Zooms!......why?

alastairb said:
also, say you are doing event photography and you have to get a picture of the same person at different distances within short spaces if time, you just couldn't get that picture if you were stuck at one focal length.
Click to expand...

It's OK, my argument/point of view was only made half seriously, I don't disagree with you, I came a full circle working with primes in the 70/80's when zooms weren't up to much, embraced zooms when the quality came up to scratch, and find I'm much more comfortable with primes nowadays.

I do use zooms at the wide end, as I found that after spending half an hour getting a tripod set up correct along some limestone pavement in the Dales, then having to move/setup all again because I was using a prime, when with a zoom you can gently tweak the focal length to get the desired composition , making life so much easier.
 
I think it's a bit of a myth that zooms provide more flexibility, less weight to carry, cheaper, than trying to cover with primes
Click to expand...

Agreed. Primes on the whole offer more flexibility and less weight than zooms.

Image quality of many zooms is equal to, or exceeds, many primes - so that is on the whole no reason to go for primes. Most modern primes and higher end zooms both offer excellent image quality. The reason why many people (the vast majority of good pros that I know) choose primes over zooms is not image quality but because primes are lighter, handle better, are more discreet, and most importantly of all can take images in lower light and with shallower depth of field than zooms can do.
 
There is only one thing that primes can do that zooms cannot, and that is low f/numbers. You can argue about the niceties of image quality, and there are plenty of primes with worse IQ than zooms, but in real world practical terms, primes can do f/1.8 and f/1.4 and even f/1.2, and zooms can't.

Jayst84 said:
<snip>

You don't change focal length just for 'getting closer' (or further away) either. Your choice of focal length in any given situation will alter the relationship between things in the frame.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Agree with Jay - foot-zoom with a prime is not the same as real zoom. Foot-zoom alters perspective, optical zooming alters the framing and they are two completely separate things.

If you want optimum framing and perspective, and IMHO this is a vital aspect of shooting with shorter lenses, then unless you have a bag full of primes you will get the better image with a zoom lens. You move into the best position for optimum perspective, then you zoom in/out to get the framing.

I don't think you can argue that way of working will give the better result, and in practise it's impossible with primes. You could argue, subjectively, that it doesn't matter much, but that's not the same thing. And i think it does matter, rather a lot :D

toph101 said:
From the first link

The "myth" he is dispelling is that you can zoom in and walk backward to get less DOF. If people think this, then yes I guess it must be a myth because it isn't true. I do however find his images interesting because the backgrounds in the walk backwards/zoom in images do look softer, until compared next too each other.

Please someone correct me if I am wrong, but when you start cropping images to compare DOF at different focal lengths you are effectively simulating shooting the image on a different format, therefore altering the circle of confusion. If you want to demonstrate whether focal length alters DOF then you need to compare images where only the focal length is changed. Once you start moving around or cropping then other elements of the equation are being changed.
Click to expand...

Not wrong (y)
 
There is only one thing that primes can do that zooms cannot, and that is low f/numbers.
Click to expand...

That 'only' means that they can take photos when zooms can't. And 'only' means that you can take photos with shallow depth of field.

The only thing that zooms can do that primes can't - is zoom!
 
Crofts said:
That 'only' means that they can take photos when zooms can't. And 'only' means that you can take photos with shallow depth of field.

The only thing that zooms can do that primes can't - is zoom!
Click to expand...

Yes, I didn't think that needed emphasising but thanks anyway ;)

It's fair comment and that is the only reason why primes exist IMHO though I'm sure others will disagree.

As further (subjective) comment I would say that the astonishing ISO capability of modern cameras is a better way of handling low light these days, not forgetting IS of course, and the shallow DoF you get as a direct consequence of low f/numbers is actually often undesirable.

On the other hand, if you want to use very low f/numbers for shallow DoF purposes then that's often quite difficult in bright light and you end up with an ND filter to get it.

Basically what I'm saying is that low f/numbers are sometimes a mixed blessing and not always easy to apply, whereas the usefulness of a variable focal length is something you can benefit from with every single shot.
 
Basically what I'm saying is that low f/numbers are sometimes a mixed blessing and not always easy to apply, whereas the usefulness of a variable focal length is something you can benefit from with every single shot
Click to expand...

Agreed that the low f-numbers will not be useful in every single shot - for me, they're useful or essential for perhaps a third of my pictures.

But wouldn't say the contrary that the variable focal length is useful in every single shot. Personally, I very rarely, miss having the ability to zoom - I can't actually remember an occasion when I thought it would have been useful. With primes you just get quick at thinking ahead and having the right lens on the camera.

I tried these 24-70 f2.8's, 70-200 f2.8's and the like and couldn't hack them - too slow, too cumbersome, too obtrusive, too everything. I'm very glad that many other photographers use them though!

