Pros don't use primes

pro's equipment is usually pretty beat up, probably got some gaffa tape going on somewhere, but the real sign of a pro is that you adjust settings without looking at the camera- I was watching a plastered sorting out our ceiling today, he was in and out of his toolbelt without ever looking down, he knew exactly which tool he needed and knew exactly which pocket is was in

admittedly if he was hammering in a nail using the backside of a screw driver I might equally applaud his MacGyver attitude as well as wonder why he's not using a hammer
 
Sometimes, going against what's considered the norm helps you differentiate.

Not so much in a professional sense, but I've found this to be the case shooting Motorsport and wildlife with a Fuji. Photos that wouldn't be given a second glance shot with a Nikon and 70-200 are suddenly attracting over 2k visitors to my site a week, gaining the attention of Fuji themselves and generating lots of discussion.

As I love the community aspect of photography as much as anything (i.e. sharing technique, settings, writing up guides etc) I've found the move to Fuji a massive boost to my photography, even though technically my photos probably aren't quite as good as they could have been with CaNikon gear that everyone else is using.
 
You could take an image with a disc camera, the 110 would be better quality. The 35mm would visually be of a better quality, 120mm however would eclipse it, you would see another marked improvement using 5x4 but in comparison the 10 x 8 is superior.

Confidence comes from knowing your camera, and it's abilities, fully understanding the ISO, Aperture and speed ratios and knowing when and how to apply this knowledge. You could take a photograph with a 10 x 8 Sinar the quality of the image would be sublime. But if you don't understand the exposure ratio or Scheimpflug principle snd know when to apply it you're going to be screwed.

Owning a professional camera does not or should not make you feel any more confident or a better photographer. Yes it can improve the quality of your output (final) image but that's only a tiny part of the story.

Having that knowledge helps but if you've got a good eye for a subject then great images can be taken on an auto point and shoot. It's not the camera but the photographer who takes it. Ten people could look at an image 5 may like it, the other 5 may hate it !

....Yes, I agree about the different qualities of the different camera formats - In my working life I was a professional Art Director and worked (and travelled overseas) with professional photographers with all formats up to 10 x 12, in studios and on location, so I know the differences you describe firsthand.

I also agree about confidence from knowing your camera, car, bike, musical instrument, or indeed any other piece of tactile equipment and that it's only a part of the whole story but I think it's an important part - Cameras are used to express oneself and not just as scientific recorders.

'Having the eye' is just as important as all the technical knowledge - They go hand-in-hand and one helps the other.

And what does my forum signature say and has done ever since I joined TP? :

"The camera takes the photo, but the photographer makes it" - Ansell Adams, 1902-1984

And so back to the title of this thread : It doesn't matter whether you are a professional or amateur, it's always horses-for-courses and you use what you can afford to buy/hire and to the best of your individual ability. Different people feel motivated by different things - There's more than just one way to skin a cat.

Historically back in the days of SLR film cameras, zoom lenses did not have the optical quality that primes did but technology never stands still and that comparison has changed for the better. I assume that most photographers on TP realise that.

I suppose where people get their confidence from is a personal thing.

.... @Pookeyhead Phil, this is part of what I have been trying to say to you all along.

:)
 
Last edited:
.....
Historically back in the days of SLR film cameras, zoom lenses did not have the optical quality that primes did but technology never stands still and that comparison has changed for the better. I assume that most photographers on TP realise that......
I don't believe that to be fact, Robin. Sure, you can compare the 70-200/2.8 MkII to the 200/2.8 MkII or the 24-70/2.8 MkII to the 50/1.5 or 85/1.8 or even the 100-400MkII against the 400/5.6 and make a case for the argument but they're recent designed zooms put up against primes that have been around for 15 years or more. Put a modern zoom against a modern prime and things are very different. Is there a zoom that gets close to one of the recent Canon MkII super-telephotos or one that gets remotely close to Zeiss' Otus offerings or the slightly older Zeiss' 135/2 or 15/2.8?. Then there's the TS-E17 and 24MkII (used conventionally) and the 100/2.8L macro (without recourse to it's macro abilities).

So put a modern zoom up against its' peer primes and they're still the poor relations, no matter how good today's designs are.

Bob
 
The thread makes for a good discussion and both sides can argue the merits of zooms vs. primes. But my experience is that content is and always will be king. Most lenses now are good enough, and it's up to the photographer whether he/she is happy with the results. Most clients however, can't tell which you have gone for nor will they care to examine corner sharpness. What they will do is assess how the overall image looks like, and if the image fits the story they want to tell/project.
 
I don't believe that to be fact, Robin. Sure, you can compare the 70-200/2.8 MkII to the 200/2.8 MkII or the 24-70/2.8 MkII to the 50/1.5 or 85/1.8 or even the 100-400MkII against the 400/5.6 and make a case for the argument but they're recent designed zooms put up against primes that have been around for 15 years or more. Put a modern zoom against a modern prime and things are very different. Is there a zoom that gets close to one of the recent Canon MkII super-telephotos or one that gets remotely close to Zeiss' Otus offerings or the slightly older Zeiss' 135/2 or 15/2.8?. Then there's the TS-E17 and 24MkII (used conventionally) and the 100/2.8L macro (without recourse to it's macro abilities).

So put a modern zoom up against its' peer primes and they're still the poor relations, no matter how good today's designs are.

Bob

....Okay but historically the perception was that zooms did not compare so well with primes as they do now, relatively. Sorry if I comminucated my earlier post to be absolute fact.

Anyway, the light is good so I am off out for the rest of the day to capture some wildlife images with my Canon 100-400mm L II zoom instead of the 300mm and 400mm L primes I used to have. There's no absolute right or wrong in my opinion and in my individual case my new zoom is far more convenient on walkabout, has a much shorter Minimum Focus Distance and is as sharp as the Canon 400mm F/5.6 L was.

The rest is how well I can use my gear.
 
Not so much in a professional sense, but I've found this to be the case shooting Motorsport and wildlife with a Fuji. Photos that wouldn't be given a second glance shot with a Nikon and 70-200 are suddenly attracting over 2k visitors to my site a week, gaining the attention of Fuji themselves and generating lots of discussion.

As I love the community aspect of photography as much as anything (i.e. sharing technique, settings, writing up guides etc) I've found the move to Fuji a massive boost to my photography, even though technically my photos probably aren't quite as good as they could have been with CaNikon gear that everyone else is using.


this is a really interesting point, it's similar to how some film makers got really popular for using HD SLR's, but now we've seen too many shallow depth of field shots of flowers blowing in the wind to really care
 
Oops the little one grabbed my phone lol can someone delete this please lol
 
Last edited:
Is there a zoom that gets close to one of the recent Canon MkII super-telephotos
The EF200-400 F/4? If it gives anything up compared to the primes, it's negligible.
 
But neither will give you the flexibility of the 200-400mm. In wildlife at least, it's not very convenient/easy or even possible in some situations, to add a teleconverter or move. With the Canon offering, the built-in converter makes this an incredibly versatile (and sharp) lens. Given the choice, I will choose the 200-400mm any day over the 300/400mm f2.8. So for me, application and practicality always dictate what lens choices I make, not because it's prime and therefore sharper.
 
Obviously in that respect they're different, but in terms of the quality of optics, the 200-400 is more than a match for the mkII 500, 600 and what-not.
 
I don't believe that to be fact, Robin. Sure, you can compare the 70-200/2.8 MkII to the 200/2.8 MkII or the 24-70/2.8 MkII to the 50/1.5 or 85/1.8 or even the 100-400MkII against the 400/5.6 and make a case for the argument but they're recent designed zooms put up against primes that have been around for 15 years or more. Put a modern zoom against a modern prime and things are very different. Is there a zoom that gets close to one of the recent Canon MkII super-telephotos or one that gets remotely close to Zeiss' Otus offerings or the slightly older Zeiss' 135/2 or 15/2.8?. Then there's the TS-E17 and 24MkII (used conventionally) and the 100/2.8L macro (without recourse to it's macro abilities).

So put a modern zoom up against its' peer primes and they're still the poor relations, no matter how good today's designs are.

Bob

You'd better believe it bob Zoom lenses in the 70s / 80s were abysmal by today's standards. The quality of zooms today is not to far off prime lenses. Especially the New Fuji XF zoom lenses which are superb. Primes was will always be king but the technology gap is closing fast.
 
But neither will give you the flexibility of the 200-400mm. .....
I fully agree with that statement...zooms are advantageous in many situations but it's not the point that I was making a few posts back.

Bob
 
IQ is one thing (and I have L Zooms as well as primes - my non L primes are a match, if not better than my L zooms for IQ) but barrel and pin cushion distortion is another! You will always get this with zooms, especially wide ones. With primes this factor is nearly always completely controlled.
 
Something occurred to me the other day, nearly all 'casual' photographers use a 30mm prime these days. People grow up with fixed focal length now, when I was a bit younger it was all compacts with massive zoom ranges.
 
Something occurred to me the other day, nearly all 'casual' photographers use a 30mm prime these days. People grow up with fixed focal length now, when I was a bit younger it was all compacts with massive zoom ranges.
I would have said that kit zooms were the default standard these days since that's what's bundled with many interchangeable lens systems.
 
I would have said that kit zooms were the default standard these days since that's what's bundled with many interchangeable lens systems.

Photos taken on iPhones massively outweigh DSLR photos, probably without realising it most people are very comfortable working with a prime lens these days.
 
Photos taken on iPhones massively outweigh DSLR photos, probably without realising it most people are very comfortable working with a prime lens these days.
True, but how many will make use of the digital zoom feature or crop afterward? Not really a zoom, granted, but mentally in their minds ;)
 
Photos taken on iPhones massively outweigh DSLR photos, probably without realising it most people are very comfortable working with a prime lens these days.

Wait... you can take photo's on a Phone now ?? where do you put the film in ? Does it take Disk Film ? I've still got a couple of those in the freezer somewhere if I remember correctly....
 
I think you need APS Film for panaramas?
 
I do not do wedding photography but use primes for a good 80% of my work, anyway I do think is always good to have a good zoom lens in the bag, a 70-200 and 16-35 focal ranges would require you a few primes to get them covered.
 
I did a little shoot of an event last week and was shooting mostly with my Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 and my Nikon 85mm f1.8 @ f2.8 to f3.5 and @ iso 6400 and got images I would never have got 5 to 10 years ago.

There is also the build quality and robustness issue as well.
I think the Nikon 24/70 is a terrible lens and it has been in the dry box for over 3 years now..................time to sell it I think
 
How come terrible lenses take lovely pictures?

BTW, that's not the first line of a joke so don't expect a great punchline.
 
they don't

Shock Horror...

There are a lot of great and / or beautiful pictures taken with far more humble kit than a Nikon... whateveritwas.

Whenever I feel limited by kit I look at what other people are doing with the same kit and change my mind.
 
Shooting mostly wildlife and landscape it's pretty much primes all the way for me, I do use zooms too, at the end of the day it's all down to how much I'm prepared to carry...
 
I've been pro for the last 20 years shooting sport, press and wildlife and used both prime and zooms. I think you use what you have available and allows you to get the shot.
 
I think this thread needs to close before I start one entitled pros don't use flashes when there's available light or how about pros don't use filters as its cheating?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top