I have long wavered between being a "bag 'o primes" shooter and a zoom lens shooter in my personal work. Sure, as a photojournalist and sports photographer, the choice was always easy: zooms. But for everything else, are zooms the best choice?
That's a question that Arkansas-based freelance photographer and YouTuber Walter Lyle posits as he, rightly, points out how zooms can often result in lazy composition and unimaginative shooting. Being forced to move with your feet gets your creative and compositional juices flowing a bit more, and he shows some examples of this.
Is there a correct answer here? I'm not so sure. As a photojournalist, I've long been a fan of the traditional photojournalist's kit: a 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens—it doesn't matter what brand. This pair of lenses can cover 95% of what photojournalists encounter on the job every day, and the major brands build these lenses to high optical standards. But when I'm shooting without a deadline, I've often found myself gravitating toward the more esoteric lenses—135mm prime lenses—or using smaller formats such as Micro Four Thirds, which has its own interesting set of lenses, such as the OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f/1.8 Lens. Other times, I'm out with the kids and pack something simple, like a 50mm f/1.8 lens, something that Lyle notes was the standard kit lens for a long time.
Where I think Lyle's criticism is spot-on is what replaced those prime kit lenses. Almost every new digital camera comes with some sort of focal length in about the 18-55mm range with a variable aperture. While it's possible to get decent results with what are usually optically mediocre lenses, it makes for a steeper learning curve. New photographers are zooming in and out, and the aperture is changing; the photos look like junk because the ISO has to kick up as so little light is being let in. No. Those 50mm f/1.8 primes forced more understanding of gear because the options were more limited.
It's something that I think turns off new photographers to actual photography with cameras rather than phones, as well. A kit lens with a short zoom range and variable aperture doesn't produce results all that different from a phone, whereas a prime lens as a kit lens would let in more light, get shallower depth of field, and allow for shooting at lower ISOs for a noticeable difference in image quality. It's something camera manufacturers should seriously consider if they want to hook new users: pack in a prime lens.
Lyle goes through a lot of the pros and cons of each type of lens and makes a case for each. What do you think is the better option, primes or zooms? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
18 Comments
Really ???
I'm very thankful that I started to learn photography with a couple of primes and an all-manual $100 35mm film SLR. That's all I could afford as a teenager, and it accelerated my learning of the basics of exposure, perspective and composition by leaving those choices up to me. We learn from mistakes. The more the better.
Photographers start with zoom lenses because they're easy. Then they blame the zoom lens for their own poor quality images. So they buy prim lenses and their images still aren't good. Finally, they realize the lens was never the problem and switch back to zooms so they can blame their poor images on the lens again.
I think you have created a straw man. Do you actually know anyone at all who has actually done this? You seem to have the mindset that most photographers are buffoons, who don't really know what they're doing. What a horribly misguided mindset to have.
Most drivers who learned in an automatic can't drive a stick-shift.
I do not see the correlation. Zooms are not easier or more simple to use than primes. And although primes are more simple than zooms, they are not easier or more difficult to use. Using primes and using zooms require the same level of skill and have the same level of difficulty or not-difficulty. Yes, they do.
Conversely, driving a manual transmission car is more difficult and requires more skill than driving an automatic transmission car.
"Zooms are not easier or more simple to use than primes."
Then why use them?
I may not have made one point clearly enough: Having to swap primes raises awareness of the perspective effects of focal length, making choosing that perspective a more conscious choice, particularly for beginners who may zoom simply to make a subject a certain size in the frame. This was certainly the case in my early photo education. When something is so easy that you don't have to think about it, there are fewer opportunities for learning.
I've been shooting events professionally for 25 years now. I have already internalized the effects of focal length on perspective, and I put that knowledge to use with zooms. That said, I enjoy using primes on multiple bodies because it causes me to previsualize more. When I see a moment approaching, I think of the shot I want to make, and THEN I reach for the camera with the appropriate prime on it. With a zoom, this is a more reactive and less deliberative process.
Way back in my Minolta 102, & XD-11 SLR days, all zoom lenses were touted to be inferior to Primes, but along with my Vivitar Series 1 collection of the 28mm 1.9, and 90mm 2.5 Macro primes, the 35-85 2.8, & 70-210 3.5 had quite good IQ for the time; but Zoom lenses have evolved to closely challenge primes IQ, making the convivence, and versatility justify any minor degradation, if any, that may exist.
However, if I was involved in a great deal of shooting a very specific subject matter where the absolute image quality was of primary importance, I would choose a lens that delivered the best results regardless..
My only current prime is a 180mm Macro.
"Zooms vs Primes. Which Side Are You On?"
Suggesting that we need to be on one side, or the other, is just wrong. Excuse my bluntness, but that is an asinine mindset.
Gear choices are not binary. We can all be big enough people to recognize that zooms are better for some types of image-making in certain situations, and primes are better at other types of image-making in other situations.
