p>"Both" is one point of view - and a valid one. But not, in my opinion, the best one. And it angers me when people like Ian and Jeff try to squash or ridicule other people's opinions.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Like we have to choose a team or something?</em></p>

<p>Well, people want to save money. If you have to own a full set of zooms and primes there is no money to travel to places with them. So people (non-professionals) entertain the idea of just getting either zooms or primes and that's that. Costs stay manageable.</p>

<p><em>they go with 16-35, 24-70, 70-200. Why? Because they <strong>have to</strong> get the shot, they could care less about this ridiculous posturing.</em><br>

<em>You miss the shot, and if you are shooting for a living that is a massive problem.</em></p>

<p>Photographers will miss shots whatever lens they use. You could have the wrong focal length range, insufficient aperture, poor background rendition; you could be in the wrong spot at the wrong time, you could be looking the other way while something happens. The majority of things of interest will be missed by photographers. What is important is the quality and memorability of the shots that you do get. Zooms do not solve that problem. They can help you in individual instances to obtain a more complete/fluid coverage - or not. They could be too large and obnoxious so that you cannot move about quickly enough to the right place in time, or they could make the crowd decide to treat you differently than if you were carrying an X100. Certainly many people react to those big f/2.8 zooms in a different way than if you had a small camera - after all the wide angle shots are typically made in close range. Sometimes it matters and other times not - but one cannot be indifferent to the tools as they do have an effect on the final picture that you get.</p>

<p>While I agree with getting what you're comfortable with, this includes being comfortable with it in every respect including results, handling, and practicality. It is not a trivial question, what to get. It's easy for the pros to say it's unimportant when they have had the chance to try out everything and get what works for them. People are at different levels and with different interests and backgrounds. Some people can benefit from a briefing of the advantages of zooms and primes, and you can get many more opinions online than from a (usually not so experienced) camera store salesman. That's why people ask here. Then, to make a decision they have to think about it all, and obviously no one else can do it for them. It's hardly as trivial as "getting the shot is all that matters".</p>

[luis_g]

<p> I see Simon's point. One can learn a lot from others, even those in different disciplines, if one is willing to be the student. Sometimes it might be a small thing, or something oblique, like the kind of shoes to wear.</p>

<p>Ian is right about so many PN arguments being of the "If you aren't doing it like me, you're an idiot." Add "or think like me".</p>

<p>Photography is not about saving money. It's a good idea if people stay within their means, but sometimes you don't know if something is going to work out for you -- or not -- until you try it. Figure that 50% of marriages end up in divorce, so one is bound to learn some things the hard and expensive way (Trial and terror) in photography as well. If one isn't sure, it is best to buy a prime/zoom used, and if it doesn't work out, sell it for a small loss, or sell it and buy a newer model.</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with wanting to try something different from an irrational viewpoint. Life's energies aren't always logical.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

Simon, you have been told you had the misfortune of having learned from the practice of those whom you believed had something to teach you, rather than having the great good fortune of being told what to do by an authority.

 

You see the humor, I'm sure.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Photography is not about saving money.</em></p>

<p>No, but it can be extremely expensive as a hobby (all the equipment, travel costs and time spent). By making mistakes in purchases money and time are wasted. It's better to ask and then make fewer mistakes. More money for travel and better pictures ;-) The same obviously goes for professional work except that professionals have access to all sorts of things (tools and information) through e.g. NPS, networking and through school and they get more practice. I can see why an experienced photographer would find these equipment discussions extremely boring but people are simply trying to get information so that they limit the number of mistakes on their way to achieving the results that they want. But you're right that some trial and error is needed in most cases.</p>

<p><em>There's nothing wrong with wanting to try something different from an irrational viewpoint.</em></p>

<p>I couldn't agree with you more there. Creative efforts can benefit from a frivolous jump into the unknown. ;-)</p>

[Spearhead]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Both" is one point of view - and a valid one. But not, in my opinion, the best one. And it angers me when people like Ian and Jeff try to squash or ridicule other people's opinions.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>You are the only one denigrating other people here. And you seem to have forgotten your original response, which was:</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Primes, obviously.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>an absolute statement, which obviously contradicts any interest in this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's a shame that some people try to prevent useful exchange of information and opinions because they have some kind of agenda.</p>

</blockquote>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>And you seem to have forgotten your original response, which was</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, you seem to have misunderstood, again. My "Primes, obviously" was just a jokey echo to Ian's post two above it: "Both, obviously".</p>

<p>So if you think my echo was somehow others' opinions (I really can't see how, I really think you are hallucinating), how much more so must that be true of Ian's post, which looks like it was made totally seriously.</p>

<p>Probably best to read the posts a bit more carefully before doing your next impression of a deranged terrier!</p>

 

[adlai_duran1]

<p>I have both, I prefer primes. Especially manual primes. Lighter, simpler, more elegant. But I use both.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Ilkka, </strong>I understand and agree with you on minimizing costs and buying things that don't work -- for amateurs and pros. One problem for most beginners is that they have no way to tell who's giving a good opinion. They come across a thread like this one, and it is like taking an unscientific poll. The least useful opinions are the ones that amount to <em>"Think like me". </em>They carry no information, and it doesn't matter if the author is an excellent photographer or not, his needs, preferences and favorite ergonomics may not match yours in any way. Ask why they have chosen what they use. Caveat Lector.</p>

<p>One way to explore hardware with minimal costs mistake-wise is to buy used. If it doesn't work out and you have to dump it, the damage is minimal. Same with renting before buying. Try it out, see if it dances in your hands or aids and abets your vision, then decide. That way you're learning first-hand about your own preferences on your subjects and where you live.</p>

<p>Other things to know are that there are superb, famous photographers that work and earn a living with less gear than most PN duffers own. What most people really need to upgrade is themselves. I know, it's dreary, zero-glam, intangible stuff that you can't just buy, so it doesn't get much attention, but it's the most important thing. Without it, no amount of hardware or exotic locales will make much of a difference.</p>

<p>A word about this need for travel. Travel's great. I love to travel, and it's fun to take pictures while doing so, but photographers on a tight budget who can't afford it need to know some of the best photographers that ever lived didn't travel very far.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: Just in case the above isn't clear for some, I am not saying one should not travel, buy tons of gear and seek advice. You really have to assume responsibility for your acquisitions and personal development. </p>

 

[crystal_r]

<p>primes. hands down. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>No respectable photographer would shoot with anything but an anamorphic, tilt-shift, fisheye prime with diffraction optics! However, when a zoom is used, it should be a pinhole zoom.</p>