Are zoom lenses counterproductive in photography?

[Sanford]

<p>This thread just points out how much we miss and need to reinstate the "Off Topic" forum.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Sanford, I suspect if the Off Topic had been used mostly for discussions of grammar, it would never have been closed, though it might not have received much attention! What got the Off Topic forum closed were the political flame wars. I don't miss that part terribly much.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>The problem that cannot be corrected away is focus shift. Some zooms are parfocal, which means that the focus point doesn't change when the focal length changes. But many are not. Just be aware of that fact.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Parfocal behavior is nearly moot for auto focus lenses. That the better Sony zoom lenses are nearly parfocal and non-breathing is a testament to the importance of video, where transitions are as important as their landing points. Corrections easy enough for a collection of still photos become rather daunting when one minute generates 3600 or more images.<br /> <br /> Whether a zoom lens is parfocal or not, distorts or has a variable aperture are a design decisions, always a compromise with other characteristics, including the weight and expense of additional elements to achieve better correction.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I use prime lenses exclusively these days, and very few of them have AF. When I did more commissioned work, especially sports and weddings, I always had a 2.8 zoom handy, even if it stayed in the bag the whole time.</p>

<p>Sure I think l prime lenses have a lot of benefits over zooms. Well, obviously. The big one is that if you leave the house with a single prime, there are absolutely no lens choices to make: you make the photo the way that you can, or you don't make it at all. Similarly, most prime lenses are brighter and/or higher quality than zoom lenses in the same or similar price points. An OEM 70-200 is usually better than a Rokinon, but it's not like those two are likely to be on the same photographer's budget.</p>

<p>That can offer a lot more freedom than you might expect. If changing focal length on a whim isn't an option, you(or at least I) are a lot less likely think, 'if only my lens were a little wider', or 'if only my lens were a little brighter.' For the most part, I find that having what I have makes it a lot easier to take photos. If I can't take the photo I want, I just move on - there's no messing about with twenty photos of differing zoom lengths over the span of ten minutes. I have it, or I do not.</p>

<p>But these days, I only take photos for me. I do photo work a few times a year, mostly volunteer for the same few organizations. Prime lenses work for me, because I have a really solid idea of what my pictures should look like, and it turns out that I can take all of them with a 50. Or a 60, in an ideal world.</p>

<p>If I were to go back to doing commissioned work, I would try to do it with my 50, and the 100 and 20 that usually sit in the bag. But after (presumably) failing that, I would get myself a couple zooms again.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>If you absolutely, positively have to get the shot, carry the darned zoom.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The joke comes to mind, about the early astronauts taking pictures of earth from orbit, ruined because somebody moved ;)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>;) indeed, Edward.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Hmm, you are probably right, Lannie. I took my ladder out to get some early morning sunny shots of newborn spring daffodils and an old building from a higher viewpoint and I am beginning to really appreciate the 16-35 zoom for framing. We get to see things in a different way, at least the case I find with the wide angle zoom. I guess I stayed with only VF-FR cameras and fixed lenses too long and needed the change (however late in coming). </p>