Does Using a Fixed/Limited Range Focal Lenght(s) Help or Hinder Creativity? VOTE NOW!

[Naboo32]

This is a topic which tends to come up in numerous threads, but I can't recall having seen one dedicated to it yet . It also seems to inflame passions, one way or the other, so I would ask at that outset that we all try to keep the discussions civilised and accept that there will certainly be totally conflicting, but deeply held beliefs .

So, here are the two (simplified) extremes of the 'argument':

A: Using a prime lens (or maybe two different focal length primes) makes you a better photographer, because you are forced to use your imagination to create a well composed image with only the limited tools at your disposal :shrug:.

B: As a creative photographer, you will always analyse any subject and decide on the optimum focal length and composition to use to match your creative vision, forcing you to exercise more creative control to attain the final image :shrug:.


I think that most members would agree that each option has a degree of merit to it and perhaps even that both are equally true, but I'm just curious to see which of the two carries the most weight here. Remember, the underlying question here is, "Which option has the most potential to improve ones photographic skills" .

So, would you be kind enough to cast a vote in the poll, or better still, write a post here to explain how you feel about the merits of one or the other ?

Thanks for reading !

 

[Nod]

Back when I started taking photos, zooms weren't nearly as good as they are now (with maybe one or 2 exceptions). Many zooms can now compete with primes in terms of IQ and sometimes footzoom is NOT an option. I'll still look at a scene and decide which focal length would suit it best, then select the zoom that covers that length - or, if I'm carrying the right prime, I may even grab that out of the bag.

 

[KIPAX]

Funny cus I havent seen this argument anywhere in the sports forums... You sure it comes up a lot and invokes such passion... Seems a bit silly to me..

Oh hang on.. its not wedding togs is it?

 

[Naboo32]

Back when I started taking photos, zooms weren't nearly as good as they are now (with maybe one or 2 exceptions). Many zooms can now compete with primes in terms of IQ and sometimes footzoom is NOT an option. I'll still look at a scene and decide which focal length would suit it best, then select the zoom that covers that length - or, if I'm carrying the right prime, I may even grab that out of the bag.

Many good points in there, Nod - at least, IMO .

Funny cus I havent seen this argument anywhere in the sports forums... You sure it comes up a lot and invokes such passion... Seems a bit silly to me..

Oh hang on.. its not wedding togs is it?

No, not any particular type of 'tog' that I can identify.

It's most often evident in the 'Equipment' part of the forum, where you will often find statements like, "Forget buying a zoom lens and just zoom with your feet", or conversely you might see others saying, "A camera with just a fixed focal length lens is no use to a serious photographer, these days"?

I have to say, the latter is less common, but I wanted to explore people's opinions, as blanket statements like those above can really have an impact on those who are new to the hobby (as I was, just a couple of years ago) and I think that it might be helpful to those people if they could hear extended versions of each argument. If nothing else, it may help them with equipment purchases :shrug:!?

 

[littlemonster]

No option for the fact that creativity and improvement are to do with yourself, not what you stick on your camera?

 

[Naboo32]

No option for the fact that creativity and improvement are to do with yourself, not what you stick on your camera?

Correct !

That would be part of a much bigger question - besides, if I had that option, everyone would tick it and I'd be no nearer to finding out what I want to know .

 

[boyfalldown]

A: Using a prime lens (or maybe two different focal length primes) makes you a better photographer, because you are forced to use your imagination to create a well composed image with only the limited tools at your disposal .

prime lenses are only a limited tool?

 

[tdodd]

Assuming IQ is adequate from either, fast primes give you more creative options in terms of shallow DOF control, motion control and reduced noise. Zooms allow you to position yourself exactly where you want to achieve the creative perspective you desire and to frame the shot to make maximum use of your sensor area for maximum IQ. There is a place in my kit bag for both. Mostly I use zoom lenses, since all bar one are fixed f/2.8 max aperture all the way from 16mm to 200mm so they cover most bases. Only my 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are faster.

 

[Naboo32]

prime lenses are only a limited tool?

In terms of the lack of choice of focal lengths (the subject of this thread) that a single prime offers, your focal length options are limited compared to a zoom lens, is what I meant.

Sorry if the wording was in any way confusing.