I do think everyone has to go through a zoom lens phase in life, and it's almost inevitable that beginners will end up with them - just because they look more funky and tend to be included in kits.
 
Crofts said:
Agreed that the low f-numbers will not be useful in every single shot - for me, they're useful or essential for perhaps a third of my pictures.

But wouldn't say the contrary that the variable focal length is useful in every single shot. Personally, I very rarely, miss having the ability to zoom - I can't actually remember an occasion when I thought it would have been useful. With primes you just get quick at thinking ahead and having the right lens on the camera.

I tried these 24-70 f2.8's, 70-200 f2.8's and the like and couldn't hack them - too slow, too cumbersome, too obtrusive, too everything. I'm very glad that many other photographers use them though!

I do think everyone has to go through a zoom lens phase in life, and it's almost inevitable that beginners will end up with them - just because they look more funky and tend to be included in kits.
Click to expand...

Haha yes! :) I've been at it for 40 years and have well and truly been through my primes phase. I got rid of the remaining three primes last year - I'm now all zooms. Oh no, not quite - I've got a LensBaby :D

And welcome to TP by the way. All good debate :)

Edit: you'll be wanting a Leica next.
 
And welcome to TP by the way
Click to expand...

Thank you :)

About the beginners going through a zooms phase, I just meant - people in the early days often buy cameras partly as toys to play with. And zooms have more bits to play with than primes. Maybe people also think that haing a bigger lens will help passers-by to take them more seriously as photographers. I went through it too. I think everyone - at least, all the boys - just need to get it off their chests. Maybe girls are not so shallow. Eventually once the attraction of the new toy has worn off, if you persevere with photography you settle down with what really works.

I noticed that virtually all the photographers that I really admired tend to spend nearly all their time using similar lenses - a fast 24mm, a 35mm, a 50mm. Occasional use of maybe a 105mm. Coincidence perhaps? In theory it shouldn't matter what lens you use - it is seeing the picture that is important. In practise, photographers tend to graduate towards the equipment that gives least resistance between them and taking the picture.

Not long ago I had to go to abroad for a client. Apart from a backup camera I didn't use, I took just one lens with me - a fixed 30mm. The pictures were all the better for having just the one lens, the client was delighted.

you'll be wanting a Leica next
Click to expand...

Sadly can't afford an M9, but oh yes, if I could, I would.
 
Crofts said:
Thank you :)

About the beginners going through a zooms phase, I just meant - people in the early days often buy cameras partly as toys to play with. And zooms have more bits to play with than primes. Maybe people also think that haing a bigger lens will help passers-by to take them more seriously as photographers. I went through it too. I think everyone - at least, all the boys - just need to get it off their chests. Maybe girls are not so shallow. Eventually once the attraction of the new toy has worn off, if you persevere with photography you settle down with what really works.

I noticed that virtually all the photographers that I really admired tend to spend nearly all their time using similar lenses - a fast 24mm, a 35mm, a 50mm. Occasional use of maybe a 105mm. Coincidence perhaps? In theory it shouldn't matter what lens you use - it is seeing the picture that is important. In practise, photographers tend to graduate towards the equipment that gives least resistance between them and taking the picture.

Not long ago I had to go to abroad for a client. Apart from a backup camera I didn't use, I took just one lens with me - a fixed 30mm. The pictures were all the better for having just the one lens, the client was delighted.
Click to expand...

All the photographers that you admire maybe use primes. But for me, generally, no thanks. Been there and, as a rule, too restrictive. I just don't need low f/numbers these days, but I value the freedom to get the right framing with the best positional perspective.

How many of the pictures you took with the 30mm were at a lower f/number than f/2.8?

Sadly can't afford an M9, but oh yes, if I could, I would.
Click to expand...

Just a wild guess! :D
 
On another note, I am sure you can take photos of moving objects with Primes, but for me taking shots of aircraft or cars moving quickly and coming towards you or away from you or accross you, you need a zoom to follow them. Esp if you are in an unknown situation.

Roo
 
To get the range I use I'd have to carry about six lenses instead of two - add in the misery of changing lenses on the run, often in wet/muddy or dry/dusty conditions and it's a no-brainer - zooms are infinitely more practical for my kind of work.

I've checked my exif data for the focal length that I actually set for the images I like most and usually it's an even split between 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, 100mm and 200mm - within a few mil either way, obviously.

Quality? I'll happily wager no-one on this forum could tell just from the image whether it was taken on a zoom or a prime at equivalent focal length, aperture etc - not at the resolutions we commonly use.
 
