Fixed Focal Length

While I have preferred prime lenses for years, I'm starting to feel rather Amish/Luddite these days keeping that opinion. After talking with my youngest about a product idea I had I just feeling I've become an old fart.

I never got into zooms because of the quality issues, and the fact that I just couldn't get into have too many options (which is the BEST focal length to use for this shot). Now I'm wondering about good enough. Perhaps I should be so anti-in-camera adjusting the image to remove distortion based upon the lens attached.

Damn good question Bill, got me thinking all over the place.

B2 (;->
 
All primes for me apart from a Canon 70-200/2.8 which is currently on an A7S.
I use it for sports stuff because of the reach and convenience.

On the question of quality I`m no longer sure that primes offer an advantage.
Maybe its me but the 70-200 looks pretty good stacked up against my Leica and Zeiss primes.

I don`t care for its bulk but It makes shooting easier .
Ninety five percent of the time though its primes

I was out Saturday with about ten photographers and all were surprised that I was using prime lenses.
 
Simplicity and nostalgia, and also the reaction I get from subjects. Been working on a B&W personal project for the past year, started out with one Nikon F body (no motor drive) and one 35mm Nikkor-OC lens, and bricks of Kodak Double-XX. Slowly added a second F body (again no motor drive) and an 85mm Nikkor-H & 20mm Nikkor-UD. Most of the project is outdoors, and the kit fits nicely in a Domke F6, along with a little flash in case of emergencies. The project is all about working in close, so no need for a long telephoto, and as weird as it sounds, the camera package comes across to most folks as "friendly".

It's sort of like an old fashioned and much less intimidating version of the digital set up I use for work, which is a zoom (24-70) on one pro body (so big and imposing), and depending on the assignment, a second zoom (70-200) on a second pro body (also big and imposing).

Best,
-Tim
 
I am not a big zoom fan either. I do have the 28-105 and the 70-180 Af zooms for the Nikons. I tend to use the D700 with its primes and zooms in the mountains and deserts, because it has the dust shaker on the sensor. I am more likely to use the M9 and its primes in relatively "clean" locations, and try to minimize lens changing out of doors. Gee, I wonder if m9 is due for a cleaning?
 
20 years ago I mainly used a Contax G2 with its beautiful Zeiss lenses to make slides. Then, because I started mountaineering and changing lenses whilst in a cordee on a steep mountain slope or on a glacier was not a good idea, I started to use a Canon slr with a lowly Tamron 28-200 superzoom.
To my surprise, nobody in my Photo club ever noticed the difference! It is more about the image than about the quality of primes versus zooms. Especially nowadays the quality of zoom lenses is quite Ok, primes are mostly faster and you can get more object isolation.
So nowadays I use both primes and Zooms, whatever is the most suitable. I do like the RX1RmII with its superb Zeiss 2.0 Sonnar, both because of the quality but mainly because I am able to 'see' the picture before I put the viewfinder to my eye. The low weight and small package are a bonus, delivering the best IQ in a small form factor.
 
I love light and compact I just change lenses if necessary. Never carried a second body on my person. I have had several zooms and hardly used any of them, all gone now except for a 50~90 f3.5 Zuiko for my film Pen F. Every once in a while when I just cannot get to the place I would need to stand to get the right framing, then I'll use it. With such a small neg you avoid cropping at all cost.
 
I have a couple of good zooms for my Minolta SLRs but I seldom use them. As a hobbyist, I have the luxury of not having any assignments or obligations attached to my photography.

I like to choose a fixed lens for the day and let it dictate how I shoot. Of course, that doesn't mean I might not go back to using the zooms more again in the future, but I've enjoyed shooting primes more in recent years.
 
I'm primarily a film shooter and only use prime lenses. When traveling, I try to limit myself to a couple of lenses on my film cams, and work within the limitations of the focal lengths I choose. But I've also come to see the value of having a small, fixed-lens digi-cam in my bag, to cover a different focal length than the prime lenses I've got with me or to take color pix when my film camera is loaded with BW. I've really enjoyed using the little Fuji X70 for that purpose; I just sprung for an X100T (now that prices have dropped for new ones) and can easily see packing that as a fixed-lens companion to a film camera.
 
I started out when most 35mm cameras came with a 50mm prime lens as standard. The last few years (89-91) I was a working news photographer, I shot with a couple of Nikon zooms just for the convenience. Zooms were slow and not as sharp but zooms were good enough for newspaper reproduction and I always had faster prime lenses locked in the trunk of my car to switch out when I knew I needed them.