I will add that the overarching concept that having limited options forces one to learn better ...... is utterly false. Anyone can learn all about composition and perspective control with zooms just as well as they can learn it with primes. And anyone can learn all about the nuances of exposure by using automated modes just as well as they can learn it using fully manual mode. Limitations do NOT result in increased learning and creativity. No, they do not.
There is the old adage when using a prime lens, ‘zoom with your feet’. To change your composition, you simply move closer to or further away from your subject. The problem is, as you move backwards or forwards, the perspective changes. The relationship between different elements in the photo changes.
For example, when I recently took a photograph of a fishing boat in a harbour, I felt the composition was too tight. I wanted a bit more space around my subject. In order to do this I would have to move back a few steps. Trouble is, when I did this you could now see part of a car park and a fence in the foreground and you could no longer see the bottom half of the boat. This ruined the overall effect. The solution, a zoom lens, so that you can stay standing in the same spot and zoom out to get the desired composition.
Having said that, most of my lenses are primes. I learn to live with their limitations.
Warning: Moving closer with your feet when at the edge of a Riverbank, or cliff could be hazardous!
This age old debate is extremely tedious. The old adage 'you do you and I'll do me' is very apt. Everyone has their own preference so there really is no debate to be had. Wedding photographers may use the flexibility of a tried and tested 24-70mm and 70-200mm zoom combination whereas other wedding photographers know they can get by perfectly with just a couple of primes like the classic combination of 35mm and 85mm.
Sorry to disagree, Sam, but “You do you and I’ll do me” is a cop out. “Everyone has their own preferences” is only relavant if they have actually walked the walk and have based their ‘preferences’ on actual experience, which is, too often, not the case. “Garbage in garbage out,” is more like it. More often camera users haven’t learned the basics and are flying by the seat of their pants. I see it all the time in workshops: “but that’s the way I want it to look.” Great, but it doesn’t excuse poor craft. As Ansel Adams said, “There’s nothing worse than a sharp photo of a blurry concept.”
Sorry, not sure what point your comment is trying to make. There are literally a tonne of zoom vs prime videos/articles out there. Do we really need any more? Even the title of this article says 'age old debate'. That is literally the point I'm making. Nothing in this video is covering any new ground that hasn't been said hundreds of times already. You can go on about 'flying by the seat of their pants(?)' or whatever but that doesn't change the point I'm making.
I started interchangeable lens cameras with dad's three primes for the Spotmatic., 28, 55, and 135 Takumars. I lean towards a prime solution, but try to choose the right tool for the job. My primes are mostly old manual focus glass and the zooms mostly AF, which is another decision point. Shot several rolls of B&W film at sporting events last summer for the challenge, Pentax ME Super, power winder and the SMC M 80-200 zoom with good results, and color ,with the Pentax K20D and Tamron 18-200. Shot many perched eagles with the K1mii and giant 500 prime and 2x last month. I shoot quite a bit at custom car shows, and prefer the 50mm for that.
A couple of comments relating zooms / primes to driving automatic / manual. It’s actually a great analogy. Most drivers with automatic drive lazy, just like most people who use zooms are lazy. In both cases, they have fallen into the trap of believing they don’t need to think about what they are doing.
Case in point. Up here in Canada, we get a lot of snow. Most drivers with automatic don’t even realize they have D2 and D1 gears—the gear they should be using to ease into starts and stops and turns in slippery snowy conditions and exactly the gear they should be using when they get stuck in deep snow. I can’t count the number of times I’ve helped people get out of snow, simply by suggesting they use D2 or D1 (low gear). Invariably they say, “Gee, I didn’t even know it was there.”
Same with zooms. People don’t think, and simply believe the zoom is a cropping tool. No, it’s not! Think of a zoom as a set of primes. Choose the focal length to match the perspective you want.
I carry around what is, arguably, the best zoom money can buy: a 12-100mm (24-200mm efov) ƒ4 that is sharp from one end to the other and (mostly) from corner to corner, especially at ƒ5.6 and 8. But I think of it as a 24mm wideangle; a 50mm normal; a 75, 90 or 135mm short tele or a 150 or 200mm mid-tele. Before I compose, I choose the focal length on the zoom matched to the vision I have for the scene or subject in front of me. That is not higher-level thinking; it’s photography!
Bottom line: Use your zoom as a set of primes. Sure beats switching out lenses (and filters) all the time! And ZOOM WITH YOUR FEET! And, in the words of Arthur Felig (or words to that effect) “ƒ8 and be there!”
I disagree with the "lazy" bit. I don't see any value in putting others down over something like this. I learned to drive with a stick-shift. Haven't driven one in decades. Now, my awareness of what gear I'm in is virtually nil, and even though my automatic can switch to manual, I'm so out of practice, and the automatic works so well, that I never use the paddles on the steering wheel. As far as my driving goes, this makes no practical difference. But, in terms of learning, that early stick experience was valuable, and I could do it again if needed. Same goes for my learning with primes and now using both.
I just wish we could see the standard focal lengths (24-70, 70-200 etc.) in sizes that were more manageable, but I would suppose that physics prevents such a thing.