The "zoom lenses are the devil!!!!" Poll

The "zoom lenses are the devil!!!!" Poll

  • I will not use a massive zoom lens no matter what. Primes all the way!!!

    Votes: 63 23.7%

  • I will use a zoom lens only if the situation requires it, otherwise Primes the other 98% of the time

    Votes: 156 58.6%

  • I will use zoom lenses more often than prime lenses, they're more versatile

    Votes: 42 15.8%

  • Prime lenses? What are you.... 80? (I only use zooms)

    Votes: 5 1.9%
  • Total voters
    266
I've got a couple of good zoom lenses and many prime lenses, and use prime lenses 95% of the time. The usual compromise with a zoom is the tradeoff between flatness of field and barrel/pincushion distortion--correct one and you lose the other, particularly at the extremes of the zoom range. They make some sense, though, for small formats, because you want to use every square mm of the frame when possible, and it's not always possible to stand where you want to stand.

So I use them mostly for event photography, where I'm photographing people and not usually as concerned about getting straight lines at the edge of the frame. I try to use short DOF to further minimize the importance of straight lines in the background.

They're both constant aperture lenses, so I can use manual or non-ttl auto flash with them.

I also use them sometimes with Super-8--there's no space to waste on that tiny frame, and cropping isn't an option for projected motion picture film.
 
Last edited:
I use both and find like Ondrej that it is far better to have a zoom when traveling with a group where you can't reasonably move to get into position all the time and or hold everyone up while you do. When I am alone and can take my time not inconveniencing others I prefer primes. Zooms also let me get more memories in the bag from a trip where the subject material is varied. I think too most modern zooms a good enough for what I want them for.

Bob
 
i think zooms should be made for the people who knows how to use them:)
i don't:)

actually most people think they are easier to use than primes, and that is true on the most basic holiday family photo shooting level, but in fact they are much more difficult to use properly. There are just too many variables to screw up the composition.
 
Never had one and since I shoot a Leica now primarily, I don't see that changing anytime soon. I think the more you get used to a focal length, the better you get at using it. But I don't use a meter, auto focus or any other things that many people enjoy so I'm sure people can learn to use them well.

Zooms seem to imply a bigger camera with more features and one size fits all style of shooting that doesn't really attract me at all. I prefer a very specific platform for my style of shooting and that happens to be a Leica with a 35mm Summicron pretty much permanently attached. I think limitations sometimes foster your creativity.

However when traveling recently, I started thinking that a short zoom like a 24-50 might be useful.

Maybe a OM1 and 28-48?
 
While I do not have a dSLR yet, it's going to be Prime all the way for me. I look at an SLR (D or A) the same way I do an RF, get the best glass you can. The newest set of super zooms make way too many trade-offs in quality for me. While I'm hoping Pres K. will come out with a 24mm in his SLII line of lenses, for now it's a 24/2.8, 105/2.5, 180/2.8 ED Nikkor and an 58/1.4 CV SLII.

Yes, you can adjust for all sorts of distortion and stuff on a computer, but I'm an old slide shooter and way too lazy to want to tweak every picture.

B2 (;->
 
I have two zooms, an AF & MF both Nikkor. The AF opens up to a whopping f5.6 at 70mm (read: it's cheap crap I used with digital) and the MF is very heavy and not that fun to carry around. Most of the time I walk around with a 50mm prime (SLR & RF.) In general I find zooms to be pretty dark.

I realized the validity of comments along the lines of "you're best zoom is a few steps forwards or backwards" but one cannot always do that. I sometimes shoot scenes where walking forward I'd end up in the river, or the zoom helps crop out those #$%& overhead powerlines that the Japanese have strung up everywhere. I think they are useful and have their place.
 
To me, it's ergonomics and confort.

RF cameras are small, no need for a zoom that will be necessarily slower. I can carry two bodies and be as happy as a clam.

SLRs are heavy, cumbersome, big... and I don't want to walk around with two bodies and primes. One body and one zoom do the trick for me. Hence, I'm a zoom man with SLRs, and a fixed focal length user with RFs.

As for sharpness, image quality and the like, I believe most lenses are more than adequate performers. IOW, there's no such thing as a bad lens. :)
 
I'm in the group that won't use zooms unless absolutely, positively necessary. yes, they have their benefits just as primes do, however I find I tend to force myself to be a little more creative when I have a prime since it restricts me to a focal length. When I used zooms, I found I would stay in one spot and let the lens do the work for me. It wasn't until after I started using primes did I try to get a little more creative with my shots. Fortunately 99% of my shooting is either wide angle or close range, so that also really limits the focal lengths I need or use.
 
Last edited:
I find zooms to be distracting...like carrying too many lenses and not being able to decide which to use...except they're all on the camera at once.
No knock against zooms, just how I react to them.
I also don't like the usual limitation to f2.8.
 
I'm with those who are confused by zooms. Though I've got 25-50. So I decided to use it as "several lenses in one barrel", choosing one focal length and zooming with feet. If I'm in "wide mood", I stay with 25mm and if I'm in "normal mode" I swing lens into 50mm. After all, FOV is important - if I think wide, 50mm and five steps back isn't exactly same as 25mm from 1.5m ?

What I get ? Not swapping lenses, that's it. Maybe over time I'll learn more about zooms.
 
If I have/can_afford the prime, then I use that. At both the long and wide end, the zoom is often the only affordable choice.
 
myoptic3 said:
I never understood the odd notion that a zoom lens makes anyone lazy. By that reasoning, I guess AF, AE, in camera metering, and most everything else is laziness too.
Click to expand...

Since I'm "new" enough for this recollection to be fresh, I'll recount it now. I started out with a low-end dSLR and the kit zoom lens. I promptly got a Sigma 30mm 1.4 as a fast normal lens for available light. Soon I had a couple more primes (glo~~rious cheap MF glass... :angel:) in the stable. What I found by working with the primes vs. the zoom was more than the adage "zoom with your feet". I found that when using the primes it helped me to keep moving in all directions towards different compositions. Ultimately, I liked working with the primes so much better than the kit zoom lens that I sold the kit lens.

That said, I've nothing against zooms and there are times, especially when my movement is restricted, when I've desperately wanted a good zoom. I think that having concentrated on moving myself around with my primes will be an asset when I eventually return to working with zoom lenses.
 
myoptic3 said:
I never understood the odd notion that a zoom lens makes anyone lazy. By that reasoning, I guess AF, AE, in camera metering, and most everything else is laziness too. Sometimes one can't get close enough, or back up far enough, to use a fixed lens. And my Nikon zooms are as sharp as most any prime lens. Has anyone tried to capture a fleeting moment while having to change lenses?

Hey, using a camera is lazy. Pull out that pencil and paper and draw that portrait. But make sure you use a regular pencil. I think that mechanical pencils make you lazy.
Click to expand...

When shooting air shows, car racing, sports, or train runbys, I'd use the SLR and a zoom because I can't change primes fast enough. I do note that I tend to use the same focal lengths repeatedly, like 105, 70, and 50 or 35 if I take three shots of a moving object.

Now, when items are moving slower or not at all, out comes the CL with the 40...
 
I have only one zoom, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, an excellent performer for my D80. Despite it's performance I've only used it 3 times in the four months I've owned it. Bought it to shoot a wedding which now has been cancelled and find myself preferring my Nikkor primes, the 20mm f2.8 and 50 f1.8. I agree with other posters that a zoom is handy when travelling with others eg family etc but for more considered shooting I reach for the primes. Having said that I rarely use the D80 anyway. Must have used it only 10 times since buying it 14 months ago. The weight and bulk just puts me off using it most of the time and prefer my CLE or Contax T2 or for digi my Canon G7.
 
I have never bought a zoom lens for a film camera. Until the 1970s at least, zooms were large, heavy, delicate and optically not so good: or so we thought. Things have changed since then; and besides, with a digital SLR there really is little choice.
 
payasam said:
and besides, with a digital SLR there really is little choice.
Click to expand...

hmm? I'm not getting you here. Maybe I've got a sixth sense: "I see primes!" :p Such as: Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Voigtländer 58mm f/1.4, Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 AI-S... plus the tons of other ones new and used that I don't own. I will grant that some dSLR users only seem to "see" zoom lenses, but many seem to prize their fine primes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom