Fixed??

[RichC]

Fewer conscious decisions and more reflexive action work better for me with my style. Photographing for years with the same lens, or a similar FOV when shooting medium format, gives me the instinctive ability to mentally frame a scene, do any necessary foot zooming, and trip the shutter as soon as I raise the camera to my eye. If I was using a zoom, I would have another decision which usually means my intended photo op disappears while I am thinking about it.

This.

Also, I favour 50mm, since that approximates human vision, with 35mm and 80mm used on occasion when I need less or more reach for a particular subject.

And although modern zoom lenses match prime lenses in image quality in most areas, they still often have unacceptably high (to me) pincushion or barrel distortion.

That said, I have a few zoom lenses, and they do get used - either for convenience when I'm carrying my camera for casual rather than "serious" use or when the subject needs the flexibility of a zoom.

In short, I prefer prime lenses centred on 50mm but use zoom lenses if they suit the situation/subject.

PS: the size/weight of zooms is a non-issue for me, as when I'm working on a photographic project I need to carry at least two prime lenses, which weigh as much as a decent zoom, if not more.

 

[Brian Atherton]

My last ‘system’ 35mm film camera was the Minolta CLE with its three lenses: 28, 40 and 90mm. It travelled all over the world with me.

Currently my digital equivalent (sort of) is the X-Pro3 with 16, 23 and 35mm lenses. Travelling light around London for a day usually I will have just one lens: most often the 23mm.

However, travelling abroad, the X-Pro3 is paired with the 16-55mm: I just don’t want to be swapping lenses around in environments that quite often are dusty or wet. 16-55mm covers way more than I need and f2.8 in digital is plenty fast enough, especially with digital’s high ISO capability, and the 16-55mm zoom IQ is virtually indistinguishable against a prime.

Primes and zooms both have a valid and useful place in my ‘armoury’. I don’t really favour one over the other: in my book it’s the right tool for my needs.

But if I was held over a flame and told I could have just one lens for ever it would have to be the Fujifilm 23mm f1.4 (or the 35mm Summicron with film).

 

[Out to Lunch]

Agreed, the Fuji XF 2.8/16-55 is a fantastic lens. I am using it with the Fuji X-H1 and love the results I am getting with this combo.

 

[retinax]

Hi Bill -

I like to choose a focal length and explore a subject with it, before changing to another focal length and exploring with that. This works best for me, as it allows me to visualize in terms of the focal length I am using at the moment.

For some reason, I just don't find images by zooming and changing the focal length as a means of visual exploration.

- Murray

This is it for me, too. Size, weight, and speed are just a bonus (although on SLRs speed is a necessity for pleasant framing and accurate focus, and RFs which I just like using demand fixed FLs, so one could see this as the decisive factors). Btw my age is way under the average of this forum.
Not a generational thing at all, or in the opposite way you propose. Most of the big zoom wielders I observe in the wild are boomers. Young people use phones with fixed fl a lot, and cameras like x100s and some hipsters use film cameras always with the standard lens.

 

[jsrockit]

Fewer conscious decisions and more reflexive action work better for me with my style. Photographing for years with the same lens, or a similar FOV when shooting medium format, gives me the instinctive ability to mentally frame a scene, do any necessary foot zooming, and trip the shutter as soon as I raise the camera to my eye. If I was using a zoom, I would have another decision which usually means my intended photo op disappears while I am thinking about it.

I’m like you Bob. Within the 40-85mm range i just know where to stand before bringing the camera to my eye. However, when I use a zoom, I work the same way. I know by my general surroundings what focal length to choose on my zoom. So I set my zoom and then photograph as if I had a prime. I prefer primes, but a zoom comes in handy when I don’t know my location well.

 

[John Bragg]

Primes only for many many years until I bought an F5 and decided to add a pro zoom for convenience. I got a 35-70 Nikkor Af D f2.8. I like constant apperture and speed is an advantage. It is my least used AF Nikkor, but it is useful on occasion. My biggest gripe is that it is prone to flare, but a stunning lens all the same. Not one for travelling light though, but it is a good people lens and great for a walkabout lens. So in summation I shoot 90% prime lenses, but keep a zoom for if the need arises.

 

[Brian Atherton]

I’ve been doing photography long enough now, and like a number of contributors here I know my field of view with whatever prime lens I’m using.

With a zoom, with me it’s see the shot, frame it, take it, move on… usually it’s just the one shot. I’m not one be faffing about zooming in and out in a dilemma as to which focal length to use, or taking multiple shots of the same subject at different focal lengths.

Also, since moving from film, digital hasn’t changed the amount I take, either. Out and about for a day I’ll be lucky if I take more than fifty shots.

 

[Dogman]

Mostly primes and mostly primes in the range of 35mm to 85mm. I do have zooms. They are convenience lenses.

I began photography with prime lenses, converted to zooms for several years and then reverted to primes. Today I prefer primes but there's no objective reason for it. Today's zooms are better than the prime lenses I had when I began shooting.

 

[PaulDalex]

Fixed on film, mostly zoom on digital.
This is because the possibility that changing lens the sensor get dirty and I have to clean it (in a camera with IBIS) really scares me

 

[Bill Clark]

Like them both.

Events I used 24-70 f2.8 lens 98% of the time.

Leica I use 50 and 28 that’s it.

Do own some Nikkor primes I bought when in the military. From 20 to 135.

Used a 150 Zeiss for portraits with Hasselblad.

 

[zenza]

Definitely don't think fixed lenses are a way of the past. Look at the fixed lens digital offerings from Fuji, Sony, and Ricoh.

 

[newsgrunt]

24 and 50 1.4 lenses are what I use for probably 90% of my work. If needed, then the 17-35 is put on the D850. Using these two lenses allows a more consistent look to my work, and they're also a) much lighter than zooms, and b) more durable imo

 

[Ulophot]

No longer a professional for many years, I have the luxury of not worrying about the accuracy of what I used to do. I used two FM2s and an M4 for decades of photojournalism and personal work and 14 years of ballet, and a lot of that was me on stage or in studio, dodging dancers. All prime. I have returned to photography after forced absence, all film and darkroom. (The only zoom is on my video camera.) I'm nearing 70 and admit that the Mamiya 645 has gotten weighty. The M4 is still a pearl, with 35, 50 and 90. My 4x5 Tachihara plus tripod come to 11 lbs -- very portable. The ballet is in my (and my back's) happy past; photojournalism as well. But I just have no interest in zooms; never did. Most of photography's history was fine without them. I'll never match the best of what's been done, and a zoom's convenience surely will not improve, my art or craft.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Sony APS bodies for most shooting. One with 24 f/1.8, one with 55 f/1.8, both are the Sony-Zeiss lenses. I am very happy with this setup.

 

[Ronald M]

Have to use primes on Leica M. Nikon F2 has better primes than zooms. Nikon digitals have decent zooms, but are big and heavy. I use the 24/120 F4 and 70/200 2.8 Vr2 if I don`t have to walk too far. Even the 1.4 G primes are monsters and no better than the AiS primes for F2.
Distortion is less on primes and Micro contrast is better.
Leica is best of all and is my preferred system.

 

[Pál_K]

Well, for Leica there's the Tri-Elmar - not a zoom, not a prime really.

There was 28-35-50...

... then 16-18-21 (Really? Why bother? It's what I call a Real Estate Photographer's lens, though they probably use 12mm).

Had it been 28-50-90, I'd've bought one.

 

[kbb]

Mostly shooting with a 24x36 DSLR, I prefer primes...but good primes for 24x36 are themselves rather heavy, not like Leica primes, which I envy all the time.
When I use the wide zoom (17-35, or in the past, the 14-24), I tend to set it at standard focal lengths: 18/21/24/28/35 as practice for prime shooting.

 

[Timmyjoe]

For personal work, primes(fixed), for reportage, zooms. Although my favorite zooms are the ones everyone used in the 1990's, the 80-200 f2.8 and the 20-35 f2.8.

The 70-200 f2.8 is a good replacement for the tele-zoom, but I can't find a good replacement for the 20-35. Using an old Nikon one, the sharpness just can't match the 70-200. And the 17-35 isn't terribly sharp either. The 14-24 is razor sharp but I like being able to get to 35mm. And the 24-70 most people use now isn't wide enough and wastes too much focal length from 35mm-70mm.

So it's a dilemma. Wish someone would make a 20-35 that was as sharp as the 70-200's that are currently on the market. Then I'd be a happy zoom user.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Doug]

...The 70-200 f2.8 is a good replacement for the tele-zoom, but I can't find a good replacement for the 20-35. Using an old Nikon one, the sharpness just can't match the 70-200. And the 17-35 isn't terribly sharp either. The 14-24 is razor sharp but I like being able to get to 35mm. And the 24-70 most people use now isn't wide enough and wastes too much focal length from 35mm-70mm.

So it's a dilemma. Wish someone would make a 20-35 that was as sharp as the 70-200's that are currently on the market. Then I'd be a happy zoom user.

Best,
-Tim

Maybe switch to Pentax and use their Pentax 20-35mm f/4.0 SMCP Zoom which covers 24x36 nicely. 😉

 

[Rob-F]

Also, I favour 50mm, since that approximates human vision,

PS: the size/weight of zooms is a non-issue for me, as when I'm working on a photographic project I need to carry at least two prime lenses, which weigh as much as a decent zoom, if not more.

Wait a minute. 50mm approximates human vision? I don't think human vision can be said to be any single focal length. we can see a very wide field, if definition isn't important; probably 150 degrees or so. Then again, our area of sharp vision is only equivalent to an area the size of a dime held at arm's length. That's the view covered by the fovea, the part of the retina able to image sharply.

I think the idea that the 50mm is our native field may come from Nikon advertising: their "Like your eyes only" slogan they've used for their 50mm lenses.

I think the lens that matches our vision is subjective. I think it depends on personality. Two favorite focal lengths for me are 35mm and 24mm. When I raise the camera, I generally expect to see in the finder the field I was hoping for, when there is a 35mm lens on the camera. If that isn't wide enough. then the 24/25mm lens might be perfect. Only at certain times will the 50mm be the one.

I say it depends on personality because I think that the person who wants to simplify the shot down to its essence wants a long lens. That was my dad, with his beloved 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor. Then there is the person who wants to show the complexity of objects in relation to each other, foreground and background, who wants a wide lens. That's me with my 35mm, 25mm, and at times 15mm lenses.

Oh, and about size and weight. Yes, one zoom can weigh less that two or three primes, in the bag. But one prime weighs less than most zooms, on the camera, where it counts!