You get a much broader range and quicker collection of dust bunnies with primes ;)
 
Crofts said:
and it's almost inevitable that beginners will end up with them - just because they look more funky and tend to be included in kits.
Click to expand...

What a load of condescending tripe. :wacky:
 
Primes do have the advantage of annoying your partner.

"It wont zoom? Not even to take a photo of that?" She says looking puzzled and pointing into the distance. :LOL:
 
Crofts said:
I tried these 24-70 f2.8's, 70-200 f2.8's and the like and couldn't hack them - too slow, too cumbersome, too obtrusive, too everything. I'm very glad that many other photographers use them though!

I do think everyone has to go through a zoom lens phase in life, and it's almost inevitable that beginners will end up with them - just because they look more funky and tend to be included in kits.
Click to expand...

I went the other way: started using all primes back in the 1980's when zooms were horrible slow, clunky and obtrusive creatures, but nowadays they're light, fast and relatively discrete - if you choose the right ones...
So I don't know what you've been doing wrong...
Personally I couldn't do my job as well as I do without them.

I do still have a 50mm f/1.4 for portraits, and have to remind myself that moving back and forth is the only way to alter the framing...lol
I've been using zooms for so long now that re-composing using the zoom function is second-nature. Barely any Press photographer I know bothers with primes unless they're Sports togs in static locations...and they generally hire those for specific events.
 
Surely it's horses for courses when it comes to primes/zooms.

So for example-the genres of portraiture generally primes are the tools of choice (85mm/135mm/50mm) similar with birding the big primes of 300 /400/500 &600, also with macros it's primes to the fore.

Alternatively, wedding togs usually prefer zooms, landscapes I find wide zooms more practical

At the end of the day, it's generally what you become comfortable with.
 
fabs said:
And what an unnecessary post. Do you have an alternative view? Perhaps you would like to share it.
Click to expand...

Actually I was in agreement with Trixster there - it was pretty condescending...
 
Scarecrow said:
What makes you think using the zoom will degrade the quality of the image?

I think you may be getting confused as to what 'stopping down' means - it refers to the aperture, not the level of zoom.
Click to expand...

having read a lot of lens reviews on SLRgear.com and spoken to 'wedding' togs it seems that all zooms arent tack sharp throughout the range, please correct me if thats wrong, thats what I meant by 'zooming' past or before the lenses sweet spot will degrade the image.

Thank you to all that have responded, it seems to have sparked some healthy and interesting debate for a newbie like me and for some of the experienced togs.
Can I just clarify my position by asking anyone new to read my first post as the thread has develpoed a bit into zooms v primes and I'm not against zooms, just the opposite if the quality was excellent throughout the range. Its the 17-40's. 17-55's etc etc that made me question
 
cherokee1111 said:
having read a lot of lens reviews on SLRgear.com and spoken to 'wedding' togs it seems that all zooms arent tack sharp throughout the range, please correct me if thats wrong, thats what I meant by 'zooming' past or before the lenses sweet spot will degrade the image.

Thank you to all that have responded, it seems to have sparked some healthy and interesting debate for a newbie like me and for some of the experienced togs.
Can I just clarify my position by asking anyone new to read my first post as the thread has develpoed a bit into zooms v primes and I'm not against zooms, just the opposite if the quality was excellent throughout the range. Its the 17-40's. 17-55's etc etc that made me question
Click to expand...

I think you're falling victim to the 'I read somewhere that...' trap instead of trying it for yourself...
I use both the Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 and the newer Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 and I assure you they are pin-sharp throughout the range for all practical purposes.
 
I've read in several places that some zooms aren't as good at the long end. There are others which have been specifically designed to be best at the long end, or at the working distance for portraits.
 
What a load of condescending tripe
Click to expand...

Condescending, yes, I realised it was while I was typing it. Tripe, no - it's true that an awful lot of beginners are attracted by the kit aspects of photography, and that zoom is one of the sexiest kit aspects of cameras. I think we all need to go through a phase of playing with them, no matter what we end up with.

Alternatively, wedding togs usually prefer zooms
Click to expand...

At the highest end of wedding photography the ones I know of mostly or exclusively use primes - examples are Jeff Ascough and Anna Kuperberg.
 
heres an example -maybe a bad one - of a prime...the nifty fifty 1.8 is tack sharp at f4-f8 but at f1.8 its soft so whats the point of the f1.8 badge......?


/I retreat to my safe haven in preparation of the bombardment
 
Crofts said:
Condescending, yes, I realised it was while I was typing it. Tripe, no - it's true that an awful lot of beginners are attracted by the kit aspects of photography, and that zoom is one of the sexiest kit aspects of cameras. I think we all need to go through a phase of playing with them, no matter what we end up with.



At the highest end of wedding photography the ones I know of mostly or exclusively use primes - examples are Jeff Ascough and Anna Kuperberg.
Click to expand...

...with the continued implication being that these supposedly 'inferior' zooms are for amatuers...

Still bloody condescending there...
 
...with the continued implication being that these supposedly 'inferior' zooms are for amatuers...

Still bloody condescending there...
Click to expand...

Rather than saying zooms are for amateurs, I would put it the other way round - I suspect there's a strong inclination for beginner amateurs to use zooms. Professionals are more likely to use both. Most of the press corps and paparazzis tend to use zooms - almost exclusively as far as I can see. Also many sports photographers.

I'm not saying that professionals don't ever use zooms.

Condescending? Well, if it makes you happy, call it condescending! It doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, does it?
 
p.s. just off 2 take some pictures, but will pop in later...
 
I accept the premise - your method of putting it across, maybe not...
 
Cherokee1111,

the point of the f1.8 is threefold,
-brighter viewfinder
-shallower depth of field and better contrast to allow auto-focus to get it right
-it's there if you need it for low light situations of for incredibly shallow depth of field.

True - in most cases you would shoot at f8 (the sweet spot for most lenses) but you would not want to keep a lens stopped down to f8 on the camera as you would not see much in the viewfinder and the auto-focus would give up unless you had a 1Dmk3 (or similar????)
 
grahamsewelluk said:
Cherokee1111,

the point of the f1.8 is threefold,
-brighter viewfinder
-shallower depth of field and better contrast to allow auto-focus to get it right
-it's there if you need it for low light situations of for incredibly shallow depth of field.

True - in most cases you would shoot at f8 (the sweet spot for most lenses) but you would not want to keep a lens stopped down to f8 on the camera as you would not see much in the viewfinder and the auto-focus would give up unless you had a 1Dmk3 (or similar????)
Click to expand...

Err, the view through my viewfinder is the same regardless of aperture and the AF works fine regardless. :thinking:
 
Ive been shooting a compact for the last couple of years, and played with a zenit with a prime on it (which i loved) last year. On getting my DSLR and a 18-55mm (s not a massive range) i realised some more of what I had been missing, the ability to zoom and get the frame fast, not relevant for much of my pictures, but my snapshots of the kids can be correctly composed in an instant, a moment that may have been missed otherwise.
 
fabs said:
Err, the view through my viewfinder is the same regardless of aperture. :thinking:
Click to expand...

I think the op is correct-try looking through the viewfinder with a lens with a maximum aperture of say F1.8, and then one with a maximum aperture of f4, the viewfinder is a lot brighter with the f1.8 lens.
 
Les McLean said:
I think the op is correct-try looking through the viewfinder with a lens with a maximum aperture of say F1.8, and then one with a maximum apertire of f4, the viewfinder is a lot brighter with the f1.8 lens.
Click to expand...

I was more responding the the statement that you could barely see anything through the viewfinder at f8
 
fabs said:
I was more responding the the statement that you could barely see anything through the viewfinder at f8
Click to expand...

fair do's (y)
 
Arkady said:
Actually I was in agreement with Trixster there - it was pretty condescending...
Click to expand...

Leave Crofts alone! He's a newcomer with attitude, and a deluded Leica wannabe. Premium qualifications.

That's good enough for me :D
 
fabs said:
Err, the view through my viewfinder is the same regardless of aperture and the AF works fine regardless.
Click to expand...

Do you mean with the DOF preview? You realise that your normal viewfinder view is at the lens's max aperture and the lens is stopped down to the selected taking aperture when the shutter is released?

There are lenses with &#402;/8 as the max aperture, of course, but they're unusable in dim lighting.
 
photon said:
Do you mean with the DOF preview? You realise that your normal viewfinder view is at the lens's max aperture and the lens is stopped down to the selected taking aperture when the shutter is released?

There are lenses with ƒ/8 as the max aperture, of course, but they're unusable in dim lighting.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that the viewfinder is at the lenses max aperture. I kinda guessed that he was talking about DoF preview but wasn't sure and still don't get what he means as far as AF is concerned.
 
fabs said:
Yes, I know that the viewfinder is at the lenses max aperture. I kinda guessed that he was talking about DoF preview but wasn't sure and still don't get what he means as far as AF is concerned.
Click to expand...

I think many Canon bodies switch AF off and won't even try to AF when max aperture is below f5.6. I guess this is what he's refering to
 
Graham's point is that, even though you may not generally use the max aperture, it helps to have it (more light for focusing - it's impossible to MF at &#402;/2.8 in my local's nighttime lighting). Rather than design the lens to be brilliant, by having a max aperture of only &#402;/8, the design is compromised by providing those useful wider apertures, necessary for creativity as well as basic operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top