 

[Naboo32]

Assuming IQ is adequate from either, fast primes give you more creative options in terms of shallow DOF control, motion control and reduced noise. Zooms allow you to position yourself exactly where you want to achieve the creative perspective you desire and to frame the shot to make maximum use of your sensor area for maximum IQ. There is a place in my kit bag for both. Mostly I use zoom lenses, since all bar one are fixed f/2.8 max aperture all the way from 16mm to 200mm so they cover most bases. Only my 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are faster.

More good points there Tim . Indeed, IQ and (generally) larger max apertures (not to mention reduced distortion etc. etc.) are all useful features found on many prime lenses and not found on nearly as many zoom lenses - I agree.

The thing that I was really asking about though, was not the relative IQ merits of each, but more about whether (sometimes) being forced to change your physical position and/or your mental approach as to how you take a picture because you only have (say) a 50mm prime, is a better tool for developing creativity than having the greater range of shooting options that a zoom affords and making sure that you discipline yourself to use those options wisely :shrug:.

For the record, I regularly use both zooms and primes too .

 

[tdodd]

In terms of the lack of choice of focal lengths (the subject of this thread) that a single prime offers, your focal length options are limited compared to a zoom lens, is what I meant.

Sorry if the wording was in any way confusing.

OK, if you're more concerned about focal length then being constrained to one or two is not great. There are two main scenarios where the zoom wins....

1. You position yourself exactly where you wish for the perfect perspective and then you choose exactly the focal length you need to frame the subject/scene perfectly;
2. You stand where circumstances force you to (behind a fence, in front of a wall, across the road) and then you choose exactly the focal length you need to frame the subject/scene perfectly;

If you want to shoot at 173mm then which prime lens would you use and how much would it cost? What about 367mm? What about 11mm on a crop body?

If you don't have the option of the right focal length then either....
- you are forced to shoot too tight and lose something from the edges of frame;
- you are forced to shoot too loose and thus lose IQ from needing to crop;
- you are forced to foot zoom and lose the perspective you wanted.

None is ideal.

If you're a prime sort of guy and go to the zoo then how many primes would you take? How would your creativity be limited with only one prime vs only one zoom. I find my 100-400 lens to be very versatile at the zoo. If I were to replace it with a single prime lens, which should it be? It would probably be a 200/2 or 300/2.8 with a brace of teleconverters and perhaps a couple of camera bodies to expand my compositional options. That seems an expensive, tedious and heavy alternative to my little zoom lens.

The strength of primes is in their DOF control, their speed and their IQ. Creative/versatile composition is not their strength. It's their weakness.

Given the 3:2 format of DSLRs, if you wanted to cover a wide focal length range with primes, with minimal cropping, each prime would need to be 50% longer than the next. So, to cover my 16mm-400mm four lens zoom range I'd need a 15mm prime (closest available to 16mm), 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm, 400mm. That's nine lenses to replace four, and at what weight and cost? And still lacking the framing flexibility and speedy convenience of the zooms.

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

surely some of A when learning to allow you to do B

ie force yourself to be creative with a fixed lens then allow that creativity to be fully nurtured as per B

 

[AJQS]

Being stuck with one lens on a camera is great, makes you work a lot more at getting a good composition. BUT if you need to travel light then it makes a lot more sense to have a general purpose zoom.

 

[Naboo32]

OK, if you're more concerned about focal length then being constrained to one or two is not great. There are two main scenarios where the zoom wins....

1. You position yourself exactly where you wish for the perfect perspective and then you choose exactly the focal length you need to frame the subject/scene perfectly;
2. You stand where circumstances force you to (behind a fence, in front of a wall, across the road) and then you choose exactly the focal length you need to frame the subject/scene perfectly;

If you want to shoot at 173mm then which prime lens would you use and how much would it cost? What about 367mm? What about 11mm on a crop body?

If you don't have the option of the right focal length then either....
- you are forced to shoot too tight and lose something from the edges of frame;
- you are forced to shoot too loose and thus lose IQ from needing to crop;
- you are forced to foot zoom and lose the perspective you wanted.

None is ideal.

If you're a prime sort of guy and go to the zoo then how many primes would you take? How would your creativity be limited with only one prime vs only one zoom. I find my 100-400 lens to be very versatile at the zoo. If I were to replace it with a single prime lens, which should it be? It would probably be a 200/2 or 300/2.8 with a brace of teleconverters and perhaps a couple of camera bodies to expand my compositional options. That seems an expensive, tedious and heavy alternative to my little zoom lens.

