Fixed Focal Length

[Bill Pierce]

I tend to use prime lenses far, far more than zooms. I could claim that I do this because prime lenses have higher image quality. I think in many cases they do, especially as we move away from the central portion of our image. But, for much of my work, I’m using them just because they are faster than zoom lenses and, at the same time, are smaller than zoom lenses, often easier to handle and seem to attract less attention.

But, there is one disadvantage to being a fixed focal length fan. As an old newsy, I hate the time when I can’t shoot because I am changing a lens. And, as a digital shooter, I’m always afraid that changing lenses in the field could expose the sensor to dust and dirt. Consequently, I do tend to carry two or three bodies with different focal length lenses on them. That seems to a certain extent counter my argument that I like the fact that fixed focal length lenses are small, easy to handle and attract less attention. The solution, usually all the cameras but the one I’m using are in a small shoulder bag.

My question is this - who else out there is shooting this old fashioned way? I have a friend who shoots high end weddings this way, another who photographs musicians in dimly lit clubs. But I have to say, I like shooting fixed focal lengths even on a sunny day. Anyone else? And, most important, why?

 

[DwF]

I feel the same way on all counts, including the fear of getting dust on sensor every time change a lens with a digital camera. That said, I also dislike carrying even two bodies if I can help it. For me, if I do carry a second body, that usually means two systems (two chargers) and a bigger bag.
Although I have done a wee bit of professional work, I am an amateur and therefore feel like I can choose to carry whatever.

I like fixed-lens cameras (HexarAF , Auto S3, X 113 and the like) and so if I have my choice, a 35mm (or 23mm in aps-c) that is fast f1.4- f2 will suffice. It is absolutely important that I have the ability to have subject isolation (shallow DOF).

I also like the limitation of working with a fixed focal length because it is less distracting to me as I am shooting. I tend with some exception to rule out anything longer than a 50 (normal lens) because if the scene is so far as to warrant a telephoto, it is not mine to capture....that's just me. So all in all, a 28 or 35 and 50 in full frame terms and I am good to go.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Around 2000 we purchased Rebel 300 SLR and used it with its kit zoom lens for seven years. My wife took great family portraits with it.
After it we (family) purchased Rebel 500D DSLR and I sold Rebel 300 kit lens, because digital Rebel came with its own 18-55 kit zoom lens. I wasn't happy with this zoom and I purchased Tamron 28-75 zoom lens. We gave 18-55 lens to our daugher and helped her to get Rebel 600D. She took hip-hop videos with it and quit with selling of our 18-55 zoom lens.
Years later she went back to photography with used 5d MKII and wide zoom lens. Because it was too wide for portraits I gave her 28-75 kit lens and she also purchased 24-105 zoom lens. She doesn't have any prime lens and she did what I can't. She is paid for photography and I never paid. If she will not quit again and soon, I'll gave her my last zoom, 70-200. I'm goofing around with six rangefinders and six or so primes. I could make it with primes, but it is not as important as her photography.

 

[Contarama]

I am a prime shooter. And manual focus primes at that. I've never really understood why exactly so I think you have presented a very good question for me to ponder sir. I don't get paid for anything so maybe I can 'afford' to do it my way??? I have this funny feeling however that if I were to be paid for photography I would probably grab my normal range fast zoom (the only af lens and zoom that I own) and likely royally botch the job.

 

[benlees]

I've shot zooms for 0.001 of my shots. Primes are priceless because you don't get to choose. Couple steps back, or forward; zoom!

 

[narsuitus]

My question is this - who else out there is shooting this old fashioned way?

Today, I shoot zooms, primes, or a combination of the two depending on subject matter, lighting, desired image quality, and environmental hazards such as dust, sand, wind, etc.

In the old days, I only shot the old fashioned way because the image quality of zooms was horrible. Thank goodness, zoom image quality has greatly improved.

 

[Arbitrarium]

I don't use zooms because I don't want a huge, unwieldy mass on the front of my camera! As you say, they attract attention (which I try and avoid) and they're slower to use. And as narsuitus mentioned, zooms for the old cameras I use were much lower quality than their prime siblings.

I've only regretted not having a suitable focal length on me once or twice in the last couple of years so I don't feel like I'm missing out. I prefer to move myself rather than the lens. More adventure involved if you have to climb into somewhere for a shot rather than taking it through a fence!

 

[Kevcaster]

I'm an amateur and probably a dilettante and mostly take one camera with one prime lens when I go out. It's Hobsons Choice for me as I do not own a zoom having found that they present an additional layer of decision-making into the mix.
I commit myself to one lens and see that way for the outing. More and more I find that I take a moderate wide angle or normal lens and find pictures that work for the combination I have with me and ignore those that would benefit from a long focal length or a wider view.
I have too many cameras and lenses to fully make use and, while feeling guilty that someone are idle, take some pleasure in ownership.
I have a couple of panoramic cameras, a Horizon and recently purchased Hasselblad X-Pan, and find that I can 'see' these images quite easily although the Horizon's view of the world is a challenge.

 

[shimokita]

I only have one zoom... the Canon 70-200 f/4L which gets very little use and 90% of that time it's on a tripod for land/city-scapes at sunrise or early evening... But the vast majority of the time it's a prime.

With the Fuji x100t I can crop and still print large-ish... Overall I shoot about 80% film (manual focus) and I just like the results from a decent prime... shooting for over 50 years... currently not paid for my efforts.

Most of the time it's a Nikon Ai-S 50 1.2 or a 50 1.4 Summilux ASPH

 

[michaelwj]

I only shot with a fixed focal length. 35mm.
The why is not as easy but here we go...
I like to shoot with a rangefinder, so zooms are pretty much not an option. But even when I shot with an SLR I preferred just a single prime, although on an SLR I prefer a 50mm instead of a 35mm I use on RF.
Photography is a hobby, I never have been paid, nor do I want to. Early on I dabbled in (traditional) landscape with a wide angle and a tele zoom set, but the shots I liked and hung on the wall were all shot at a 35-50mm focal length, and mostly involved people (friends and family). So I kind of figured out I wasn't a landscape photographer... but that doesn't answer why a prime lens.
I get distracted easily, and thrive when I have more constraints, or rather I flounder without them. I find a single prime lens gives me a good amount of constraint, and when constrained, it's surprising how versatile a single focal length is. And how liberating.
The other reasons (size, weight, fast) are all just additional benefits, but not the reason.
FWIW, I shoot with a 35mm pre-asph summilux.

 

[craygc]

I find using a zoom just introduces one more unnecessary variable to manage. 99% of what I shoot is done with lenses no longer than 50mm, so with a prime it's easy to just know where to position yourself relative to the subject for framing. Give me a zoom and then I find I'm making adjustments with framing - something I don't need in fluid environments where the juxtapositioning of elements is fleeting.

 

[lynnb]

I used to carry around a 5D and 24-105mm f4L IS, a bulky combination. Now I mainly carry around one, and occasionally two Barnacks with a prime on each (a 50 and a wide), and have a lot more fun. I still sometimes miss shots because I'm changing film - not the fastest thing to do with a Barnack!

If I'm shooting with an SLR, I mostly carry only one body as lens changing and film loading is much quicker.

I like the qualities of individual primes vs a zoom. For paid work however, a zoom can make sense as it can give a consistent look.

 

[Spanik]

I shoot mf film most of the time so zooms are rare. But even then I still prefer fixed focals for about tbe same reasons as the ts: they tend to be smaller and lighter. Also about 80% of the time I use the same lens and even when using a zoom I'm always at either side of the range.

 

[pvdhaar]

If only I were a better photographer, I'd shoot with zooms all the time.

Zooms make it too easy going from one end of the range to the other every other shot. The result is a series of images alternating between wide shots that become a gimmick with obligatory near-far composition, and tele's that are flat crops without context.

At least with a fixed 50, I'm in relatively safe waters; a series of images has much more internal consistency and my images considered individually are much better too.

 

[ellisson]

I shoot with both primes and zooms on Minolta SLRs, depending on the subject and where I am shooting. I find the telephoto zooms with 70-200 or 70-300 range in daylight most useful for seascapes, cityscapes, and nature photography. Shooting at f5.6 and above, usually at smaller apertures, I find IQ and sharpness very good. Having multiple, large and faster primes in this range is more expensive and inconvenient for the small gains. The subject, context, light, and story are the major issues, so minute differences in IQ are secondary to me.

On the Fuji X mirrorless system, the zooms are quite good. I'd rate the 55-200 among the best. I've read that others are also excellent.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I have used zooms in the past but they were huge lenses that did little more than to remove my need to walk a few steps towards or away. For a while, I carried a pair of Nikon D2 bodies, one with a 20-35/2.8 and the other with an 80-200/2.8. Still carrying a pair of cameras though.

Throughout all my paid work, I've always carried a pair of cameras, usually Leicas, one with a 50 'Cron, the other with a wide, either 28mm or 21mm.

For paid jobs these days, I only shoot a single digital body with a prime lens.

I no longer have two Leicas but I still often carry two fiIm bodies; a Retina IIa alongside a Leica M4 mounting a 2.1cm O Nikkor on a fabbed up adapter.

Sometimes Bethanne and I will each carry a Nikon film body with our lens of choice plus one other lens so we can swap lenses if we like to the bag or with each other.

When I feel "serious" and my back doesn't ache, I'll carry two Mamiya 6 bodies with the 50mm and 75mm lenses.

As I'm not doing as much news photography anymore, I'll often carry a pair of 4x5 cameras... My Nagaoka field camera and a home hacked cigar box pinhole which I constructed to take standard film holders.

Phil Forrest

 

[Ronald M]

There are no zooms for my M9. I started with RF around 1958 and am used to it, plus x pan, Microdol X 1:3, Varigam or Kodak VC paper.

Nikon DSLR quality is below that of Leica, but I use it when I have to. I will use zooms to control framing when that is the best way. Nikon primes just hand better.
I have a the current primes and some all the old Ai and AiS primes 24 to 200.

Really like the RF, but sometime SLR is required.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

There are no zooms for my M9.

Don't forget the 21-35mm Hexanon, the Tri-Elmar and the Wide Angle Tri-Elmar.

Phil Forrest

 

[daveleo]

I'm a hobbyist and have always been in possession of a zoom lens, and whatever the lens was (is) it was rarely used.
Most recently, I purchased a vintage zoom for $125, had it CLA'd for $110, used it a month and sold it for $100.
On a recent trip, I packed two bodies, a zoom and 3 fixed lenses. The zoom never left the hotel room.
Simple explaination I think is that zooms add the "last straw" variable between me and my picture.
I think paid professionals need zooms to be sure the scene gets (quickly) framed right when the scenario doesn't allow moving the camera.

 

[Solinar]

I don't use zooms because I don't want a huge, unwieldy mass on the front of my camera!

I have an older push/pull zoom for my DSLR, a 35-70mm 2.8 AF-D Nikkor that I should use more often.

I had hope for it to be a walk-about lens. It's not. After a couple of hours, the extra weight takes its toll on one's neck. It also changes the balance of the camera. The 35-70mm Nikkor is not the world's bulkiest lens, either. It has become my of traveling in the car lens.

If I'm on foot, I usually get by with just a 35 or a 50mm AF-D prime. Do note that I like to have my 24mm 2.8 AF-D stashed in my satchel, just in case.

By the way, my last and least used lens for the DSLR is my 85mm AF-D Nikkor. I don't own any longer focal length lenses.