Zoom!!!

Michael Markey said:
Which is a good thing when you`re in front of horses jumping hedges ....
Get too close and the only connection you`ll have with your environment is from the inside of an ambulance .
Click to expand...

MM, There were/are still fixed focal length telephotos.... I always like the Nikkor 180 2.8 & certainly the ED glass lenses give pretty fine results
 
Primes are usually smaller, lighter and faster, but there are times when flexibility is more crucial. If you need the photos for publication and access is limited, two bodies and two zooms, one short and one long, will give you the flexibility those two bodies and a bag full of primes don't offer. If you are shooting for yourself, that may not be an issue.
 
Deardorff38 said:
MM, There were/are still fixed focal length telephotos.... I always like the Nikkor 180 2.8 & certainly the ED glass lenses give pretty fine results
Click to expand...

Hi .... yep I sometimes use a fixed length 400/4 but you can miss an awful lot of shots that way especially over an extended course especially where that course has a number of options .
If I need to cover a fast moving event thoroughly I find a zoom the best way of doing it ....
I have to say though using one doesn`t come naturally to me and I tend to use them err economically (I guess would be the best description ) .
For certain activities though they`re invaluable .
 
Michael Markey said:
Hi .... yep I sometimes use a fixed length 400/4 but you can miss an awful lot of shots that way especially over an extended course especially where that course has a number of options .
If I need to cover a fast moving event thoroughly I find a zoom the best way of doing it ....
I have to say though using one doesn`t come naturally to me and I tend to use them err economically (I guess would be the best description ) .
For certain activities though they`re invaluable .
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right Michael, though reflecting on it, i don't find myself photographing those kinds of activities any more
 
I used to use almost only zooms, because they gave me more flexibility, but now I use almost only primes. They are more compact, but they also feel a little bit more "old fashioned" to use, which I like. Zooms almost make framing too easy.

I do think that having a fixed focal length makes you "zoom with your feet" so you just have to think different than using a zoom, where you can stay more stationary. It's just a different way of thinking and solving problems, I don't know that zooming makes you "think more" it's just different.

That being said I like the "feel" of using primes more, after being spoiled by the more modern zooms for a long time.
 
I've never really liked the 'look' of zooms. Probably had something to do with my early photography relying on less-than-stellar Soligor and Series E kit lenses from the 70s.
I know image characteristics like that are things only photographers and not viewers pick up on.

Professionally, I've rarely used them. In photojournalism school my professors and peers thought it was a bit absurd I'd have an enormous bag full of primes for a shoot (often slightly vintage, and still end up shooting mostly with a 35 or 90) instead of the bog standard 35-70. One of my first-year professors hammered in the 'zoom with your feet' mentality and I guess that stuck, as well.

These days, I mostly shoot with a RF or a MF SLR and zooms are just not even an affordable option (if you can call the Tri-Elmars zooms). It's just a no-brainer, and I don't even think of zooms at all. I'm not shooting sports or breaking news, or even many weddings anymore, and if I want to carry just one lens, you bet it'll be a 35 or a 50.

I'm sure optics have grown much better with the explosion of mirrorless, based on the number of zooms every major make is offering when I stop in the local shop. A lot more than the old 18-300 'do-everything' lenses that seemed to be popular with Sigma et al in the early DSLR days. I just don't have much interest in switching to mirrorless to try them.

Despite that, there's one that I've kept—the venerable old Nikkor ED 80-200, 'trombone' push-pull zoom. A hobby of mine is bicycle racing, particularly the muddy sport of cyclocross, and I still love photographing the afternoon races after I'm done with my own. In the woods on a tight closed course, a decent aperture, AF and a good bit of range are godsends.
 
Forest_rain said:
That being said I like the "feel" of using primes more
Click to expand...

With the exception of my LF & Rolleiflex, my other cameras are rangefinders. When I see an image I want to photograph, I like knowing where the framelines are when I lift my camera.
 
