Zoom lenses are the work of the Devil.
And what about those of us with mobility problems? If I didn't have zooms I'd need more co-codomols in my camera bag
I would have thought using primes would mean less weight, not more! In fact you could do away with the camera bag altogether and pop them in your pockets.
I much prefer the fixed composition, rather than titting around with a zoom going "in a bit, out a bit, in...out... no, bugger, missed the shot now...". Maybe it would be different if I had a DA* ... but I doubt it.
Also, zooms are slow.
But as people have said - its horses for courses, just like AutoFocus and AutoMetering - in an ideal shot, you wouldn't use the camera to make any choices at all, but in some applications you don't have the time (sport, birdies, etc) - they aren't areas that interest me though.
I've been fortunate enough to spend a considerably amount of time on film sets, so the concept of setting-up a shot and choosing the matching prime lens to get the shot right feels natural to me. Even in my primary work of television, although all cameras have zooms, 95% of the time you find the position then move the camera not the lens - a zoom feels unnatural (and is a swine to keep in focus especially in HD).
I don't use a zoom as you do flossie, only at its extremes, and do find them useful for fine tuning composition, but I always use my legs as well and refocus as a final step. Assuming a static subject of course.
Like all tools, a zoom lens exists to be exploited for a particular purpose or effect.
The creation of the composition is based upon our own personal perceptions so IMHO prime vs zoom lens isn't really relevant. If you can't see the "scene" with a zoom you're very unlikely to see it with a prime either
Simon
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Surely zooms actually give you more opportunity to capture that "perfect" scene due to the flexibility of framing they provide.
With umpteen-gigapixel sensors, unless you are printing a billboard, you can crop in Post if the framing isn't absolutely perfect.
The creation of the composition is based upon our own personal perceptions so IMHO prime vs zoom lens isn't really relevant. If you can't see the "scene" with a zoom you're very unlikely to see it with a prime either
Well...maybe, maybe not. If I'd had a (long) zoom lens on, I'd have taken this shot :
...thought its a bit rubbish because of the foreground, zoomed in, and got another totally rubbish picture.
But... because I had a lens with (very little range, effectively a Prime) on it, I was forced to walk forward, and then found this :
someone sleeping rough on the beach, which sets off the dereliction and decay.
OK I'm not claiming this is actually a very good shot, but it shows how my thought processes and composition is affected by not having a zoom lens - and for the better.
I'd disagree entirely with that (in the most friendly way of course :lol
Surely zooms actually give you more opportunity to capture that "perfect" scene due to the flexibility of framing they provide.
With umpteen-gigapixel sensors, unless you are printing a billboard, you can crop in Post if the framing isn't absolutely perfect.
The creation of the composition is based upon our own personal perceptions so IMHO prime vs zoom lens isn't really relevant. If you can't see the "scene" with a zoom you're very unlikely to see it with a prime either
Well...maybe, maybe not. If I'd had a (long) zoom lens on, I'd have taken this shot :
...thought its a bit rubbish because of the foreground, zoomed in, and got another totally rubbish picture.
But... because I had a lens with (very little range, effectively a Prime) on it, I was forced to walk forward, and then found this :
OK I'm not claiming this is actually a very good shot, but it shows how my thought processes and composition is affected by not having a zoom lens - and for the better.
You've really highlighted my original point.....you decided not to walk further and investigate the possibilities, if you would have "forced" yourself to walk forward in the first place then the lens (Zoom or prime) would have been irrelevant.
using a zoom shouldn't mean that you only stand in a single position, whatever lens is used it's essentail to have a good wander around to find the best vantage point/composition. Using a zoom may perhaps make some people lazy when considering composition but that's very much down to the photographer in question, not the lens.
Simon
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Using a zoom may perhaps make some people lazy when considering composition but that's very much down to the photographer in question, not the lens.
Which I think is very much the point the codgers are making.
G (a codger)
What is often not realised is that most zooms are not true zooms these days...
How so John?
How so John?
A true zoom will retain focus as it is zoomed. This is a parfocal zoom.
A varifocal needs to be refocused after zooming. This type of lens is commonly found and is more accurately called a "variable focal length lens" - it releases the lens designer from some of the tricky design problems.
Though, I'm taking pictures of a charity event next w/e and the first lens on my K20D will almost certainly be the DA17-70. To cover something like this, where changing lenses often isn't practical and a prime would be restrictive, a zoom is invaluable.
I think it also depends on focal length? I'm used to using primes at 50mm and under. Longer than 100mm I reckon I might find primes a bit restrictive, though I'm saying this from a position of ignorance.
My favourite Ansell Adams image is this one http://www.google.co.uk/images?um=1&hl=en&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=georgia+o%27keeffe... I think I read he took it on a 35mm camera and stood on the negative too. It required a lot of darkroom manipulation to get a decent print.
Zooms have their place. Primes are lovely but expensive.
Great picture. And, of course, he was the right man to do darkroom manipulation.
G
Those images were too large, which is why this forum is being distorted in IE8.
...goes to look in IE8 instead of usual Firefox - hmm, interesting, the full-size image is still resized but the text spacing is super-wide.
IE8 has a bug rescaling images. Quelle Surprise....
A true zoom will retain focus as it is zoomed. This is a parfocal zoom.
These are what you find in pro TV cameras - BUT - they are hideously expensive (6 figures) AND the operator has to keep rechecking their Back Focus (have to open Iris up to see).
Zooms have their place. Primes are lovely but expensive.
Eh? Looking at the ones people have quoted as being "as good as primes", the DA* 50-135mm f2.8 is the same as the FA 77, whilst being an entire stop slower AND vastly bigger - I know which I'd prefer for Portraiture! Or for the price of the bulky DA* 16-50mm ,you could buy a DA 21mm and a DA 40mm/FA 50mm, and have a loverely discrete walk-around Street camera.
I can see the argument for a SuperZoom for those times when you just have absolutely no idea what you are going to encounter (e.g. 18-250 type range), but a zoom with a very narrow range...no, I can't see where it would help. If anyone can show me how it helps them I'd be very interested to know...
Flossie
(Middle-aged Codger)
Those images were too large, which is why this forum is being distorted in IE8.
How so John?
A true zoom will retain focus as it is zoomed. This is a parfocal zoom.
A varifocal needs to be refocused after zooming. This type of lens is commonly found and is more accurately called a "variable focal length lens" - it releases the lens designer from some of the tricky design problems.
Got it. Thanks John.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
7650 posts
19 years
Totana,
Spain.
Zoom or prime, doesn't make for better or worse images. A FA 31mm Ltd on the front of your camera isn't going to turn a rubbish scene into anything special.
Lighting is the key. Get that right, or wait for it to be right, and it'll transform a mediocre scene into something that could be stunning, even if it's taken with an old Miranda zoom.
Zooms are convenient, pure and simple. Primes are lovely, but better? I don't think so. Twenty or thirty years ago IQ from primes was better than zooms, but not now.
Computers are to blame. When you can interrogate an image at pixel level you may well see a difference, but only you will see it. Print the image and I doubt anybody will see any difference at all.
The only negative that I have to say about fast zooms is their size and weight when in use. Three or four primes covering the 50-13 range for instance might not weigh as much.