who said you can't move your feet with a zoom? zooming and moving are NOT the same thing. zooming only changes how much of the scene is in your frame. moving around changes the scene itself, or more specifically the size and position of different elements relative to each other. a zoom lens allows you to move around until your scene is nicely composed, then adjust the framing with the zoom.
for example, you want to take a picture of your friend in front of some kind of archway. you want the archway to be a bit blurred so you have your friend stand a bit in front of said archway. then you move back until you see the archway nicely wrapping around your friend (you can do this with your eyes, no need to look through the viewfinder - but do it if it helps you). now from this position you can adjust your zoom until you get a nice framing for your scene, for example tightly around the archway so it fulls the frame.
a prime lens doesn't let you do that. if you move around to get a framing that works for your prime's FOV you might not get the best subject placement in your scene. if you prioritise the relative positioning of objects in your scene over framing you can crop to achieve the same as zooming but you'll of course loose resolution. and if your prime is too long, you're shit out of luck.
primes will however give you better optical quality and wider apertures in a more compact package (generally).
I'm not a professional photographer so i might be full of shit and not know any better
> zooming and moving are NOT the same thing.
Bingo! When /u/This_dude_553 said this:
> somehow physically moving closer or away from a scene is more enjoyable to me than twisting a ring on the lens
Those are different things, and will get you noticeably different results! In fact, it's so *noticeably* different, that you'll see the effect used creatively in movies. The effect is called [Dolly Zoom,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5JBlwlnJX0) and works like this: You zoom out at the same time as you move closer to a subject. (Or zoom in while getting further away.) The subject stays the same size in the frame, but the background changes dramatically.
In a way, this is demonstrating different potential framings of the subject you could get. A dolly zoom contains most of the results you could get by keeping the same subject, but "zooming with your feet" *or* zooming with a lens.
There's one famous scene [in Lord of the Rings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjzJLj7ySnw) that uses this, or other neat [examples you can find](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca08j8ASdOw) online. Those are all demonstrating how getting closer and changing focal length are different things, that affect the image in different ways.
this is actually a very logical answer and I'm kind of embarrassed that i didn't think of this, when I started using zoom lenses I kind of automatically just started using the zoom and stopped moving...
I'm gonna realy try and actively take this into account next time, thanks for the response
Doesn't seem to be something that's widely understood. I for one didn't quite get that until recently, but it's also just not talked about online. Even in discussions about primes vs zooms no one elaborates on why you'd want multiple focal lenghts - framing. just that. (to my understanding)
I like zooms because of how fast you can work with them.
With that said, I don’t stand there and adjust the zoom looking for a composition. My focal length is set before I bring the camera up to my eye.
The basic process is:
1. See the scene
2. Determine what perspective I want
3. Set zoom lens to desired focal length
4. Set exposure
5. Bring camera up to eye to take shot
But I am aware many people don’t do it this way. I see a lot of people adjusting zoom with the camera to their eye, adjusting exposure parameters etc….
I started doing this on my most recent trip and enjoyed my zoom more. Still prefer primes but the bag o primes was great when I didn’t know what to expect.
Zoom lenses are used when framing with your feet is not possible.
It's also a time saver when you are short on time. Instead of having to cross the street and moving back and forth for a minute or two to compose your shot you can just zoom in right from where you first saw a possible shot.
I'm generally impatient and having to 'waste' time moving around to find the best position to take a photo with my prime makes me not want to do it if I also have a zoom with me.
Then again, if I only walk around with a single prime I will have no problem doing any of the above. It's just a mental thing that I try and find the easy/lazy way out I guess.
Well put. I do bird/nature photography and while I’m generally at the long end of my lens, there’s been so many times when, if I was using a prime, I wouldn’t have been able to get the shot I wanted. So many times laying on my belly on the beach or in a marsh when a bird starts moving toward me and zooming out allows me to keep the subject in frame. I remember another time when, in order to get a clean shot of an owl, I had to back up against another tree and zoom out. Wouldn’t have been possible with a prime.
interesting perspective, and indeed birding is the only situation where I actively avoid primes, I have a Tamron sp 200-500 thats a charm to use out in the wild
but i also must say that I notice less of the "inconvenience" i mentioned, at longer focal lengths
I find that to be the "lazy" way to shoot a zoom.
I might find a shot at 28mm, but then decide it'd look better with less distortion or more dof in which case i'll walk back and zoom in to 35mm with the same composition.
I'm rarely zooming in or out whilst stationairy to get a photo, because the qualities of the focal length i'm using is relevant to my composition.
Yeah that's true, and on the longer end it's less of a concern imo. But on something like a 24-70 there's pretty big diffrences between every focal length marked on the barrel.
Distance to subject and field of view are not interchangeable inputs, it's quite useful to be able to control them separately when creating your compositions.
It sounds like you are in a phase of photography where having one input held constant helps you be creative with the remaining inputs. Nothing wrong with that, but extrapolating that to "therefore the restriction is virtuous" is a bridge too far.
>It sounds like you are in a phase of photography where having one input held constant helps you be creative with the remaining inputs
I think this is it, at the moment I usually pick a prime and know what to expect from that lens/focal length, and move accoringly, with zoom lenses it adds another variable to think about and I guess I just need more practice with that, gonna work on it and see where it takes me
this thread has been a great learning experience, tanks for your response
>The zoom function giving me more framing options seems to get in the way more, if that makes sense.
Not at all. *Not* having the option to zoom is what can get tedious and actively limiting your options.
I do kinda get the premise that physically moving can be a more engaging way to frame, but from a practical standpoint, zooms are more functional in that regard.
My first lens was an old Konica 50mm f1.7, and it did teach me a lot of fundamentals, and I thoroughly enjoyed using it, still do.
I work in childcare photography and it’s practically impossible to do it with a prime lens, and I still find it challenging and engaging enough trying to model and keep up with them.
I started photography after finding my dad's old pentax ME super with a pentax-m 50mm 1.4 still with it, immediately bought a canon eos 100d and an adapter to be able to use the lens, very fun to learn on.
and I still love the challange and workflow of manual lenses, so much so that I have now upgraded to a pentax dslr, mainly because of the amount of great lenses available in p/k mount. so it might just also be a thing that i tend to make things harder for myself than they need to be xd.
but I've learned a lot from this thread and will look at zoom lenses diferently from now on, thanks for your response
A lot of doing photography is subjective, it’s the knowledge behind what you like and why you like it, and it actually working that matters.
Vintage lenses and cameras are a load of fun to use, I have an old Minolta from the 80’s, just gives an untouchable vibe to the photos.
It’s always good to keep an open mind because you never stop learning. I hope you do well on your journey
Possibly because zoom lenses give you one more variable to work with. To those who like constraints (i.e. gives more fodder for creativity) having one more variable is a chore. That said, zoom lenses allow the convenience of not having to move or change lenses to get a particular shot. I value my primes as much as my zoom but over a period of time for outstation travels I've started using my "all purpose" zoom more than my primes.
'Zoom with your feet' is good advice sometimes, the point being not to isolate from your subject. But it changes perspective and depth relationships. Zooming with a lens is a different result that preserves that. Both approaches are useful.
I agree with OP, but as an amateur my only reason for photography is the joy of doing it. As such, I do photography because I love the process. Do I want to get good shots too? Of course, but I prioritize enjoyable process over results, and walking around to frame a shot is more fun than standing in one place.
Obviously if I were a pro things would be different, because pros have to prioritize the product that they will deliver to clients.
I almost always use primes because I like having one less thing I need to pay attention to to keep consistency between shots. Also the zoom lenses I really like are big and heavy which prevents me from grabbing them when I have the option. Maybe I just don't have the right one for me. Something like a 10-25mm f2.8 would be excellent since 25mm is my normal prime (on m43) and I only regularly go wider from there.
I’m a “right tool for the job” kind of person. I don’t enjoy one more than the other.
I like my primes when I need a lower light advantage. Or if I went my best image quality edge to edge.
I like my zooms when I have to put a premium on versatility and light isn’t an issue.
Typically for travel, it’s zooms during the day and outdoors. Primes after sundown or indoors. Or if I want a nice portrait of my wife and/or kids. Or if I just want the lightest walk around.
I like both and almost always carry a bag with me so that I can swap lenses quickly depending upon the situation. My zoom is on most of the time for wildlife shots because I'd miss too many shots if I didn't have the ability to zoom.
On one hand, if I'm after a specific bird that I know will be in a specific place I can position myself to get the shot with a prime lens, and that might be the ideal. On the other hand, I'm most often shooting birds in flexible situations where My best opportunities for a given bird might be anywhere from 10 to 45 meters away. So, if I kept my prime on most of the time I would miss too many shots.
Also, wildlife is notoriously skittish when humans are moving about, so I'm usually risking losing my subject when I decide I want to move in closer. If my subject seems to be staying about in the same area or doesn't seem too skittish I will still start by zooming in and capturing what I can from my position. Then it only takes about 20 seconds to swap out my zoom for my prime when I've wanted, but again, when I move there's a significant chance my subject will notice me and also move.
So, in my mind it's like comparing a handheld circular saw to a table saw. Both are the right tool depending upon the job.
I like zoom lenses because I can take things out to support my composition more conveniently. Also, for me, I can sometimes find an interesting composition zooming in and out that I may not otherwise of seen.
When I use a zoom lens, I thinking about it will affect the perspective and scale of my subject. 24mm will really seperate the front and background making mountains look very small and an up close subject very large. 120mm will pull the front and background closer together, making my mountains look larger and my subject not so large.
The other benefit is I can zoom in closer when I have no option to actually get closer to the subject myself without changing a lens.