The strength of primes is in their DOF control, their speed and their IQ. Creative/versatile composition is not their strength. It's their weakness.

Given the 3:2 format of DSLRs, if you wanted to cover a wide focal length range with primes, with minimal cropping, each prime would need to be 50% longer than the next. So, to cover my 16mm-400mm four lens zoom range I'd need a 15mm prime (closest available to 16mm), 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm, 400mm. That's nine lenses to replace four, and at what weight and cost? And still lacking the framing flexibility and speedy convenience of the zooms.

Great post, Tim . Highlights most of the issues/differences nicely. I notice that you wrote (of primes); "Creative/versatile composition is not their strength. It's their weakness". That sounds (to me) like a tick in the B box, if I might play Devil's advocate for a moment !?

surely some of A when learning to allow you to do B

ie force yourself to be creative with a fixed lens then allow that creativity to be fully nurtured as per B

Clever answer and quite true, I suspect, when learning to visualise in your mind's eye what a certain focal length really 'looks like'.

Being stuck with one lens on a camera is great, makes you work a lot more at getting a good composition. BUT if you need to travel light then it makes a lot more sense to have a general purpose zoom.

Alan, you sound like an Option A man there !? Do you find that using the same focal length for different subjects/situations leads you to find compositions that you might not otherwise have thought of? Is that how a fixed focal length can assist creativity :shrug:? Could do, I suppose .

 

[tdodd]

If you ignore aperture and IQ as being factors then how can a 50mm prime possibly foster more creativity than a 17-55 or 24-70 lens? If you have the zoom you can always set it to 50mm and leave it there, but you have so many options beyond that. What can I get from my 100/2.8 macro that I cannot get from my 70-200/2.8 lens? Not very much except the ability to focus a bit closer. Heck, it isn't even any faster. Where's the creativity in that?

How would a 400mm prime give me more creative options than a 100-400 zoom? I'd have to settle for elephant headshots rather than whole elephants. If I wanted a bit of scenery too I'd be SOL.

Creativity is in the mind. The tools you use can either help or hinder. In themselves they are not creative, and having the tool force you to do things you would prefer not to does not strike me as aiding creativity. It constrains it.

 

[Ed Sutton]

...having the tool force you to do things you would prefer not to does not strike me as aiding creativity. It constrains it.

Not necessarily so. It makes you change the way you think (or in the case of lenses, look and see). Which enhances creativity.

Less can be more.

 

[paulminus273]

IMHO there should be an option c taking whatever kit you have and making the best of it, fosters creativity
The greats of old produced images that most of us will only aspirer to with kit that today you can buy on fleabay for pocket change, the creativity is making the most of what is there with what you have

 

[tdodd]

Not necessarily so. It makes you change the way you think (or in the case of lenses, look and see). Which enhances creativity.

Less can be more.

But a zoom set to 50mm has as much creative potential as a 50mm prime with respect to composition. With a zoom you can choose to place that creative constraint (or enabler) upon yourself or not. With the prime you have no option.

Put it another way - suppose you have no lenses at all and you want to buy your first. Which one will allow you to explore/nurture/challenge your compositional creativity more? I have my view, which I'm sure you know. Are you really recommending the opposite?

 

[Ed Sutton]

What I was suggesting is that having multiple options can be as big a hindrance to creative vision as having only one.

Working within limited parameters is a good discipline to foster creativity. Even if you only do it as an exercise once in a while.

I was thinking to myself today that if I was on 'Desert Island Lenses' which would be the one lens I'd save. And much as I like my zooms and telephotos it was my 35/1.8 (for crop sensor).

 

[Ed Sutton]

IMHO there should be an option c taking whatever kit you have and making the best of it, fosters creativity
The greats of old produced images that most of us will only aspirer to with kit that today you can buy on fleabay for pocket change, the creativity is making the most of what is there with what you have

 

[Vic]

IMHO there should be an option c taking whatever kit you have and making the best of it, fosters creativity
The greats of old produced images that most of us will only aspirer to with kit that today you can buy on fleabay for pocket change, the creativity is making the most of what is there with what you have

I can't even vote on one of them. I don't think that much about kit when it comes to creativity to be honest, it bores me!

 

[Naboo32]

IMHO there should be an option c taking whatever kit you have and making the best of it, fosters creativity
The greats of old produced images that most of us will only aspirer to with kit that today you can buy on fleabay for pocket change, the creativity is making the most of what is there with what you have

... is certainly a very fair way to look at the bigger picture . I have to say though, that it has no bearing on the actual, specific question that I set out to ask about focal lengths and composition, which is exactly why I only put two options in the poll .

It sounds very much to me like there are two different views on what 'creative' means, in this context. What you, Paul, and Ed are talking about is something that I would term 'inventiveness', or 'ingenuity' . Sure, those are creative processes, but they are not necessarily appreciated in the final image. The kind of 'creativity' that I was describing (although not very well, I have to admit ), was the kind that the (discerning) viewer sees immediately when they view the photograph. You know sometimes when you view a picture and think, "Wow, that's exactly the right framing and composition for that shot - what a great choice of focal length"!? Well, that's one way in which I would judge 'creativity'. If someone else using a prime lens has managed to get a similar shot of the same scene, but perhaps lacking some of the 'context' due to the lens being too long (for instance), I'm going to be looking at that picture and thinking, "Hmm, that wasn't the most creative choice of focal length", without any appreciation whatsoever for how much effort may have gone into making that shot.

And I know, because this happens to me all the time ! I've shot pictures of well known landmarks/subjects and then seen other pictures of the same thing, shot by other photographers. Leaving aside all issues of lighting, image quality etc. etc., I can still judge the 'creativity' in their choice of focal length (and the resulting composition) and decide whether or not theirs was a better creative choice than mine - usually, it is!

Anyway, I'll put my cards on the table now and say; I that I voted 'B' in the poll, as I don't really buy the argument that having more focal lengths available automatically reduces the creativity of the photographer and that their potential will only be unlocked by limiting themselves to prime lenses :|. To my way of thinking, having a wide range of focal lengths available (be they zooms or primes), just opens up the creative possibilities even further and reduces the list of possible excuses for poor results, which is surely a help to creativity :shrug:!?

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

If you ignore aperture ... as being factors

that's like saying on a zoom let's ignore the fact you can change focal length

What can I get from my 100/2.8 macro that I cannot get from my 70-200/2.8 lens?

1:1 reproduction

Not very much except the ability to focus a bit closer... Where's the creativity in that?

miniature DoF can be very creative

having the tool force you to do things you would prefer not to does not strike me as aiding creativity. It constrains it.

alternatively it makes you think in ways you perhaps hadn't thought before.


Maybe with a zoom you always stand where you initially see something and then use the zoom to fill the frame rather than thinking about how it would best be framed at Xmm, or how you could get a bit closer and open up the aperture to throw the background, which was a little distracting, OOF and to help isolate the subject

 

[paulminus273]

The history of the statue precedes Michelangelo's work on it from 1501 to 1504.[4] Prior to Michelangelo's involvement, the Overseers of the Office of Works of the Duomo (Operai), consisting mostly of members of the influential woolen cloth guild, the Arte della Lana, had plans to commission a series of twelve large Old Testament sculptures for the buttresses of the cathedral of Santa Maria Del Fiore.[5] One of those statues had been made by Donatello in 1410 - a figure of Joshua made of terracotta - and a second, also a terracotta, but this time of Hercules, was commissioned from the Florentine sculptor Agostino di Duccio in 1463; scholars suggest that Agostino was working under Donatello's direction.[6] Eager to continue their project, in 1464, the Operai contracted Agostino to create a sculpture of David. A block of marble was provided, from a quarry in Carrara, a town in the Apuan Alps in northern Tuscany. Agostino only got as far as beginning to shape the legs, feet and the torso, roughing out some drapery and probably gouging a hole between the legs. His association with the project ceased, for reasons unknown, with the death of Donatello in 1466, and ten years later Antonio Rossellino was commissioned to take up where Agostino had left off.
Rossellino's contract was terminated, soon thereafter, and the block of marble remained neglected for twenty-five years, all the while exposed to the elements in the yard of the cathedral workshop. This was of great concern to the Opera authorities, as such a large piece of marble not only was costly but also represented a large amount of labour and difficulty in its transportation to Florence. In 1500, an inventory of the cathedral workshops described the piece as "a certain figure of marble called David, badly blocked out and supine."[7] A year later, documents showed that the Operai were determined to find an artist who could take this large piece of marble and turn it into a finished work of art. They ordered the block of stone, which they called The Giant, "raised on its feet" so that a master experienced in this kind of work might examine it and express an opinion. Though Leonardo da Vinci and others were consulted, it was Michelangelo, only twenty-six years old, who convinced the Operai that he deserved the commission. On August 16, 1501, Michelangelo was given the official contract to undertake this challenging new task.[8] He began carving the statue early in the morning on Monday, September 13, a month after he was awarded the contract. He would work on the massive biblical hero for more than two years.
Would a prefect bit of stone and all the modern tools used by a lesser artist been more creative

