John Bragg
Well-known
I have a very flexible outlook when it comes to glass, and espescially vintage glass which is available at bargain bin prices. It did however occur to me that I shoot and compose differently and more confidently when using prime lenses as opposed to zooms. I have owned and shot mainly primes for the last 25-30 years and recently I have acquired some pristine vintage zoom lenses and enjoy using them. I do however feel that they may just be slowing me up and causing me to dither with composition where I am more confident and decisive with a prime. Perhaps it is the Swiss Army Knife Vs the precision tool or the Leatherman Vs the scalpel ? What is your view on this age old subject ? When traveling light a mid range zoom is great but so is a Nifty Fifty.....
Nitroplait
Well-known
When I bring a zoom, everything is a potential photograph - that slows me down. With a prime and with some practice, I "see" with that focal length. It limits possibilities but narrows my focus. I feel I can make better photographs that way.
A bag full of primes negates the advantage of a prime, so I mostly only carry the one on the camera.
A bag full of primes negates the advantage of a prime, so I mostly only carry the one on the camera.
David Hughes
David Hughes
If we are talking about film cameras then I would say a zoom like the 1980's Tokina 28-85mm is great on something like an Olympus OM or any of the other makes that came after it and were inspired by its size and so on. But I'd only take that when visiting new parts of the world in my travels.
Going back to places I know well, or the daily walk, I find the Olympus XA's perfect for the casual photography I do then.
As for dithering; I see it as a minor point as I've the picture in my mind and move the zoom as needed to get it. Usually about 35mm which takes us round in a circle to primes...
In digital what I can afford/justify for a good quality zoom and body tends to be old, heavy and cheap (and frequently left behind because of the weight). And there's no version to compare in digital with the XA's unless you like those screens instead of a decent viewfinder.
Regards, David
PS I was just about to hit the "Submit" button when I thought of all those lovely fixed lens RF's and compacts like the Olympus 35 Trip and so on. And, of course, there's the old Leica CL with its 40 and 90mm lenses and the CLE (sigh).
Going back to places I know well, or the daily walk, I find the Olympus XA's perfect for the casual photography I do then.
As for dithering; I see it as a minor point as I've the picture in my mind and move the zoom as needed to get it. Usually about 35mm which takes us round in a circle to primes...
In digital what I can afford/justify for a good quality zoom and body tends to be old, heavy and cheap (and frequently left behind because of the weight). And there's no version to compare in digital with the XA's unless you like those screens instead of a decent viewfinder.
Regards, David
PS I was just about to hit the "Submit" button when I thought of all those lovely fixed lens RF's and compacts like the Olympus 35 Trip and so on. And, of course, there's the old Leica CL with its 40 and 90mm lenses and the CLE (sigh).
John Bragg
Well-known
Yes David! That's exactly what I am saying. On Saturdays walk, I had an OM1n and Tamron 17A 35-70 f3.5 with me and I find it helps to preset focal length and use it in a way like a prime. I mostly shot it on the long end for woodland portraits of my little one. I am out of practice with zooms but they are so much bang for the buck right now.
Regards, John.
John Bragg
Well-known
Me too. Travelling really light, just a 50mm on the camera. Maybe a 28mm in my pocket.
olakiril
Well-known
Zoom is great for when I hike with other people. Since for landscape I mostly use the two extremes of a 24-70, swapping prime lenses would slow things down too much when people tend to wait for me already. 16-35 or a 70-200 are also good lens candidates for landscape and I never had any good primes at 20 or 200mm range.
But I too enjoy photography more when I have a 35 or a 50 prime on my camera.
But I too enjoy photography more when I have a 35 or a 50 prime on my camera.
Dogman
Veteran
It doesn't matter for my photography. Zoom or prime, I'm still shooting the same types of photos. The big difference for me is that the zooms have smaller maximum apertures. Normally, I like to shoot at wider apertures. With zooms, I find myself mainly shooting wide open. While not the best procedure for image quality, it doesn't usually matter for the subjects I shoot.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Thinking about digital, another advantage of a good, carefully chosen zooms that you can keep it on forever and never let dust have a chance of getting in the camera.
BTW, out of all the light weight compact film cameras I have owned, I reckon the Olympus µ-V was the best, followed by the Pentax 928 (?M) but the Pentax had a difficult in a hurry mode system...
We're in another world with digital as IS has made a great difference as I get older (and can't be bothered with a tripod these days but it's a weight problem again, which was partly solved by APS and so they discontinued APS).
Regards, David
BTW, out of all the light weight compact film cameras I have owned, I reckon the Olympus µ-V was the best, followed by the Pentax 928 (?M) but the Pentax had a difficult in a hurry mode system...
We're in another world with digital as IS has made a great difference as I get older (and can't be bothered with a tripod these days but it's a weight problem again, which was partly solved by APS and so they discontinued APS).
Regards, David
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Fifty years old or older is vintage. Zooms of this age? No, thank you.
On local events I see next to none of accredited photogs with primes. All are with zooms. Maybe on some big sports events, they have to use huge primes, but I'm not close enough to see it on events like these.
On local events I see next to none of accredited photogs with primes. All are with zooms. Maybe on some big sports events, they have to use huge primes, but I'm not close enough to see it on events like these.
I've learned to use a zoom like a few primes. My preferred focal length is 50mm. I keep the zoom on that by default. If a photo is a 35mm or 85mm type photo...I make the decision to change to that focal length before I make the photo. I can make minor zoom changes while photographing if I think it helps...a little wider, a little more tele... It's not that hard.
John Bragg
Well-known
Good take on it John. I think that's sound advice.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I have recently acquired a Canon 5D vIII with a Canon EF 24-70 L IS f4 zoom. I've found it way more versatile than any prime, it hasn't slowed me up at all (the time I used to take for focussing is now done automatically) and I love the results. Over the weekend I took out my Nikon EM with 40mm Voigtlander Ultron and found myself missing shots as I lacked the range.
In short, what you are used to yields the best results.
In short, what you are used to yields the best results.
John Bragg
Well-known
Yes zooms that old would be dire. Mine are mostly from the 80s when some effort was being made to produce good zooms. A good test is how well they zoom without loosing critical focus. Should be able to focus at the wide end and zoom in without drifting off, ie as close to Parfocal as possible.
John Bragg
Well-known
Hi Charles, glad you are still around. Yes it is what you are used to. When shooting primes I tend to move into a better position even before lifting the camera. zooming with my feet so to speak.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Fifty years ago would have been 1971 and so I've been trying to think of a zoom from that era but can't. I reckon zooms started to menace primes for quality in the mid 80's when CAD took off.
Regards, David
But I still prefer using primes! However, it is good to have a zoom when I don’t know what a location looks like. And on the tele end... say longer than 85mm, I prefer zooms because I don’t use those focal lengths enough to know where I should standing before bringing the camera to my eye.
Dogman
Veteran
The oldest zoom I'm familiar with is the infamous Nikkor 43-86mm. It was introduced in 1963, according to Nikon. At the time, it was considered to produce acceptable quality. Today...not so much.
The Kilfitt Zoomar from 1959? Anyone familiar with it? I think it was the first commercially available. Anyone know for sure?
The oldest zoom I personally use is the Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5D. It's from 1999 and it's still a very good lens with cameras up to at least 24mp.
The Kilfitt Zoomar from 1959? Anyone familiar with it? I think it was the first commercially available. Anyone know for sure?
The oldest zoom I personally use is the Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5D. It's from 1999 and it's still a very good lens with cameras up to at least 24mp.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
I love my Sony 24-105 lens. It covers all the focal lengths I find useful and it's good at all of them. It may weigh a tad more than I'd like but it beats carrying all the primes it covers.
james.liam
Well-known
Had a Vivitar zoom with a Minolta 35 years ago. Magenta all over the place and really marginal images. Nikon 75-150/3.5 E wasn't half bad; lower saturation and contrast but light and reasonably sharp images. First zoom that was anywhere near as good as a prime was the Nikkor 17-35/2.8, followed by the 24-70 and 14-24 that really shined. After several years of a DSLR and weighty zoom, my shoulders ached way too much most of the time. All I have now is a MATE for my M9M. That's as "zoomy" as I can bear.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Getting back to the original question; I've usually composed the picture in my head before touching the camera. I guess most of us do the same?
Another advantage of zooms involves winter, rain, mud and changing a prime lens with gloves on...
Regards, David
Another advantage of zooms involves winter, rain, mud and changing a prime lens with gloves on...
Regards, David