When photography became my passion instead of my job, I maintained several primes and several zooms for my 35mm cameras (of course, the Leicas used primes only). By the time I moved into digital (specifically Canon), zooms were about all you could find if you wanted a wide angle of view in the APS-C format, the format that was affordable for us digital newbies. So I stuck with zooms.

Last year, I bought into the Fuji system, mainly because of the form factor and the OVF/EVFs. Since I loved using these cameras, I accumulated several of the excellent Fujinon primes at that time. That's what I've been using since. I'm kinda surprised I don't miss the convenience of zooms...but I don't.

Just like in the film days with primes, today I carry bodies dedicated to lenses so there's little lens changing to be done in the field. Sometimes I go minimalist with a Fuji X100S and its fixed 35mm equivalent lens. (But I sometimes cheat and carry the Fuji 50mm and/or 28mm equivalent screw-in conversion lenses.)

It's a "full circle" thing, I guess--going back to the methods and tools I used in the past. It feels right and seems to work for me.
 
I pretty much prefer primes for most purposes. The main advantage of zooms on the other hand is of course being flexibility. The big disadvantage of zooms, especially pro zooms, is their vast size (my AF Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 is a case in point). Having said this, carrying multiple good primes to give a similar range of focal lengths to one or two pro zooms is not much fun either.

Still, I like the primes' image quality although some modern zooms are so good there is not much between the two classes of lens in many cases except perhaps in matter such as bokeh. And I like the fact that primes - especially modern ones can have very fast maximum apertures providing good separation as well as the afore-mentioned bokeh.

Whatever the case, I certainly find that I have a love affair with and lust after, more primes than zooms. And this applies to whichever format I happen to be shooting. For example in Leica the Summicron 50mm f2, the Canon 50mm f1.4, the Voigtlander 75mm f 1.8 etc are each excellent lenses for using (there is such a great range of excellently performing prime lenses available from the past 50 years or more that you do not need to spend zillions on lenses unless you wish to).

Same with m4/3 - my present favorite lens for this format is a Canon 100mm f2.8 FD which performs brilliantly. All of which brings to mind one further advantage of primes - there have been so many excellent primes made and so many of these are now available quite cheaply on the internet, for use on modern digital cameras by way of adapters that there is almost a surfeit of choice. My camera cabinet is certainly full of prime lenses most of which would be classed as "vintage".

And of course finally maybe I am old fashioned.
 
I shoot mostly architecture, and my subjects don't tend to run away from me, so a prime lens suits me just fine.

Not so easy, when I'm chasing the cats around our garden for some candids. Then I use an old Nikkor 28-85 I bought yonks ago, secondhand even then. Also suits me just fine.

I could live happily forever after (and in fact do) with only a 28mm Nikkor, or maybe a 24mm for those longer than usual buildings. Cats look odd in wide angle portraits, altho about ten years ago an enterprising lensperson did a series of quite funny books of felines done with, IRRC, a Hasselblad SWC.

When I shoot film, it's usually a Nikkormat or a Contax G1 with the, yes, 28mm. Or a Rolleiflex T. Along with amazing MF quality, Rolleis give you any lens you want in the one box. Wide angle, you step back, telephoto, you move up.

So fixed lenses don't often enter into my equation with film. More so (a little) with digital. That's the sort of photographer I am.

If I ever decide to change formats and brands, I will likely go with the Fuji X* that best suits me ergonomically, and an off the retail shelf prosumer Fuji zoom, at least initially. One size fits all has many advantages in photography, ease of portability being the first. The Rollei syndrome again, in pixels.

To me shooting landscapes with a wide angle would be overkill. Much more challenging to tackle it with a prime, whether standard or short tele. Wide angle landscapes are too "busy" for my liking, and my eyes glaze over after viewing one or two.

The one lens only business can be overdone. Last year a friend came with to Sarawak, and shot everything in sight with only one lens, a 20mm. A few images were good, most are painful to look at. I find myself making polite excuses and quickly changing the subject...

The bottom line in all this however, is we live in a democratic age, so we can be free to use either primes or zooms, whichever suits us best.

Do beware the glazed eyes syndrome when trotting out your 20mm digisnaps for family and friends to ogle.

Many good comments in this thread, BTW. As I would expect in this fine forum.
 
Mostly prime lenses for me as I like to shoot without flash and the extra speed makes that possible for me. I tend to travel with a bag containing 3 primes but more often than not I am happy with the 50mm field of view and only change when absolutely nescessary such as when an 85mm is needed for head only portraits or a wide 28mm in confined spaces. Another lens I use occasionaly is a 135mm f2.8 Komine Vivitar that cost me a whopping £20 and it is frighteningly good for portraits. I liked the Nikon Ai fit one so much that I bought a second one in OM fit to use with my OM 1n kit.
 
I've tried various zooms that were recommended but I was often disappointed, as much for lack of speed as image quality.
I kept only a couple of the better "stack of primes" moderate zoom range models with constant maximum aperture.
Even so most of the time I opt for a fixed focal length lens anyway.

Chris
 
There was a time [1965?] when all the gear I owned was a plain prism Nikon F and a somewhat decentered 43-86mm Nikkor. But it was the best damn lens I owned! Other than that, depending on where I am shooting, two M bodies, with either 21-35mm or 35-75mm or 35-90mm. I guess I've been doing it that way for so long that I can't imagine doing it any differently. On the other hand, with that 43-86mm, and no other lenses, there weren't a lot of decisions to make. As I recall, I tended to shoot most at 43mm.
 
I'm a hobbyist with none of the pragmatic requirements of a professional, I shoot film, and I must confess to a bit of a purist streak. In my mind, the simpler the optical formula that will do the job, the better. (I cannot back this up with evidence; it's just my own little delusion.) I also like that primes are smaller and lighter.

It is for this reason that, among my TLRs, I bought a Yashica D with the three-element Yashikor lens, for portraiture. I figured I would rather start with a softer lens than start with a sharper one and degrade it with a filter.

For 35mm film, I have old manual-focus Minolta bodies and Minolta prime lenses from 28mm to 200mm. My "normal lens" is an 85mm f1.7 and my next favorite lens is a 28mm f2.8. I once had a 24mm - 35mm f3.5 zoom and it was a truly delightful lens. It took a 55mm filter, it was relatively fast, and it focused down to a foot at all focal lengths. I just didn't like how I worked with the zoom, so I sold it and bought the 28mm, which has served me well.

I might note that with manual focus, slower lenses tend to black out the focusing aid, unless one has his/her eye perfectly centered in the finder. Zooms slower than f3.5 usually cause this minor inconvenience. If I were going to digital and autofocus, however, I would probably give at least one zoom lens another try.

- Murray
 
I mainly shoot film (M7 is my main squeeze with a CV 50/1.5) Yes I like aperture preferred, but I also like to play with the ISO dial. All the tools are there. Digital? I have a Pany GX8 with a Leica/Pany 15/1.7 but I don't use it much. No zooms.
 
FranZ said:
So nowadays I use both primes and Zooms, whatever is the most suitable. I do like the RX1RmII with its superb Zeiss 2.0 Sonnar, both because of the quality but mainly because I am able to 'see' the picture before I put the viewfinder to my eye.
Click to expand...

Like others here, I have considered using zooms more since getting my X Pro 2. No doubt, the quality is there with Fuji zoom lenses, but the statement above really struck me because I have been thinking a lot about the sense of vision, and considering it in conjunction with gear.

FranZ's statement I like to "see" the picture before I put the viewfinder to my eye. resonates with me because it speaks to simplicity. After many years of shooting and studying other photographer's work (looking at painting too), I have certain archetypes I've developed, a "look" that I imagine embodies any image I might make, whether it is landscape, portrait, street scene, and the gear should not do other than facilitate that.
 
I was seduced by zooms early on when I switched from Leica to Nikon. Now that I do very little pro work I have begun to think I have the freedom to just use primes. For the past six months I've kept to the one camera + one lens school. I'm pleased with the results from a D610 + Sigma 35/1.4. It seems creativity is enhanced and you're forced to be a little more ceerabral in your approach.

I have just ordered a Df and 35/2 D lens. I'm going retro with the Df and prime D lenses (with aperture where it belongs — on the lens. I expect this approach to be satisfying for me. Probably not for many others.
 
I probably shoot 98% of my images on primes. While I do own one long telephoto zoom lens, everything else is a prime. For a few years I shot 35mm and 50mm exclusively as those were the only focal lengths I owned. Now I have an ultra wide for landscapes and a short tele for portraits, but 35 and 50 (sometimes 28) are my go-to focal lengths.

Regarding cameras, when I travel I prefer only one camera with two lenses or two cameras with one lens. Here is my travel set up covering 50mm on film and 35mm on digital. This combo covers just about anything I typically want to shoot and served me well for a number of trips in various locations around the world.

DSCF0558-vi.jpg
 
I don't even own a zoom. For my personal work its way over 90% with a 35 on FF. I shoot with that because it matches the way I see. That simple. For my pro work it's about 60% or so. Formal portraits are usually with a 75 and I also shoot some with a 24. Environmental portraits depend on the look the art director or designers are going for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom