Getting over my prime snobbery

T

Tricky01

Messages
1,325
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
I’m on a hiking weekend in wales in May and starting to plan the lenses to take. My challenge is I’m a real prime lens snob. Telephoto end aside, I love using primes. My go to wedding bag is 24, 35, 85 and 135, typically with 35 and 135 on the bodies most of the times.

I did the Yorkshire 3 peaks last year and had prepped with tammy 28-200 and Sony 16-35, but weather on the day was awful so didn’t really use. I’ve now swapped out the Sony for the Tammy 17-28, mainly so both are using 67mm filters.

It’s definitely a mental block for me, but whenever I use a zoom lens I just feel like I’m prepping with a water pistol vs a loaded gun. My photographic FOMO goes into overdrive, and I struggle to leave all the primes behind. Then just shoot with which ever primes came with me.

I’m not quite sure what the help is I’m looking for, but maybe someone else has had a similar mental block in their photography journey and has some tips. I’m not interested in moving to the GM zooms though. I value the fast ends of my primes too much and (assuming I can get over my mental block) the weight of the tamrons.

So any tips? Do I just need to go cold turkey on primes for a bit, or any other tips.
 
...and potentially miss the shot.
 
My go to for something like this would probably be 35mm and 70-180mm - maybe 85mm if I wanted to save a bit more bulk and weight.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Which is why I said let go.

You can’t possibly take every shot ever anyway so why worry.
Click to expand...


It's horses for courses. Yes, primes (almost always) give better ultimate IQ but the chances of having the best option (or even a viable option) fitted when the chance of a grab shot pops up are fairly low.
 
Nod said:
It's horses for courses. Yes, primes (almost always) give better ultimate IQ but the chances of having the best option (or even a viable option) fitted when the chance of a grab shot pops up are fairly low.
Click to expand...

He already tried zooms and hated it and he likes primes…which is why he started the thread.

Are you recommending he keep at it or embrace what his guts tells me to do?

Ps I can show you a lot of photos in the past 10 years of travel with just a 35mm, you wouldn’t know it’s all just 1 lens.
 
I am what you (the OP) referred to in your original post as a 'Prime Snob'. I just dislike using zooms. I am also, if I can help it, a choose one lens kind of person and am of the mindset (and have been for years) that @Raymond Lin mentions above. Let everything else go. Just don't worry about it. There's no point thinking "if I'd had a 200mm I could have captured that". If it were me, I would use a 35 or a 50mm and take the photos that happen.
 
Tricky01 said:
I’m not quite sure what the help is I’m looking for, but maybe someone else has had a similar mental block in their photography journey and has some tips. I’m not interested in moving to the GM zooms though. I value the fast ends of my primes too much and (assuming I can get over my mental block) the weight of the tamrons.

So any tips? Do I just need to go cold turkey on primes for a bit, or any other tips.
Click to expand...
I have never understood why Primes would be attractive. About 18 months ago I bought a Sony ML half frame to reduce the weight and two Sony zooms to cover the range, However, there was also an f1.8 35mm Sony prime at a bargain price so I bought this as well but have never yet used it or found reason to. The only thing I can suggest to you is when you get older you may find carrying heavy equipment a serious limitation. I have kept all my heavy Canon DSLR kit and very occasionally use for studio work but cannot consider this for other types of photography because of the weight. I also think having to change lenses so frequently would be disruptive and would not suit much of my photography. Modern zoom lenses can out perform many older primes due to the modern designs being more complex and high tolerance manufacture.

Dave
 
Raymond Lin said:
He already tried zooms and hated it and he likes primes…which is why he started the thread.

Are you recommending he keep at it or embrace what his guts tells me to do?

Ps I can show you a lot of photos in the past 10 years of travel with just a 35mm, you wouldn’t know it’s all just 1 lens.
Click to expand...


Not sure where he says he hates primes. From my reading, he'd like to be able to forget his "prime snobbery" and use zooms.

FWIW, I spent 20+ years with primes only and about 5 of those with just a 50 until I could afford a 28 to go with it. The flexibility that a couple of zooms add is worth the slight loss in ultimate IQ.
 
Why do people have discussions such as this?

Use whatever works for you and remember the golden rule of photography: the very best camera and lens in the world is whatever you have in your hands, when the picture is in front of you!
 
Nod said:
Not sure where he says he hates primes. From my reading, he'd like to be able to forget his "prime snobbery" and use zooms.

FWIW, I spent 20+ years with primes only and about 5 of those with just a 50 until I could afford a 28 to go with it. The flexibility that a couple of zooms add is worth the slight loss in ultimate IQ.
Click to expand...

Not hate primes, zooms. He wants to shoot primes, so just do it IMO.

Embrace the snobbery!
 
I used to be a prime zoom only shooter, but have embraced zoom lenses and am happy to shoot with either a prime or zoom lens dependent on what I’m trying to photograph.

For what I mainly shoot, a zoom lens is a much more suitable option, but I still occasionally break out a prime lens or go out with a single prime lens with the understanding I ain’t going to be able to shoot everything!

Personally in the OP’s position I’d think about what I want to shoot and choose from there.
 
I'd take 50 and 135. Where you want a wide angle then stitch a pano. 135 for a bit more reach.
 
I haven't used a zoom roguery for 10 years but before that I used one for a long time on my Nikon SLR. Before that I used fixed focal length fixed lens cameras. When I use a zoom I feel a bit odd and I always wish I had a prime mounted with its simplicity.

If you like zooms, great. If you like primes, great. If you can use either, wonderful. Just embrace it :D
 
Raymond Lin said:
Not hate primes, zooms. He wants to shoot primes, so just do it IMO.

Embrace the snobbery!
Click to expand...

Oops! Brane phart!!! Still not sure where you saw him say he hates zooms.
 
You want good high quality and high resolution glass so there is nothing strange that you have also arrived at using primes. There is zero point throwing on budget mega zooms and expect any satisfactory results. If you find a pro grade zoom that is really resolving then that's great. some 28-200 or a 3rd tier wide angle won't ever cut it. A waste of time and a waste of bag space
 
Dave Canon said:
I have never understood why Primes would be attractive. About 18 months ago I bought a Sony ML half frame to reduce the weight and two Sony zooms to cover the range, However, there was also an f1.8 35mm Sony prime at a bargain price so I bought this as well but have never yet used it or found reason to. The only thing I can suggest to you is when you get older you may find carrying heavy equipment a serious limitation. I have kept all my heavy Canon DSLR kit and very occasionally use for studio work but cannot consider this for other types of photography because of the weight. I also think having to change lenses so frequently would be disruptive and would not suit much of my photography. Modern zoom lenses can out perform many older primes due to the modern designs being more complex and high tolerance manufacture.

Dave
Click to expand...
avoidance of horrid mushy corners, wider apertures
 
Nod said:
Oops! Brane phart!!! Still not sure where you saw him say he hates zooms.
Click to expand...

It’s definitely a mental block for me, but whenever I use a zoom lens I just feel like I’m prepping with a water pistol vs a loaded gun. My photographic FOMO goes into overdrive, and I struggle to leave all the primes behind. Then just shoot with which ever primes came with me.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not hate, but he definitely see zooms is a step down in performance. Zoom - Water pistol. Primes - loaded gun.

His FOMO isn't due to focal length if he is willing to use Primes instead of the zooms when he is carrying both, then why bother carrying zooms at all.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
avoidance of horrid mushy corners, wider apertures
Click to expand...
There are those who embrace mushyness in all its splendour and never go wider than f8.

One man's rule is another woman's "euchhh"!
 
boliston said:
Less is more - I could happily live with just my trusty 28mm prime - it would be ideal for hiking - super light and great for landscape type shots
Click to expand...

Have a 28mm prime on my Pentax ME Super, it just as well be superglued on the body. Great for landscape and great for street.

When I go out on Dartmoor, I take a Sigma 24-35 with me on a 6D mk2 and being a filter user and sometimes use 2 sets in different orientation, can't go any wider than 28mm otherwise you get black bits around the corners.

AndrewFlannigan said:
There are those who embrace mushyness in all its splendour and never go wider than f8.

One man's rule is another woman's "euchhh"!
Click to expand...

Don't think I have ever gone wider than f/8 when shooting a landscape. I often stick around the f/11 - f/16 territory..... then put a nifty a fifty on and I find myself drawn to f/1.8, it's like there aren't any apertures between f/1.8 and f/8!
 
Think of it this way; for any given image there is only one combination of settings that is ideal, and that includes the focal length chosen.

You cannot simply "zoom with your feet" because camera position also affects everything else... it affects the DoFocus, recorded sharpness/resolution/detail, required aperture, required ISO, required shutter speed; and probably most importantly, it determines the perspective (point of view) within the image.
 
I do a lot of Photowalks on Dartmoor and I love the flexibility of zooms for that, typically I take these 3 with me;

Three X-T2s.JPG

I can almost replicate that setup with mt Fuji GFX 50S cameras, however, when the conditions are right I will take these guys and not miss the zooms (nor hardly ever mount the 28 or 50);

02 M9 Travel Set-1020043 PS Adj Upload.JPG

I don't have zooms for my Bronica SQ-Ais but can get from 40mm (around 18mm FF) through to 150 (around 75mm FF) plus I have a very rarely used 250 (around 135 FF) so when I am out with that kit I just use the tools I have and don't fret about the ones I don't have.

That said if I was doing a one off trip I would almost always take a zoom setup for the flexibility they offer and shoot digitally.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Just take the prime and let go of the focal length you are missing.

Embrace the snobbery and embrace the limitation.
Click to expand...
+1.

If you have space, I'd add your 100-400 to pick out anything more distant. Wide-angle landscape photography doesn't go well with hiking if you're in a group of non-photographers. More closely cropped compositions are quicker to find and take.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
avoidance of horrid mushy corners, wider apertures
Click to expand...
I do not get mushy corners with my Canon L glass zoom lenses and F2.8 is wide enough for me though I rarely use them that wide. If shooting low light, I prefer to use a tripod and thus a lower shutter speed.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
I do not get mushy corners with my Canon L glass zoom lenses and F2.8 is wide enough for me though I rarely use them that wide. If shooting low light, I prefer to use a tripod and thus a lower shutter speed.

Dave
Click to expand...

I know we're maybe getting slightly off track here.

I haven't used a tripod for years but even when I did I found that they were limited to only specific things as if the subject is alive it may move or at least move in any even slight breeze and other things may move under power. All these things may happen if I'm out in the world rather than doing some still life shooting.

Of curse with wider than f2.8 you may gain shutter speed or a lower ISO but you may lose depth.

I suppose there is no do it all answer.
 
woof woof said:
I know we're maybe getting slightly off track here.

I haven't used a tripod for years but even when I did I found that they were limited to only specific things as if the subject is alive it may move or at least move in any even slight breeze and other things may move under power. All these things may happen if I'm out in the world rather than doing some still life shooting.

Of curse with wider than f2.8 you may gain shutter speed or a lower ISO but you may lose depth.

I suppose there is no do it all answer.
Click to expand...

I tend to shoot in two different ways (astro photography aside.....)

Dedicated sunset, sunrise, landscape usually on a tripod with the composition set. I can then wait for the light, clouds, colour, focus stack, exposure blend.....

Or I just have the camera in hand shooting in Av with auto ISO and minimum shutter speed.
 
LeeRatters said:
I tend to shoot in two different ways (astro photography aside.....)

Dedicated sunset, sunrise, landscape usually on a tripod with the composition set. I can then wait for the light, clouds, colour, focus stack, exposure blend.....

Or I just have the camera in hand shooting in Av with auto ISO and minimum shutter speed.
Click to expand...

I used to take pictures of just about anything anywhere but later pretty much limited myself to social events, gigs and cars. Later I went back to taking pictures of just about anything anywhere and that's where I am now. I've only used a tripod for a tiny fraction of a fraction of my "photography" with the vast majority being hand held and that needs a reasonable shutter speed of maybe 1/xx at the slowest end and at a pinch for some things and taking pictures with people in them needs maybe 1/xxx maybe most of the time because people move. I also find that I can be irritated by motion blur in the world (leaves, branches, flowers etc) so most of the time I'm at 1/xxx rather than 1/xx which I find mostly too slow unless it's truly still life and for these reasons tripod use is vary rare for me.

And then there's available light, aperture choice and ISO. I'm often disappointed at the ISO I need to get to 1/xxx at f8 in what passes for daylight here.
 
Last edited:
I love good zooms, some of the better 70-200 ans 24-70 lenses have very good image quality
 
fujilover said:
24-70 lenses have very good image quality
Click to expand...
24-70mm's are particularly problematic to design. Maybe the newest Sony GMII is just about approaching good, haven't tried it yet beyond looking at MTFs and test charts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top