Bill Pierce
Well-known
I’ve often wondered which are the most practical and useful lenses - fixed focal length or zoom. Being an old photographer, I grew up in a world where still photographers didn’t have zoom lenses. The first modern zooms appeared around 1950 on movie cameras. And, although, the first “variable-focal” length still lens was the Kilfitt 36-82mm, the first really popular zooms for stills were in the 80-200mm range for 35MM film cameras.
Today zooms abound in all focal length ranges with image quality that surpasses that of their forebears. And yet, I tend to stick to fixed focal length lenses for almost everything because of their smaller size and higher speed. (A confession, I do have a range of zoom lenses, but use them almost exclusively for working in the theatre from a fixed position in the audience area.) I realize that that using fixed lenses often means carrying more gear and counters the “smaller” argument. And if there is a difference in sharpness between fixed and zoom, it’s probably countered by the photographer’s inadequacies. The one thing that does remain in favor of fixed lenses is their higher speed. And image stabilization can compensate for that in some cases.
Are fixed lenses a thing of the past to be used only by the elderly? I must say I’m very happy with my little lenses, even if I have to move to get the framing I want. But that could just be habit. What do you do? What do you use? And of course, most important, WHY? I want to find out if my affection for fixed focal lengths is a fading phenomenon.
Today zooms abound in all focal length ranges with image quality that surpasses that of their forebears. And yet, I tend to stick to fixed focal length lenses for almost everything because of their smaller size and higher speed. (A confession, I do have a range of zoom lenses, but use them almost exclusively for working in the theatre from a fixed position in the audience area.) I realize that that using fixed lenses often means carrying more gear and counters the “smaller” argument. And if there is a difference in sharpness between fixed and zoom, it’s probably countered by the photographer’s inadequacies. The one thing that does remain in favor of fixed lenses is their higher speed. And image stabilization can compensate for that in some cases.
Are fixed lenses a thing of the past to be used only by the elderly? I must say I’m very happy with my little lenses, even if I have to move to get the framing I want. But that could just be habit. What do you do? What do you use? And of course, most important, WHY? I want to find out if my affection for fixed focal lengths is a fading phenomenon.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I love them both. But my Leica pre asph 35/2 is going to grave with me. But then again I am a fading phenomenon.
shimokita
白黒
I came up in the 50s & 60s so maybe a touch old-school plus my mentor was a photographer who learned his trade in the 20s-30s. Except for P&S, my first zoom was the EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 and my only current zoom is the EF 70-200 f/4... my use of primes is most likely due to a residual thought process as both zooms that I have owned did a reasonable job for personal use... my main cameras are a film RF, film SLR, FF dSLR, and fixed lens mirrorless.
Your use of a zoom use in the theater makes a lot of sense... so nothing against the use of zooms. My personal approach and subject matter allows me to move around quite freely and I like the results from a couple of prime lenses that I have used for a number of years...
Your use of a zoom use in the theater makes a lot of sense... so nothing against the use of zooms. My personal approach and subject matter allows me to move around quite freely and I like the results from a couple of prime lenses that I have used for a number of years...
Michael Markey
Veteran
All fixed save for one zoom which I use for equestrian shots when I have to cover a range of fences .
I could use a prime but it would limit my scope to two maybe three fences .
I can`t move around quickly enough .
Using a zoom doesn`t come naturally to me though .
I could use a prime but it would limit my scope to two maybe three fences .
I can`t move around quickly enough .
Using a zoom doesn`t come naturally to me though .
back alley
IMAGES
i have been thinking about this question for ages...i have the fuji 16-80 which of and by it's self is more lens than i need...i would prefer it a bit smaller but other than that i really like it
but...always a but...the smaller lenses are just more fun to play with. one body and a handful of fujicrons and i am in heaven.
but i'm keeping the zoom.
but...always a but...the smaller lenses are just more fun to play with. one body and a handful of fujicrons and i am in heaven.
but i'm keeping the zoom.
peterm1
Veteran
Presently, like you, I also find myself using fixed focal length lenses most often. And in general I would say that my preference is to not go wider than 50mm if I can help it. Certainly no wider than 35mm (unlike many photographers I find limited use for 28mm and wider). On photo walks around my own city I usually only take one (maximum two) lenses and shooting primes keeps weight and bulk down even further. Though sometimes I will take a zoom if I do not know what the subjects I or shooting circumstances I will be shooting in (e.g. if on "assignment" such as helping a friend out by photographing an event for them) though I prefer not to if I can help it.
A significant reason in my case for preferring primes is their relatively fast maximum aperture - my main objection to zoom lenses being that they are slower than most prime lenses which can be a restriction - both in terms of shooting in the evening or at night and in terms of the ability to provide good subject separation.
A key objection in DSLR systems at least, is that the fastest zooms are necessarily rather large and heavy (hence difficult to carry) and the smaller zooms are slow and often have variable maximum apertures which change depending upon the focal length being zoomed to. (Size and weight is not so much an issue with say, M4/3 where some quite good kit zoom lenses are objectively small but in the Sony range the latest lenses tend to be pretty big.)
When I travel by airline to another country the size and weight of the kit I carry is a particular consideration, more especially if moving about within the destination country. But it depends on my photography plans to some extent.
In general I would say I now shoot primes perhaps 80-90% of the time. The other thing I might mention is that my preferences have probably changed over time. When I mainly shot DSLRs I much more often opted for a zoom lens. This may be due in part to the fact that I more often shoot mirrorless cameras now not DSLR cameras and it may in part be due to me having grown older - carrying heavy zooms with me is admittedly now more objectionable than it once was.
PS There is another small niggling practical issue that bothers me with legacy zooms mounted on mirrorless cameras. I enjoy shooting legacy lenses on mirrorless cameras with adapters. Most mirrorless cameras these days have in-body stabilization (IBIS) which is a boon. But when using legacy lenses it is necessary to program in the focal length of that lens to make sure the IBIS is working in an optimized manner for that focal length. There is an obvious problem with zooms that every shot can be at a different focal length and I do not necessarily know what length I will use till I come to frame the shot. Mostly, perhaps it does not seem to much matter much, but now and then I have noticed that IBIS seems to have accentuated blur rather than reducing it - apparently due to me not having changed it in the camera when I zoomed. Though I have not confirmed this it is the only logical reason for a "dud" shot in some cases where I am otherwise sure I have "nailed" it.
A significant reason in my case for preferring primes is their relatively fast maximum aperture - my main objection to zoom lenses being that they are slower than most prime lenses which can be a restriction - both in terms of shooting in the evening or at night and in terms of the ability to provide good subject separation.
A key objection in DSLR systems at least, is that the fastest zooms are necessarily rather large and heavy (hence difficult to carry) and the smaller zooms are slow and often have variable maximum apertures which change depending upon the focal length being zoomed to. (Size and weight is not so much an issue with say, M4/3 where some quite good kit zoom lenses are objectively small but in the Sony range the latest lenses tend to be pretty big.)
When I travel by airline to another country the size and weight of the kit I carry is a particular consideration, more especially if moving about within the destination country. But it depends on my photography plans to some extent.
In general I would say I now shoot primes perhaps 80-90% of the time. The other thing I might mention is that my preferences have probably changed over time. When I mainly shot DSLRs I much more often opted for a zoom lens. This may be due in part to the fact that I more often shoot mirrorless cameras now not DSLR cameras and it may in part be due to me having grown older - carrying heavy zooms with me is admittedly now more objectionable than it once was.
PS There is another small niggling practical issue that bothers me with legacy zooms mounted on mirrorless cameras. I enjoy shooting legacy lenses on mirrorless cameras with adapters. Most mirrorless cameras these days have in-body stabilization (IBIS) which is a boon. But when using legacy lenses it is necessary to program in the focal length of that lens to make sure the IBIS is working in an optimized manner for that focal length. There is an obvious problem with zooms that every shot can be at a different focal length and I do not necessarily know what length I will use till I come to frame the shot. Mostly, perhaps it does not seem to much matter much, but now and then I have noticed that IBIS seems to have accentuated blur rather than reducing it - apparently due to me not having changed it in the camera when I zoomed. Though I have not confirmed this it is the only logical reason for a "dud" shot in some cases where I am otherwise sure I have "nailed" it.
I generally use primes and prefer a 50mm FOV more than anything else. However, once in awhile I use a 24-120mm (FOV) zoom and have some fun with it mostly on the longer end.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Bill is good on entertaining! 
.
I like small zooms on Canon (d)SLRs and M43. They are really small.
Even Canon EF 22-55 USM lens is not big on FF cameras.
Not to mention Canon 18-55 APC-S small zooms. And very tiny 14-42 for M43.
I like primes on Nikon's old SLRs and obviously on RF. Those triplet focal length elmarits are total garbage, IMO.
.I like small zooms on Canon (d)SLRs and M43. They are really small.
Even Canon EF 22-55 USM lens is not big on FF cameras.
Not to mention Canon 18-55 APC-S small zooms. And very tiny 14-42 for M43.
I like primes on Nikon's old SLRs and obviously on RF. Those triplet focal length elmarits are total garbage, IMO.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Fixed for sure, & often only one along for the ride. When magazines printed from transparencies & I shot more ski photos...it was the Nikkor 80-200 2.8 manual focus, even though i preferred the 180 2.8..... but that kind of photography was pre-AF pre-dig
charjohncarter
Veteran
I don't use zooms but I did do theatrical photography for our local theater (like Bill). And it would have been nice to have a zoom.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
99% of the time I use a fixed focal length lens between 35mm and 135mm
On rare occasions I'll petition Congress for permission to use a lens as wide as 28mm or as long as 300mm.
I have a few zooms, but only use them on outings that deviate from my regular cityscape, landscape, nature, and architecture endeavors.
Perhaps this comes from using a 55/2 as my only lens for 15 years.
On rare occasions I'll petition Congress for permission to use a lens as wide as 28mm or as long as 300mm.
I have a few zooms, but only use them on outings that deviate from my regular cityscape, landscape, nature, and architecture endeavors.
Perhaps this comes from using a 55/2 as my only lens for 15 years.
CMur12
Veteran
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
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
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Anyone that uses rangefinder film cameras and lenses from the 1950s era and is still awashed in Rodinal and D-76 film developers does not worry about fixed focal length lenses being a thing of the past.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
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.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Correct, maybe it is an age thing. But someone on RFF said (and I agree), 'Limitations promote creativity.'
kiemchacsu
Well-known
this made me laughed; even though I started with Rangefinder cameras much later, but still using Rodinal and HC-110;
I don't have any zoom lens at the moment, BTW
zuiko85
Veteran
Prefer primes, for the reasons you list, compact and fast. But I’m 71 and infected with the grumpy and opinionated old man syndrome.
To tell the truth, of all the lenses I’ve owned but sold, the only one I regretted selling was a zoom. That was a 28-48mm f4 (constant aperture) S-Zuiko OM mount.
It was a really handy, and very compact lens and f4 was useable. A f2.8 version would have been twice the size and weight and 3X the price.
Edit; I realized that I still own a zoom, a 50-90 f3.5 Zuiko for my Pen F. Only used it once or twice when not able to stand where I needed to stand with available prime. You frame carefully with a half frame as you want to avoid cropping such a tiny negative.
To tell the truth, of all the lenses I’ve owned but sold, the only one I regretted selling was a zoom. That was a 28-48mm f4 (constant aperture) S-Zuiko OM mount.
It was a really handy, and very compact lens and f4 was useable. A f2.8 version would have been twice the size and weight and 3X the price.
Edit; I realized that I still own a zoom, a 50-90 f3.5 Zuiko for my Pen F. Only used it once or twice when not able to stand where I needed to stand with available prime. You frame carefully with a half frame as you want to avoid cropping such a tiny negative.
A zoom is an attractive idea, and as stated already is so handy for an event where mobility is limited and you want to vary the framing. I've bought zooms on occasion and always have regretted it, so they sit in the cabinet. Usually it's disappointing optical performance coupled with the size, weight, slow aperture, and cost.
My best one is the big 55-100 f/4.5 for Pentax 6x7... Lovely lens, great performance, but wow is it big and heavy! So I use fixed focal lengths.
Also, there's the additional "fiddling" with the zoom ring adding to the usual actions in making a shot. I've tried the idea of just setting the lens to one focal length, pretending it's a prime until I urgently need something longer or shorter. This idea has promise I still think, a mental exercise. But I have a hard time readjusting my mental view to a variable angle.
My best one is the big 55-100 f/4.5 for Pentax 6x7... Lovely lens, great performance, but wow is it big and heavy! So I use fixed focal lengths.
Also, there's the additional "fiddling" with the zoom ring adding to the usual actions in making a shot. I've tried the idea of just setting the lens to one focal length, pretending it's a prime until I urgently need something longer or shorter. This idea has promise I still think, a mental exercise. But I have a hard time readjusting my mental view to a variable angle.
oftheherd
Veteran
Funny in a way that I started out with fixed focal length lens cameras. So when I got my first SLR and discovered on reading the the instructions, that by simply screwing off one lens and screwing on another, I could change to different focal length lenses, I wasn't sure it made any sense to me.
As I began to get more into photography, and read all the books and magazines I could get my hands on (especially magazines), I began to realize I really needed some additional lenses. Money forced me into a cheap kit of a 28mm and 135mm. I really thought I was where it was at. Then magazines showed me I couldn't feel or ever be a good photographer without zooms. I did very little zooming with my feet after that.
Now I really want to get back into photography (very bad back so I really can't hardly walk), and oddly enough, I yearn for those days that were much simpler in lens use.
I have seen some very good photographs with zoom lenses. Some photographers obviously can put them to good use. But just like "seeing" wide more that long, I had been moving towards fixed focal length more than zoom before my back gave out on me.
As I began to get more into photography, and read all the books and magazines I could get my hands on (especially magazines), I began to realize I really needed some additional lenses. Money forced me into a cheap kit of a 28mm and 135mm. I really thought I was where it was at. Then magazines showed me I couldn't feel or ever be a good photographer without zooms. I did very little zooming with my feet after that.
Now I really want to get back into photography (very bad back so I really can't hardly walk), and oddly enough, I yearn for those days that were much simpler in lens use.
I have seen some very good photographs with zoom lenses. Some photographers obviously can put them to good use. But just like "seeing" wide more that long, I had been moving towards fixed focal length more than zoom before my back gave out on me.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have many lenses and many cameras. Most of the lenses are prime lenses, and I tend to prefer that. Why? Because they're simpler to understand and use, for me.
G
G