When I started in photography - in the late 60's - early 70's, slide film was ISO 50 (Velvia) or 100 and color negative ISO 400 at the max with B&W topping at a startling ISO 1600. Zooms were non-existent, so everybody used primes.
Current sensors allow shooting at ISO 6400 and zooms - even good zooms are plentiful.
Pro wedding shooters carry 2 cameras with ±35mm and ±85mm fast primes, have a 2nd shooter with a 3rd lens and a videographer.
When I - as an amateur - shoot an event on my own, I use my 24-105 f4 zoom most of the time to be prepared for anything what will happen, with a 85mm 1.8 in the bag for portraits, time permitting. This zoom is also perfect as 'walk around lens'.
On my own projects, when I dictate time and place, I can choose either primes or zooms, depending on circumstances.
Traveling light, I just carry my RX1Rii with its wonderful Sonnar 35mm to shoot happily with the limitations this brings to me.
 
I prefer primes and generally within the 35-85mm range is what I use. However, sometimes I really enjoy going out with a zoom to change things up... especially on the tele end. So, for me... up to 85mm, I prefer primes. After 85mm, I prefer a zoom.
 
benlees said:
The whole point in using a camera is to separate the photographer from the environment...
Click to expand...

I don't get what this means.


I had a 24 - 35mm f3.5 zoom that I liked better than any other I had tried. But I don't like composing through a zoom and I decided that I would rather just have a 28mm prime. So, I sold the zoom and bought a 28mm, which has indeed served me better, as I like to visualize in terms of a given focal length.

I find most zooms of adequate speed cumbersome (large and heavy) and difficult to look through. I don't know if the latter is purely because zoom lenses are slower or because there is some difference to viewing through a more "cluttered" optical formulation.

- Murray
 
I am not a professional so I can afford to miss a shot.

I don’t use zoom lenses, they slow me down, the decision making process you mention leads to loss of time. Only exception for me is having a zoom in car on passenger seat.
 
I started out with primes as zooms were not common and the ones available were usually not considered very good. When I was able to afford some Vivitar zooms I jumped in. I used them but was just never that comfortable with how they rendered things. I tried to keep getting good results, but was not satisfied as often as I wanted. I mostly used my primes which were 18, 24, 50, 135 and 300. A little heavy to carry all but I felt more comfortable using them.

I did luck into one set of 3 zooms that shouldn't have been as good as they were, and took me from 18-150mm. I still prefer my primes, but I don't mind having those 3 zooms either, especially since a bad back limits my photography.

I tend to think primes and zooms are just tools so when I am able to get out to photograph, I have everything I might need now.
 
gavinlg said:
Zooms are lazy in my opinion - they dilute the connection between photographer and environment.

*puts on flame suit*
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's true... when I use a zoom, I predetermine my focal length before bringing the camera to my eye. I rarely am zooming back and forth with the VF to my eye. Basically, I use my zoom like a few primes. Keep it at 50mm and change it when I need something different. Once in awhile, a little zoom tweak really benefits a picture... meaning, instead of 50mm, maybe 40 or 60mm works better and is a quick adjustment. One could say our reliance on one prime fits all situations is lazy too. I don't agree, but I can understand why someone might think that.
 
Come to think of it, if I was a photojournalist, I might prefer to use a zoom. You really need to get "Up close" pictures of people and events, but a lot of times you can't really get into the action as much. Having to change lenses/focal lengths mid action could mean missing a shot.


I can see why professional photojournalists use huge zooms often times, but for artistic purposes, primes have a lot of advantages.
 
As I age, zooms are too heavy. More than a few primes are too heavy. If it does not fit my Domke F 5XB, it stays home.

Leica M with 35,50, 90 is about right. I do not appreciate 21 1.4 and that ilk. Too big, too expensive, and do not need 1.4.
21 4.0 or 24 3.8 are cheaper , smaller, and very good.

Had a Vivitar 80/200 in 60`s. Pile of junk not worth a shutter click.

Hassy and RB67 had no zooms and I did not miss them.

Learn to shoot with what you have.

Today IF i am working in the rain or snow or dust or can not change lenses, i will grab a Nikon + 24/120 + 70/200.

So much for old buddy duddy opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom