As you read the title of this, you might think that this photographer is crazy, but indeed, he abhors the (almost) universally revered 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for wedding photography. Check out his reasons why in this quick video essay.
Coming to you from Taylor Jackson, this video breaks down why he avoids using a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for wedding work, instead opting for primes. Of course, the 24-70mm is the standard bread and butter lens of the industry, but Jackson does make a few valid assertions. In fairness, while such a lens is indeed heavy and expensive, a bagful of primes probably challenges the zoom on both fronts. Nonetheless, he makes some very interesting points about developing a consistent style and some of the other advantages of primes. On the other hand, a 24-70mm f/2.8 is about as pragmatic as a lens can get, and if there's any genre of photography that demands a pragmatic mindset for success, it's likely weddings. Still, many successful wedding photographers shoot with primes, so it really comes down to what works for you.
What do you think? Does the 24-70mm f/2.8 have a place in your bag?
Wow, you really don't get it. It's the content, sentence structure, word-choice and style that is evidence you lifted and reworded the sentence from Wikipedia.
Do you honestly not see how impossibly similar these two sentences are? Yet again my evidence:
Wikipedia:
"Cartier-Bresson nearly always used a Leica 35 mm rangefinder camera fitted with a normal 50 mm lens, or occasionally a wide-angle lens for landscapes."
Your sentence:
"We do know that he [Cartier-Bresson] mostly shot with a 50 mm lens on 35mm film, and the occasional wide angle lens for many of his landscapes"
The second clause being the most damning: they are nearly word for word the same clause! Not only that, they are combined with a previous clause that details the exact same content, and sentence structure, only with a rearranged order. This sentence from Wikipedia–mind you–is not a quote from any other source, even though it inaccurately quotes Van Riper for source content. Van Riper doesn't mention Bresson's use of a wide angle lens for landscapes in that essay. So there is only one place where this specific sentence, in this format, is available online. That is Wikipedia.
Combine this further with the fact that in your same post, only a couple sentences later, you quote the exact same quote from Bresson that this section of the Wikipedia article quotes, including the aforementioned placement of ellipses.
You are honestly going to sit here and tell me these unimaginable similarities are a coincidence? If so, than I have nothing else to say to you.
The only similarity between what I said and what WP said was the very last part, nothing else. But….
«Van Riper doesn't mention Bresson's use of a wide angle lens for landscapes….»
No. You are correct. VR does NOT use the word, ‘landscapes.’
“He almost always shot in black-and-white; his favorite lens was a 50mm f/2 Summicron, on occasion a medium-wide 35mm f/2 or a 90mm f/2.8.”
But you know who did say he used the 35 mm or 90 mm for landscapes? C-B. His street photography was almost always with the 50 mm because he did not like changing lenses and he liked the ‘normal perspective.’ (There is a reason I put that in quotes, and it is because of misinformation about what a ‘normal perspective’ is, and how to get it). He only really ever switched lenses when his subject wasn’t going anywhere, such as in a landscape. He was about to take a certain ‘still’ shot one day in Greece, when a little girl ran into his shot and he snapped her at —and apparently, as with all writers about C-B, I have to use this overused quote at this point— “the decisive moment,” thus producing one of the rear cases where he has a person shot with a 35 mm lens.
« …the exact same quote….»
Again, all quotes are exactly the same.
«…including the aforementioned placement of ellipses.»
Except, as I stated, —and this is the other part where I am man enough to admit that I was wrong— my quote, which I had mistakenly thought, (ironically, because of the ellipsis), was from his spoken, English language interview, was lifted from an article, “Henri Cartier-Bresson: A Photographer And His Leica,” written by Bill Dobbins, (which is probably where WP got it, I have neither the patience, nor the time to verify), which quoted it thusly, ellipsis and all. Did it occur to you that WP and I had the same source?
So, NO, Mr. Detective, YOU ARE WRONG! But good try. Funny, though, for all this talk about me using WP, (and, for the record, I really do not see what the problem with actually using WP is all about), you seem to be the one who exhaustively uses it, as if it were a bad thing. The thing you are claiming that I did, in using a source without crediting them, is in fact something I am guilty of doing, but mostly because I hate citing the source of the source, (which I learned in school not to do, unless the original source is unavailable), but to always go and use the original. Therein lies my mistake of claiming that my source was the English language interview, when the source was, in fact, “The Decisive Moment,” by H.C.-B. (But my source of the source was Bill Dobbins, who did NOT give his source).
*Mic Drop*
Well I'm glad to hear you finally–sort of–admitted to it. Try to be more sincere next time.
I don't think you even know to what I admitted. I was always sincere.
Whatever, man.
Yep, "not sure", just a guess.
Bresson died in 2004, shooting exclusively on a Leica with primes. He didn't shoot with slrs or zooms even though they were widely available for decades. So no, he wouldn't have gone to Costco to get a Rebel.
You may be right. But let's keep this in mind: Bresson stopped doing photography in the 1970s, spending his last decades on his painting, his first love. Also, during the period in which he was most-prolific (1930s to 1975), zoom lenses weren't nearly as high-quality as they are now.
As Karim Hosein notes, Cartier-Bresson was perfectly willing to think about new technology (even if he may not been willing to use it) because the camera "is a tool" and you use new tools when they are either available or greatly improved. Perhaps he would use zooms. Perhaps not. Perhaps he would land somewhere in between. But he seems open to it based on what he wrote.
Again, we don't know what Cartier-Bresson would say today. But we can't assume that he wouldn't use new technology or work with zooms. Nor can we assume he would. Such assumptions is going far beyond what we can possibly know.
I think this speaks to my point (if it did not originally come through effectively, which may have been from my own curt response): Bresson was little enamored with advancements in photographic gear, and more focused on generating visuals. Certainly he could have used an slr, which were of extremely high quality and had surpassed the rangefinder from a technical standpoint years before he "retired". But he didn't, so there's no reason to assume he would adopt even newer technologies, because he never did.
He stopped photographing professionally in the 70's, but continued to shoot personally every now and then. In the 30 years after he stopped in 1975, I've never heard of him using any newer cameras or lenses. I'd love to be proven wrong if someone has evidence of him shooting with autofocus, slrs, zooms, etc. during this period.
so after retiring in 1975, he never picked up a newer camera, so that suggests that as a professional, he would not have? I know pros today who would never use a phone camera for a professional shoot, (which is indicative of just shy of all pros), but when they are not on a shoot, the only camera they take is a smartphone.
His behavior after retiring is not necessarily indicative of what his professional choices may have been. We really cannot say, but in his own words, he was not averse to adapting to changing technologies for his business.
So why did he not change? Probably for the same reason we do not change. I have had Pentax gear since 1981, I still shoot Pentax today. Likewise for most Canon users, most Nikon users, etc. I even know a Sony shooter who shoots Sony because he had so much Minolta ɑ series gear. He was unhappy with Sony for a long time, but recently re-embraced them. (He never switched gears, just was disappointed alot until recently).
This is getting silly. Of course we don't know what he would use if he were alive today, but we can go off of evidence-rather than mere speculation and something he said once-of what he DID actually do and use for the many decades he was alive to see a pattern.
The professional/personal point is moot, because the facts show that Bresson used one camera style, from one camera company, with prime lenses with manual focus, on one film format with one type of film almost if not exclusively for the entirety of his life, professionally and personally. As a photojournalist in the 40s and 50s, did he use the industry standard, more detailed negatives of medium format and 4x5 cameras? No. Did he abandon Leica and switch to the plethora of technically superior sir camera systems from Japan in the 1960s? Nope. As color film gained respect and admiration in the art world in the 1970s, did he abandon black and white and shoot Kodachrome? I don't think so. What of the advancements in autofocus in the 80s, the optical improvements of zoom lenses in the 90s, or even the massive, paradigm-shifting change from film to digital in the early 2000s? No, no, no.
Look, all I'm saying is the man had a very specific style and a pattern that we just can't ignore to shoehorn him in to whatever modern system we want him to fit into.
If he were alive today, maybe Bresson would have abandoned photography and collaborated with Skrillex on a new dubstep album. I can't say for certain that he wouldn't, but the evidence suggests otherwise. And the evidence suggests that Bresson would not have thrown his Leica into a river and bought a consumer level sir with a kit lens from Costco. Is that such a wild assertion to make? From my pattern of asking rhetorical questions and answering in the negative, you can assume my response:
No.
I will not assume. That seems to be your purview.
«…but we can go off of evidence….»
…But there is none, save for what he said.
«…that Bresson used one camera style, from one camera company….»
So have I. So have most photographers. It is usually not that we do not see value in other makes, but that we are “locked in” to our brand from years of investment. His sticking with Leica up to 1975 is not indicative of anything. His sticking with Leica after 1975, because professionals buy the right tools for the job, is not indicative of anything.
«…we just can't ignore to shoehorn him…»
No one is doing that. We are only saying that his own words suggest that he would not have had a problem sporting an Olympus OM-D E-M1 II, with a M.Zuiko ED 12-100mm f4.0 IS PRO lens.
Stating that Henri Cartier Bresson would use an micro 4/3 digital camera with a super zoom if he were alive today is an assumption. My "purview" was to negate that because there is no evidence he would. The decades of records from one of the most influential photographers of the 20th century clrealy show that Bresson remained doggedly attached to a very specific style and system of photography, so much so his name is practically synonymous with Leica. And believe me, if Bresson wanted to, he could have afforded to switch systems. The guy wasn't scratching to make ends meet.
And look at his own words in proper context. The quote you used is simply stating that photographers have a range of options to choose from, but that they specifically should not fetishize technique. This doesn't show that he would use another system, just that he is aware that they exist for others, and doesn't pay much attention to it.
So if we're going off of what he said and did (which in fact is evidence), show me an instance where he is using something other than a Leica for a prolonged period. If you can't, than you can't assume he would.
And for a final nail is this absurd coffin, here's something Bresson said that again negates your assumption:
"In 1931, when I was twenty-two, I went to Africa... I had just discovered the Leica. It became the extension of my eye, and I have never been separated from it since I found it." I'm not hearing anything about chucking it in a river or buying an Olympus here.
«Stating that Henri Cartier Bresson would use an micro 4/3 digital camera with a super zoom if he were alive today is an assumption.»
Granted, but not an assumption or statement I made. What I asserted was that it is not outside the realm of possibilities, based on his own words about embracing technological advances. HIS OWN WORDS, not mine. (Also, nothing lost in translation, since that quote was from an English language interview, and not French).
«…Bresson remained doggedly attached to a very specific style and system…»
No one is arguing that. What I am arguing is that that is NOT proof that he would not have embraced the Olympus, given the opportunity. I love the Olympus in question myself, and I have not embraced it simply because I have not the opportunity.
“Wait!?! It is on the market and you are here, what opportunity are you missing,” you ask? Well, I am glad you asked, —and don't say you didn't, everyone knows you didn't. The opportunity is to spend disposable income on an Olympus when there is nothing else worthy of spending that disposable income on, such as another Jamaica vacation.
«…if Bresson wanted to, he could have afforded to switch system…»
Just like I could, but that is NOT evidence that he would not embrace it. I too can switch, and have not, but it is not indicative of my feelings about the thing.
«…photographers have a range of options to choose from….»
Nope. The wide range of choices were always there. The context was that photographers have much more advanced equipment to choose from, and ought not be afraid to embrace them, (the new technologies), but do not do so merely because it is new.
«…show me an instance where he is using something other than a Leica….»
As irrelevant as someone attempting to show an instant where I used anything but a Pentax. The lack of evidence is NOT evidence.
«In 1931, when I was twenty-two….»
…And I can say that, “In 1981, when I was 14,… I had just discovered the Pentax….” It would be just as true a statement, and it is not relevant evidence. Know one has ever heard me say that I would chuck my Pentax, and the only people who have ever heard me say that I love Olympus, have been those few who heard me in a conversation specifically about Olympus, (specifically, the OM-D E-M1 II), and yet, no one has ever heard me say that I will buy an Olympus.
I am NOT making any assumptions that he would buy/use an Olympus, but you have categorically stated that he would not. You are making an assumption, based entirely on circumstantial evidence, while I am discussing a possibility based on witness testimony.
Just saying, …but believe what you will.
[EDIT: I changed a date and age, since I used the Pentax from earlier, but never owned it until a year later.]
There are so many illogical arguments and misrepresentations here that I have neither the time nor desire to address any further.
You go ahead and be content with your assumptions about what might have been and I’ll stay content knowing what actually was.
«…about what might have been… what actually was.»
You do know that the whole discussion is about what might have been, right?
…And again, I made NO assumptions. …No claims about what would have happened, just what could have been possible. It was a hypothetical thought experiment based on facts provided by Bresson.
Like I said, believe what you will, just stop saying that I made any assumptions.
My entire argument has been that we cannot assume what he would use today while ignoring the evidence and pattern of the facts of his life. You understand that, right?
You have no evidence. Your oft-mentioned quote states nothing of Bresson personally applying new technologies to his craft; rather that he is aware they exist and "It is up to us [photographers] to apply them to our technique." (which is then followed by Bresson critiquing the "fetishizing" of this entire notion of technique–showing yet again he cared little to change with the winds).
Amazingly, in the same post you quote Bresson, you refute another poster that argued that Bresson would use a 55-250mm lens, because he never did while he was alive. You point to the fact (evidence) that he shot mainly 50 and 35 during his life, so he probably wouldn't use a telephoto zoom if he were alive today. This is exactly the point I've been making!
Making a statement of what "could have been possible", however, is pointless and simplistic. Anything is possible, but not worthy of discussion without facts. And a statement made without facts is an assumption.
I'm done with this silly little "hypothetical thought experiment". I've got to go ramble on in another forum about what type of knives Jack the Ripper would be use if he were alive today. He used mostly cleavers, but I’m thinking Ginsu..
Whatever, dude!
…AND STOP MIS-QUOTING ME!!!!
I haven't misquoted you. It's all here in the forum. Please don't accuse me of something without proof.
I should not have said, “mis-quote,” I should have said, “mis-represent.” …But here is the proof you requested.
«…you refute another poster that argued that Bresson would use a 55-250mm lens, because he never did while he was alive.»
I suggested that he probably would not use that lens, not because he never used it in his life, but because it did not suit his style of photography, where he normally used a 50 mm and shorter. Were he to continue to hone his technique with the new technology of the Olympus , his super tele of choice is more likely to be in the short range, but I did not refute that he would not buy a digital Rebel Kit from Cosco with an 18-55 mm tele lens, and my refuting was NOT on the grounds that he never used it, but on the grounds that it did not fit his style.
Since his style was discrete street photography and landscapes, IF he were to have had opportunity during his professional career to have a small, light-weight, all black camera such as the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II to do street photography, and a weather resistant, high-detail camera such as the Olympus OM-D E-M1 II for landscapes, and he had just the one weather resistant, M.Zuiko ED 12-100mm f4.0 IS PRO lens, based on his very words that we ought to embrace new technologies to apply to our techniques, it would not be beyond the realm of possibilities that he would embrace this camera.
The camera was a fit for what Bressen did, down to the black colour, (as he used to put black tape on his Leica to make it not stand out while doing street photography).
You misrepresented me, by suggesting that I refuted the man based on the fact that Bresson never used a certain lens, when I was refuting him based on the fact that that particular lens did not suit Bresson’s style, (but probably because you were not following the carefully laid out logic, not out of sheer trolling).
That's a sad grasping at straws. I'm done with you: you are one of those who can man up when he's wrong. Later.
«…ignorant assumptions and mis-representations about Bresson.»
Let’s talk about that.
«“You mustn’t use a light meter, you have to know exactly what to weigh the light” It was [a blanket statement]. Look it up….”
Okay, let’s look it up and see who is mis-representing Henri Cartier-Bresson.
<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
Henri Cartier-Bresson discussing candid street photography (specifically, geographic essays).
“Famous Photographers Tell How,” vinyl, 1958, transcribed by Erica McDonald. →
Cartier-Bresson: First I would like to say that it is only a rule I established in myself, a certain discipline, but it is not a school, it’s not a…it’s very personal.
….
Q: Well I guess that goes back to your intuition. It has to be there, completely.
Cartier-Bresson: Yes. And for technique, technique is not a thing in the abstract. You can’t evade it. The technique has to be something to express what you want to say. You have to master your own technique, to know your tools to say what you have to say. Technique doesn’t exist in the (abstract)…you have to know your lenses, but it’s not that difficult. You learn it very quickly. It’s like a typist mustn’t look at his keyboard, and then he types. But then, when he knows how to type he’s concerned only with what he has to say, it’s the same thing. You mustn’t use a light meter, you have to know exactly what, to weigh the light. A cook doesn’t take a scale to know how much salt you should put in a cake. The salt you put to give, to enhance the sugar. It’s intuition, it’s instinctive, and it’s the same thing.
…
Q: I wonder if you can talk about some technical aspects of photography.
Cartier-Bresson: We don’t need very big equipment. Practically I work all the time with a 50 mm, a very wide open lens, because I never know if I’m going to be in a dark room taking a picture in this moment and outside in full bright sun the next moment. So…
Q: The compactness has become very important. Small cameras…
Cartier-Bresson: It is very important. And people don’t notice you so much.
Q: In the old days when they had colloidal plates and whatnot.
Cartier-Bresson: I think with the 50mm you can cover a large number of things. Sometimes, especially for landscape, you need a 90 mm because it cuts all the foreground which is not that interesting. But this you don’t decide beforehand…I’m going to work with such a lens…no. It depends on the subject. The subject guides you, it’s there. Your frame, you see it, it’s a recognition of a certain geometrical order, as well as of the subject.
>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<
So, no, it WAS NOT a blanket statement. It was specifically about being able to capture a moment in time at just the right time, and taking out a light meter was not going to cut it.
Yes he sometimes used a 90 mm f/2.8 for landscapes, but most of his landscapes are actually done with the same 50 mm f/2.0 or, sometimes with the 35 mm f/2.0. …And the fact that he sometimes used a 90 mm was NOT lost on me, which is why I suggested he may not have been averse to the 12-100 mm lens, so he CAN crop tight on some landscapes and still get street photography done with a single lens.
«Exactly, duh. My point, Einstein. [Cartier-Bresson limited himself].»
IF I were to suggest one lens of choice for him to use on the OM-D E-M1, BASED on HIS QUOTES, I would have to go with the 12-40 mm f/2.8 weather-proof, because it is fast for low-light situations, and it mostly covers the range he used. HOWEVER, bear in mind that his choice of lenses was mostly limited by his choice of camera, which originally came with three choices; 50 mm f/2, 90 mm f/2.8, & 135 mm f/4.5, other choices coming later, (including the 35 mm with a viewfinder adapter), but none of them were zooms, because,… well,… rangefinder! It only had markings in the viewfinder for framing at these three focal lengths.
He never really limited himself in the sense that he was averse to knew technology, only in that he had a Leica M3, and used what came with it, just as I used a Pentax K1000 to shoot sports for quite sometime before buying a Pentax with autowind.
«"…but you cannot follow a conversation."
Says the self-absorbed guy who responded to himself and wrote paragraphs describing his own life experience without prompt.»
…again, would have all been relevant IF you could follow a conversation, and, since you do not realise why I ‘responded to himself,’ I posted this one where you might get the message.
«Wikipedia:…. You:…. »
“Talking Photography” by Frank Van Riper, pg. 166 →
“He never carried his camera over his shoulder, preferring to carry it in his hand or nestled in the crook of his arm, always ready to shoot. He covered the beautiful brushed chrome of his Leica M-3 vith black tape, to make it less conspicuous. …He almost always shot in black-and-white; his favorite lens was a 50mm f/2 Summicron, on occasion a medium-wide 35mm f/2 or a 90mm f/2.8. He never owned, much less used, a telephoto lens.”
Funny, Wikipedia, Van Riper, and I used different words to say the same thing! Wikimedia must have been correct. Thank you for quoting it, but it is not my main source of anything, (although I often use it for a bibliography).
I submit that the only telephoto available was too dark, (at f/4.5), and will admit that, although still not out of the realm of the possible, is probably more probable that the 12-100 mm f/4.0 may not have a wide enough aperture for his liking, leading him instead to the 12-40 mm. (Cartier-Bresson did not enjoy having to swap lenses, as it may mean missing a moment, and did not ever crop after the fact).
Good day, sir.
Least favorite lens ever. Not wide enough...not tight enough. Just very flat and boring. Nest thing i can say about the 24-70 is its good for group photos...and fills the range between 16-35 and 70-200.
I find zooms make me lazy. Not close enough? Zoom in. Too close? Zoom out. Each standard focal length has its own unique look, and playing each to their strengths makes them shine. Lazily zooming in/out and using them willy-nilly just makes things bland. At least the way I shoot. I stick with 24 and 50 on two crop cameras (36 and 75 equivalent) and it makes all the difference for my work. 90% of my wedding and reception shots are done with just those two (sometimes adding a 12 [18] for groups and 100 [150] for ceremonies). Now, if they made a 24-70 with clicks along the zoom ring to call out each major focal length...
OK, let's break this down:
Subjective assertions:
1. "when you are shooting on primes you have a consistency which develops a style"
2. "when you're shooting with a 24-70 you're there just to get the job done"
3. "when you're looking through a gallery shot on primes, every single image has a purpose" ..."when you're looking through a gallery shot on a 24-70 every image feel dull because" every image was shot at different focal lengths. There's more "impact when you are jumping from 24 and 85"
4. He prefers a shallow depth of field
5. Something to be said for being creative within a box, that box being the focal lengths set by your chosen prime lenses.
Objective assertions:
6. Primes have a "sense of crispness"
7. With primes you get a separation between subject and background that you just can't get on a 24-70
8. 24-70 is expensive and heavy.
So, points 1 through 5 can be dismissed out of hand on the basis that they are entirely subjective, and what he subjectively thinks and feels are no more or no less valid than what others think and feel. However:
Points 6, 7, and 8 are demonstrably true.
Re point 1, there is far more to style than focal length.
Re point 2, I would observe that there are plenty of top level wedding photographers who shoot on zooms, and Jerry Ghionis comes immediately to mind as a superb top level wedding photographer who shoots on zooms. I can only think that shooting professionally, is in part, an exercise in efficiency (at least in that sort of client driven space). If I were shooting weddings professionally the last thing I would want to be doing is fumbling around with prime lenses.
Re point 3, I very much doubt that an assertion can be made that someone's gallery is dull because they do not have a consistency of focal length, this honestly makes no sense to me at all, but OK.
All that said, I primarily shoot landscape, and I have always shot with primes, although I have recently started shooting forests with my 70-200.
Edit: I really like his work, but my feelings about his work are absolutely irrelevant to the assertions.
«Points 6, 7, and 8 are demonstrably true.»
Demonstrably true when one is comparing haphazardly.
Point 6 → whatever do you (or he) mean by a, “sense of crispness”? Either the image is sharp with little aberrations and high contrast, or it is not. There are several 70-200 mm zooms out there which are quite “crisp.”
Also, unless one is measuring “crispness” empirically, vis-a-vis cones of confusions, “crispness” is subjective, and certainly, a “sense of crispness.”
Point 7 → although 70 mm/2.8 (aperture = 25 mm) cannot give you as shallow a DoF as 70 mm/1.8 (aperture = 39 mm), we also know that 24 mm/1.8 gives us an aperture of about 13 mm, which produces a much deeper DoF for the same composition than a 25 mm aperture. DoF is dependent on only two things; aperture, and distance to subject, so one cannot compare the DoF of zoom lens A to that of prime lenses B & C. There is much more to subject separation than merely DoF, and great photographers can get excellent “separation” with an f/4.5 lens if that was all we had, using composition, lighting, the fantastic DoF one gets at f/4.5, et al.
Also, good “separation” of subject from background is subjective.
Point 8 → I can find an inexpensive, lightweight 24-70 mm zoom, just as easily as I can find expensive, heavy 35 mm & 85 mm primes.
The ZEISS Milvus 35mm f/1.4 ZE Lens is US$2,000 and weighs 1170 g. The ZEISS Otus 85mm f/1.4 Apo Planar T* ZE Lens is US$4,500 and weighs 1200 g. A 24-70 mm can start as low as US$900 and weigh as little as 1,000 g, (Tokina AT-X 24-70mm f/2.8 PRO FX). Even when one considers the most expensive 24-70 mm listed at B&H, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR, it comes in at US$2,400, (almost half the Zeiss Otus, and slightly more than the Milvus), and weighs 1070 g, (less than either one).
Also, expensive and heavy is subjective to cost vs budget and weight vs strength, (unless measured relative to some agreed upon standard, which we do not have).
Anyone who ever says, “Three primes are less expensive, lighter, and less bulky than a zoom,” is either lying, or comparing oranges to apples. Here we see that argument fall apart at two primes vs one zoom. Even when comparing the least expensive primes, autofocus & image stabilized, f/1.8 or better, (since we are shooting a wedding hand-held in low light), they are still US$600 at 479 g, (Tamron SP 35mm f/1.8 Di VC USD), and US$750 at 700 g, (Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD). That gives us US$1350 at 1179 g, still more money and more weight than the Tokina 24-70 mm, or even the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens (US$1,200 at 904 g, which he recommends), or the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art, (US$1,200 at 1020 g).
One does not save money, weight, & bulk by buying prime lenses over zooms.
No. Your equivocation is solely a consequence of your not being able to read elliptically, and an inability to draw reasonable inferences.
There is no pro zoom that matches the performace of a pro prime.
It is quite clear he's referring to an f2.8 constant aperture zoom.
And primes are simpler in construction, and therefore have a cheaper unit cost.
But sure, I'm about to purchase the E mount Sigmas at 19, 30, and 60mm, which are half the price in aggregate of the equivalent zoom, half the weight in aggregate, and outperform the Zeiss and Sony zooms by a considerable margin
«There is no pro zoom that matches the performace of a pro prime.»
I beg to differ, but, just for this point I will concede that and say,… there is no one single prime that matches the versatility of any single zoom. So what is your point? We are not comparing one prime against one zoom, but if it comes to that, I can waste my time to show empirically that you are wrong, (Tony Northrup interview with Zeiss optical engineer), but that would be a diversion from this thread. I will just concede the point and not go there. The author did not even bring that up as a consideration.
«It is quite clear he's referring to an f2.8 constant aperture zoom.»
…And it is quite clear that all my comparisons were f/2.8 zooms. (P.s., they are not constant aperture, they are constant focal ratio. If the aperture was constant, and it was f/2.8 at 24 mm, it would be f/8.16 at 70 mm… but irrelevant; just fyi).
«And primes are simpler in construction, and therefore have a cheaper unit cost.»
Not necessarily true, and not necessarily true. May have been true in 1930 when Dr. Ludwig Bertele developed the Sonnar lens, (7 elements in 3 groups), but not always true today. The Sigma 35 mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens has 13 elements in 11 groups, and the Sigma 85 mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens has 14 elements in 12 groups. Meanwhile, the Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 Di III RXD Lens has a comparable 15 elements in 12 groups.
Besides, it does not matter if the unit cost was only 75¢, I am comparing retail costs at a major high-volume retailer. Plus unit cost times two, at least, (in your case, times three), since only one prime cannot replace one zoom. (The author compares two, most people, like you, compare three).
«…I'm about to purchase the E mount….»
I compared Canon since that is what the author was using, and Sony has IBIS so lower prices, but….
«… Sigmas at 19, 30, and 60mm….»
Oh, so you are comparing super f/2.0 primes on APS-C cameras to what the topic is about — “full-frame” sub f/2.0 primes (35 mm & 85 mm) to f/2.8 24-70 mm (18-55 mm on APS-C). We can go there, but since there is only one sub-f/2.0 prime in your collection on APS-C, let us move to the F-type E-mount, and compare the 35 mm & 85 mm primes to the 24-70 mm zoom, dropping the equivalent 45 mm.
35 mm
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art (13/11) → $900, 94 mm, 665 g (2 AS, 5 LD)
85 mm
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art (14/12) → $1,200, 126 mm, 1,130 g ( 1 AS, 2 LD)
[Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 (9/8) → $550, 82 mm, 371 g (0 AS, 1 LD)]
Prime Total
27 elements in two sets of 11 & 12 groups → $1450-$2,100, 176-222 mm, 1,036-1,796 g
Zoom
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art (19/14) → $1,350, 108 mm, 1,020 g (4 AS, 3 LD)
So, comparable in elements/groups (for overall complexities and alleged added cost per unit, which is all irrelevant), but the zoom costs less, weighs less, and has less total length.
So, Apples to oranges. Your equivocation is solely a consequence of your not being able to read elliptically, and an inability to draw reasonable inferences.
I also shoot Nikon Full frame, and the identical calculus applies, it just so happens that I'm currently buying into the Sony APS-C ecosystem, and it is that which is fresh in my mind.
Feel free to go and look at the empirical testing data on any of the reputable sites any time you want.
It is entirely reasonable to compare three f2.8 primes to a f2.8 zoom that covers the same focal range (in the same format) - the Sigmas I referenced are all f2.8; however, I would observe that the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is very cheap, very light, and has almost zero distortion.
Your equivocation re versatility is not a rebuttal, since I referenced efficiency within a wedding environment, and specifically stated that if I were working in such an environment I'd be using a zoom.
And I don't really care what you shoot on, it's utterly irrelevant to the point. However, I would observe that the E Mount is new and lenses are current designs; comparing a design that is 10 or 15 years old to a current design is disingenuous, as is comparing the f1.4 Sigma art lenses to zooms, they are designed for performance wide open, without compromise, and are therefore heavy, as are the new FF Zeiss primes.
PS. echoing is intellectually and rhetorically lazy.
«I also shoot Nikon….»
I did the Nikon comparison down below for Rob Davis. you can check it out, I won't repeat myself.
«It is entirely reasonable to compare three f2.8 primes to a f2.8 zoom….»
I do not know what you THINK I am comparing, but, vis-a-vis the author of the vlog, I was comparing an f/2.8 24-70 mm vs two primes; a 35 mm1.8 and a 85 mm 1.4, as those were what HE claimed to be less expensive, smaller, etc. If you now choose to compare the f/2.8 zooms to very inexpensive f/2.8 50 mm lenses, that is fine, but it has no bearing on the author's asertations, regarding the advantages of his setup over an f/2.8 24-70 mm zoom.
«…the Sigmas I referenced are all f2.8….»
So I accidentally threw in the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary instead of the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DN Lens for Sony, but it matters not, since that was NOT the comparison of the vlogger. Your statements do not apply to this thread, Hence, I pulled a Sony E-mount F-type equivalent to show that the vlogger —not you— had no point. …Then again, you seemed to have been using your setup to support his paint, so….
«…if I were working in such an environment I'd be using a zoom.»
So then you agree with most of us here, including me. So why are you seem to be so defensive? We agree!
«…And I don't really care what you shoot on….»
Did I even mention to you what I shoot on? I agree, what I shoot on is irrelevant, you should not care, and that statement is even more irrelevant.
«…comparing a design that is 10 or 15 years old to a current design is disingenuous….»
I agree, that is why I did not do so.
«…as is comparing the f1.4 Sigma art lenses to zooms….»
Not if the comparisons made in the vlog was sub-f/2.0 primes of 35 mm & 85 mm vs f/2.8 mm zooms, and the only sub-2.0 mm primes available are Sigma Art series. The vlogger claims that the cost is always less expensive because f/2.8 zooms are always so costly, heavy, and bulky. His claims, which I countered by using the LOWEST COST primes, vs the zoom, is a fallacy. If you can find a lower cost F-type, sub-2.0 prime for the Sony E-mount, I will use that for the comparison. Nothing disingenuous about using the lowest cost items, which just happen to be the Sigma Art series.
«…echoing is intellectually and rhetorically lazy.»
I agree. Don't do it.
P.s., I also threw in the cheap, Sony 85 mm, which has terrible performance (re., CA and sharpness), and even then, the zoom was the better buy.
***deleted. There are better things to be doing with life than arguing with random strangers on the internet.***
Some valid points. More cost effective to shoot mid-range primes on two bodies. You need a backup body anyways.
How is it more cost-effective when the two primes cost more than the one zoom? Even comparing two primes & two bodies vs one prime and two bodies… the costs of the bodies are the same.
Wide aperture zooms are usually much more expensive than comparable speed primes and image quality is generally better by design in a prime. So you could use cheaper primes, get the same IQ and have enough left over for an extra body. Say, assuming you already have one body, the following:
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G @ $526
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G @ $476
Nikon D750 Camera @ $1496
Total = $2498
vs. the popular wedding zooms
Nikon 70-210 f/2.8E @ $2796
or
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 @ $2396
Okay, let's do Nikon.
First, we are NOT talking about the 70-200 mm vs the 35 mm & 85 mm, but the 24-70 mm. We are also talking about F-type, image stabilized and auto-focus.
So…. Oh,… wait…! Nikon doesn’t have any! Not a problem. We’ll go Tamron, the only option we have for prime, and Tamron/Sigma, the only options for zooms. (…And people say Pentax/Sony/Olympus do not have lens selections. Ha!)
Primes
Tamron SP 35mm f/1.8 Di VC USD → US$600, 451 g, 79 mm
Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD → US$750, 660 g, 89 mm
TOTAL
$1,350, 1,111 g, 168 mm
Zoom
Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 → $1,200, 899 g, 109 mm
OR
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art → $1,200, 1,020 g, 108 mm
Both zoom options are less expensive, less heavy, less bulky. The cost of the camera is irrelevant.
…BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE!
You said, “So you could use cheaper primes,…” then quoted the price of the most expensive Nikon zoom (with VR), against lenses without. So let’s fix that….
Prime
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED 11/8 (1 AS, 1 LD) → $530, 305 g 72 mm
[33/466, 21/428, 0.4, 14]
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G 9/9 (0 AS, 0 LD) → $475, 350 g, 74 mm
[39/142, 21/427 0.1, 4]
TOTAL
$1,005, 655 g, 146 mm (but hardly what I would call great IQ)
Zoom
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED 15/11 (3 AS, 3 LD)→ $1,800, 900 g, 132 mm
[27/1334, 17/974, 0.4, 32]
Okay, so the primes win…. But are they better than the zoom (or the Tamron or the Sigma) in IQ? According to DXOMark, on the D750 sensor, (…and I am not trying to get anyone started…), yes, better than the least expensive Nikon Zoom,… but the Sigma and Tamron Zooms are quite comparable in performance. In fact, the Sigma 24-35 mm f/2.0 DG HSM Art, out-performed the Nikon 35 mm prime (so a zoom can beat a prime)! (Also, the Sigma, Tamron & Tokina 24-70 mm all out-performed the Nikon 24-70 mm, and both Tamron primes out-performed their respective Nikon counterparts).
Long and short, the Tamron VR zoom is comparable to the non-VR Nikon primes you suggested, in price, & performance.
Did they measure Sigma and Tamron AF performance? That's kind of been their achilles heel. Partly because Nikon doesn't like to share information. If you're shooting a large wedding, outdoor wedding or the couple just wants you to stay in the background because of the religious significance of the ceremony, a 70-200mm could be very useful.
I've never found VR to be make or break even with longer lenses. I just shot with a manual Nikon 200mm f/4 in the shade and with one hand supporting the end of the lens and one on the body, my images were all sharp.
«Did they measure Sigma and Tamron AF performance?»
It is not in the “Lens database” but when one clicks the lens, it takes them to the reviews. That being said, if it is faster than a Pentax, then it has to be good enough, as I use Pentax, I never have a problem, and Cankony users insists that Pentax AF suck. I doubt AF will be a factor.
«I've never found VR to be make or break….»
Usually, only an issue in dark venues, when one does not want to crank up the EI. For weddings, that happens alot more than most other genres.
«…Nikon 200mm f/4….»
I have shot a Pentax 50-200 mm sharp at 200 mm, hand-held, at ¹/25s, but with SR turned on. (This was not a wedding, outdoor, in the shade, EI = 100/21°, and I needed a deep DoF). At my age, I cannot pull that off without SR. (I also had nothing solid to brace my body on, but all other steady techniques employed).
When you are in a venue where EI = 3200/36°, aperture = f/4.0, and you still do not have adequate light for a fast enough exposure time, you either pop a flash, (and change the lighting atmosphere), up the EI, (and introduce even more noise), lengthen exposure time, (and get even more camera shake), or turn on SR for up to four stops longer exposure times. (For the young photographers out there, this will reduce camera shake, but not motion blur. Motion blur is still a factor with long exposure times, even with SR).
I personally try to always shoot at the base ISO, and in the rare cases I bump my EI, I try to never go above 6400/39°, (although I have once accidentally shot at 12,800/42° and found the results to be more than acceptable), so SR can be very helpful for my style (& age ;-) ). …And I shoot Pentax, so all my lenses are SR (IBIS).
The perspective of an image is defined by your position in relation to the subject. Constraining your AOV at the optimal position is an arbitrary thing when you have zooms available. Zooming with your feet is not the same thing and at times impossible.
The client cares not about your "art" or "style" they care if you got the shot.
Getting the job done is part of the job.
I'd argue that the client does care about the style from my personal experience.
If you miss an important shot because you've hamstrung yourself to a particular style, the client isn't going to be mollified.
Care to give an example of how a shot will be missed because of his style?
If he needs to move instead of zoom, but can't carry enough lenses, can't move fast enough, can't change lenses fast enough, or maybe not even at all to control both perspective and framing for certain shots within a fast-moving situation. The prime-only guy has merely made a decision that his repertoire will not contain certain kinds of shots. Not everything is about shallow depth of field. I began shooting back in the days when there were NO zooms judged good enough for professional use, and finally bought a Canon FD 80-200 zoom with a very skeptical eye. Zooms didn't come into use for no reason.
There are still countless photographers shooting only on primes. In my local market it's most of them. Different strokes for different folks. No one is saying you can't make great photos on a zoom. The photographer who made the video just stated the reasons why he prefers his primes. How many ways is there to skin a cat again? I forgot.
I have no problem for someone to prefer primes over zooms or vice-versa, but his reasons are lacking, riddled with fallacies.
The client may care when they select you for the job. They won't care when the job is being done. They just want you to capture the important moments of their lives, moments that will never happen again.
I hope this isn't the start of a "things I don't like," trend. There will be no end.
Cameras I will never buy
Software that's dumb to use
Strobes never used by me
I don't like big flash cards.
At the end of the article the photographer recommends his favorite 24-70 mm.
An ad for it is posted here.
It goes well with the "why everyone should…" effluent that's been flooding outlets.
I propose a couple of articles to make a series ...
Why one portrait photographer hates creases on background paper
Why one wildlife photographer hates domestic animals
nowadays one make a little video on his car and ...
This article is a waste of space.
Tune in next week for "Why gear doesn't matter" while conveniently ordering another cup of timmies, the 24-70 of coffee's but not as good.