 

[Zsev]

I'm more partial to using primes of late.
Using zooms I normally just zoom out and snap the whole scene. That usually results in normal looking pictures.

With my 35mm prime, often the whole subject can't fit into the viewfinder so I'm forced to look for other ways or angles to shoot from. I do miss out lots of landscape orientated shots when using primes, but I also get significantly more interesting shots of an otherwise typical scene.

 

[AJQS]

Alan, you sound like an Option A man there !? Do you find that using the same focal length for different subjects/situations leads you to find compositions that you might not otherwise have thought of? Is that how a fixed focal length can assist creativity :shrug:? Could do, I suppose .

Yes, you can't just stand still and zoom, you have to move about get yourself into some weird funny angles to get everything lined up right.

I find a lot of my best shots have all come from prime lenses, perhaps because I haven't been able to just snap so readily.

I have a 24mm Vivitar permanently attached to my OM30. (It used to be permanently attached to my E520 too)

 

[Rutherfordium]

I'm more partial to using primes of late.
Using zooms I normally just zoom out and snap the whole scene. That usually results in normal looking pictures.

With my 35mm prime, often the whole subject can't fit into the viewfinder so I'm forced to look for other ways or angles to shoot from. I do miss out lots of landscape orientated shots when using primes, but I also get significantly more interesting shots of an otherwise typical scene.

^^ this (imho) also discussed quite recently by Neil van Niekerk http://neilvn.com/tangents/2010/12/19/composition-a-lesson-re-learned/#more-5465

 

[LongLensPhotography]

A big box of primes can be sufficient, if the weather conditions do not prevent changing lenses (like in a downpour, standing in a sea, in sand dunes, chemical plant and so on) and presuming there is time for a change. A better choice would be 1-2 fast sharp zooms, and spare change in the pocket. Using zoom lens badly is not an excuse to use a prime.

Of course there are times when f/2.0 or f/1.2 can really make the photo stand out (mostly portraits and product shots). There are cases when the subject is too far away even for the heaviest and longest prime where no zoom will get close (pun intended).

 

[tdodd]

that's like saying on a zoom let's ignore the fact you can change focal length

They weren't my rules, that was the OP. The whole topic is about focal length.

1:1 reproduction

I feared someone would raise that point. You can go there if you like, but that has little (nothing) to do with focal length. In any event I could always add macro tubes to the zoom. I do have a set that will go to 68mm.

miniature DoF can be very creative

See above.

alternatively it makes you think in ways you perhaps hadn't thought before.


Maybe with a zoom you always stand where you initially see something and then use the zoom to fill the frame rather than thinking about how it would best be framed at Xmm,

That's not the lens limiting you. That's you limiting yourself, or simply being lazy. Personally I like to find the right shooting position first, lining things up and juggling relative sizes and angles. I don't need the camera in order to do that. Once I'm in the right position I will then reach for my camera and select the focal length I need.

or how you could get a bit closer and open up the aperture to throw the background, which was a little distracting, OOF and to help isolate the subject

The OP doesn't want to include aperture in the discussion. The topic appears to be about perspective and framing.

 

[swanseamale47]

I can't help wondering how many people with zoom lens only use the two ends and never set it in between. Probaly a supprising number.

 

[Naboo32]

Yes, you can't just stand still and zoom, you have to move about get yourself into some weird funny angles to get everything lined up right.

I find a lot of my best shots have all come from prime lenses, perhaps because I haven't been able to just snap so readily.

I have a 24mm Vivitar permanently attached to my OM30. (It used to be permanently attached to my E520 too)

Thanks for the reply, Alan .

You know what, I think that I'm finally starting to get this now. The people who see prime lenses as an indisputable aid to creativity, are people who might be more prone to just standing on the spot and zooming, if they had a zoom lens fitted, without giving a further thought to their compositional options :shrug:. How did I not see that before !?

I can certainly see how spending some time working with just a limited number (like one, maybe) of primes can teach photographers to try and be inventive with their framing and how it can force them to consider options that they may not have normally considered, because they don't have the same options as with a zoom lens/range of many different primes. What I have never understood, or have probably misunderstood, is the opinion that always shooting with one or two focal lengths will make your photographs look more creative . I guess that's not actually what people are trying to say, although it often comes across that way (to me).

Actually, I've always slightly resented getting comments like, "Forget of buying those 28-70mm and 70-200mm zoom lens (for instance). Spend the money on a 50mm and a 105mm prime and learn to zoom with your feet instead!", which have appeared in threads that I've posted about equipment in the past. I could never really see why these people were blind to the fact that, on occasion, the (sometimes very large) FL gaps between one's prime lenses could contain just the focal length required for 'the perfect shot'. Or worse still, for the only shot!

On several different occasions now, I've gone out armed with only a 50mm prime and have come home mortified (slight exaggeration ) at the number of shots I had envisaged, that were simply not possible, due to obstacles like lack of available space behind me to move into to get a wider angle, rivers that I couldn't stand on to get a closer framing, or even just my natural resistance to standing in the middle of three lanes of traffic to try and frame a building with the moon rising above it at a certain point. Each time I've cursed myself and promised to go back another time and try again, using the right lens :razz:.

Besides, if I'm planning a photograph (rather than just grabbing a quick candid, when a zoom is unquestionably more valuable, IMO), then I tend to walk around the subject and look at it from all available angles, before I even put the camera to my eye. It really makes no difference what lens I have on, because once I've decided on the framing that I want, I have to then find the right lens to deliver it - where possible, that lens will be a prime (for the sake of IQ). The key thing here is that I, the photographer, am dictating the focal length to my equipment, not the other way around. What's 'not creative' about that !?

Anywho, I've made myself sound like a pompous ass now, I know that , but at least I've now got a better understanding of why people make those kind of comments.

Thanks everyone for the input - I think that I have my answer now. 'Fostering creativity' is (at least) a two stage process. Using primes is a good place to start, to break any lazy habits, which zoom lenses can encourage. After that comes choosing the optimum focal length to satisfy your creative vision and not allowing your equipment to limit your options.

So, in many ways, those who voted 'A' and those who voted 'B' are equally correct !

 

[boyfalldown]

Thanks for the reply, Alan .


Actually, I've always slightly resented getting comments like, "Forget of buying those 28-70mm and 70-200mm zoom lens (for instance). Spend the money on a 50mm and a 105mm prime and learn to zoom with your feet instead!", which have appeared in threads that I've posted about equipment in the past. I could never really see why these people were blind to the fact that, on occasion, the (sometimes very large) FL gaps between one's prime lenses could contain just the focal length required for 'the perfect shot'. Or worse still, for the only shot!

On several different occasions now, I've gone out armed with only a 50mm prime and have come home mortified (slight exaggeration ) at the number of shots I had envisaged, that were simply not possible, due to obstacles like lack of available space behind me to move into to get a wider angle, rivers that I couldn't stand on to get a closer framing, or even just my natural resistance to standing in the middle of three lanes of traffic to try and frame a building with the moon rising above it at a certain point. Each time I've cursed myself and promised to go back another time and try again, using the right lens :razz:.

Its interesting you say that - I'm 3/4 of the way though a 365 with just a 50mm. There are shots I've not been able to get with that FL, but on the whole if they were shots I was after I wouldn't of taken a 50mm.

It does (IMHO) make you think about the shot more, part of the reason I did it was because I thought and still think that having the FL restriction would make me a better photographer. On the whole I think it has. I can't think of an occasion I've missed a shot, but I was never a wildlife shooter (for example) and I've often gone out and looked at a scene 'in 50mm' when looking for a shot (if that makes sense)

I agree with you about the foot zoom comments, you just can't replicate some of the Fl affects that you get at various FL, so for example you'll never get the perspective changes at 24mm with an 85 mm no matter how far away you move.

A & B are right - it does depend on the photographer as you say

 

[Naboo32]

Its interesting you say that - I'm 3/4 of the way though a 365 with just a 50mm. There are shots I've not been able to get with that FL, but on the whole if they were shots I was after I wouldn't of taken a 50mm.

It does (IMHO) make you think about the shot more, part of the reason I did it was because I thought and still think that having the FL restriction would make me a better photographer. On the whole I think it has. I can't think of an occasion I've missed a shot, but I was never a wildlife shooter (for example) and I've often gone out and looked at a scene 'in 50mm' when looking for a shot (if that makes sense)

I agree with you about the foot zoom comments, you just can't replicate some of the Fl affects that you get at various FL, so for example you'll never get the perspective changes at 24mm with an 85 mm no matter how far away you move.

A & B are right - it does depend on the photographer as you say

Amen to that, Hugh !

I think that the reason for my perspective on this issue being a bit somewhat skewed , is that I haven't settled on any one type of photography yet and am furiously trying to learn a bit of everything at once. Will that approach make me a better photographer!? I seriously doubt it .

I agree with you 100%, that using a prime does (well, should) make the user think more about how to get a 'good' picture with it and thereby is an aid to creativity. Like you, Hugh, I just don't happen to think that it's the be all and end all .

 

[tdodd]

I can't help wondering how many people with zoom lens only use the two ends and never set it in between. Probaly a supprising number.

I thought I'd take a look at the spread of focal length usage for my 70-200. There is undoubtedly a peak at either end, which does not surprise me at all, but a pretty broad use of all other focal lengths in between as well.

I would hate to have to pick a single prime lens, or even several, to replace my 70-200. Too much money, too much weight, too much faffing about, too many missed shots.

The pattern is similar with my 24-70 as well. With my 100-400 there is a big shift towards 400mm (almost 50% of shots), but plenty of other focal lengths share the burden.

 

[Naboo32]

I thought I'd take a look at the spread of focal length usage for my 70-200. There is undoubtedly a peak at either end, which does not surprise me at all, but a pretty broad use of all other focal lengths in between as well.

I would hate to have to pick a single prime lens, or even several, to replace my 70-200. Too much money, too much weight, too much faffing about, too many missed shots.

The pattern is similar with my 24-70 as well. With my 100-400 there is a big shift towards 400mm (almost 50% of shots), but plenty of other focal lengths share the burden.

Cool! It's certainly a great illustration of the versatility of zoom lenses, Tim . Of course, the nay-sayers are going to question whether or not you've just chosen to stand in the comfiest spot and zoom to get a convenient framing, or whether you've made your (rough) decision about which focal length to use, before picking your spot and zooming to the exact length that gives you the framing that you envisaged .

I think that there's no software that can analyse that one .

 

[Ed Sutton]

On the subject of restrictions fostering creative thinking...

http://www.pixiq.com/article/10-x-10

 

[Pete B]

My first SLR was an OM1n with a great 50mm lens, couldnt afford another lens for a while and was saving for a flash anyway, so I didn't have a choice. When I eventually got a 28mm and a 70-150 zoom my 50mm was still my lens of choice as I seemed to still take my best shots with it. Now thinking of bagging my zooms for a while and and just using the 35mm(70mm) macro to be more "at one" with my camera.

 

[Naboo32]

On the subject of restrictions fostering creative thinking...

http://www.pixiq.com/article/10-x-10

Luckily Ed, I can be excused from taking part in that one . We don't have 'feet' over here, let alone 10 of them !

 

[maleficarum]

The people who see prime lenses as an indisputable aid to creativity, are people who might be more prone to just standing on the spot and zooming, if they had a zoom lens fitted, without giving a further thought to their compositional options

I think this is the key point here. Why force yourself to use only one tool when it's more than reasonable to carry both zooms and primes? If you're able to capture creative compositions with a zoom lens, then there's just no need to use a prime to force thought about composition. Unless there was no thought about composition in the first place.

I can see the argument for use of a prime for consistency of viewpoint on an aesthetic level, but I know that my own needs are best served by using whatever lens I deem appropriate in any given situation, whether zoom or prime.

 

[Marciofs]

I have a 35mm and a 50mm and I am very happy useing them in 99% of my photos. The zoom lens I have is only for travelling or if I really need a wider angle. I want a 85mm only to shoot models.