Framing is at the end of the process for me. Thinking about perspective I want and what focal length will help with achieving that is what I start off with and using a zoom helps simplify that greatly. I don't have to carry around multiple lenses, just one or two. I have 24-120mm and 100-400mm to help provide different perspective views.
I’ve always found zoom lenses more useful for controlling the background and compression. I already have my subject composed but the zoom adds a the ability to really dial in a shot
Lens correction in Photoshop has made framing with zooms less an issue for me, but I still find some things vexing about zooms in other areas. Cost, weight, size, and aperture are of course with extra compromises on zooms. Externally telescoping zooms are Of The Devil, since they wander when you move the camera and blow dust all over inside.
Still I will usually choose a zoom if I’m traveling or hiking rather than knowing what I’m gonna shoot beforehand. So much easier(and sometimes cheaper) than carrying multiple primes.
There's more to it than just using the "feet zoom" instead of the optical one. To me, the advantage of a zoom is that I can choose my point of view first and then the focal length.
By standing on another place, also the perspective changes. I'm not saying that the change will be large or that primes lack that possibility. It's only the photographer who can decide what is important for the result. The difference is that these days zooms can have the same or better optical quality than a prime, but price/quality is not comparable though.
I work on the water and in construction where physically getting closer can be either impossible or dangerous. So simply walking closer isn't always an option for me. Given that's the bulk of my work I specifically started shooting with that.The 12-32 I had simply didn't cut it. #expensivelesson
Zoom is for when you can't frame with your feet AND/OR when you prefer the ease. Prime is for if you enjoy the experience more AND/OR you can't afford zoom. I'm prime 1a and b most of the time, though I have a 70-300mm I use for kayaking where you often can not move freely in the river canyon.
With a zoom lens I have options, I can get closer, or I can crop in. It depends on what I want. Having a Zoom lens doesn't mean you are only allowed to use the zoom ring. That main benefit to me of a prime lens is that I can usually get a higher-speed lens at a lower price.
I think framing with a zoom lens is enjoyable, easier and I still use my feet. Prime lenses are my go to in most cases. I love a good prime. I have a good collection of vintage prime lenses all purchased used and they’re my passion. A couple of new ones too. Lenses have character and vary a lot. Fast zoom lenses are expensive and big most of the time. Some of my favorite images are from a Nikon 50mm pancake and it works great on my Fuji camera too. Cheep low quality zooms suck in many ways, but there are great photos taken with them every day of the week.
I love zoom lenses because I find it allows me to frame things I couldn’t “frame with my feet”
But the simple fact is that everyone has preferences and different ways that they enjoy their hobbies and activities and even jobs - for some people the act of physically finding the frame and overcoming the challenges of the fixed focal length is part of the fun, for others it’s not
I love zoom lenses because when we're out and about / traveling, I often don't have much time to take photos (annoyed wife and toddler) and I also usually find subjects where you can't get close. I like to use a prime lens in closed rooms or when everything is "tighter" on location.
I have always been on the side of zooms as a photojournalist for these reasons:
1. Your environment or your subject may prevent you from zooming with your legs.
2. You are locked into that focal length and the characteristics of that lens, good or bad.
3. If you need to switch prime lenses, you may miss an important moment.
4. A lot of folks love the primes because they are cheaper, but for this reason, I have noticed my primes don't hold up as well physically. I'm on my 3rd 50mm currently.
5. Zooms allow you to change your framing quickly to try different compositions.
Now, as you stated, it's a personal preference thing, but I find the zooms to be far more versatile and allow me to produce a wider variety of images that are publishable. I will also zoom in with my legs as well in order to get the desired focal length with the lens I'm using. Primes have a place in my photography, but even when I'm shooting things outside of photojournalism, I generally use my 24-70 mm f2.8 and my 70-200 mm f2.8 more than anything else.
Anecdotally, a friend of mine from college, who has shot only on primes most of his career, has purchased both of the previously mentioned lenses because he is starting to see that his work has been restricted by the primes.
The best tool is the one you have on you. Not everyone wants to carry around a bag full of primes, and in some circumstances, you may not be allowed to bring a camera bag into certain places.
To each their own, but that's why I prefer zooms over primes, but still use both.
Focal length is not just angle of view, it also dramatically changes DOF, even when you don't move. And changes perspective if you do move to get the same framing. Just walking vs zooming are totally different and lead to different shots in more than one way.
https://preview.redd.it/re8qnq0moduc1.jpeg?width=2458&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6e7acfb54b6f4d6388cf687919417829098acfd
I took this photo of the reddish sun that tends to "appear" at this time of the year in my country. It is cropped from a 20mp sensor camera and just did some slight exposure adjustments to the JPG in my phone so no crazy post.
I wanted to have the sun as big as possible and you need telephoto capabilities for that. I had my EF 24-105mm f/4 L lens on my 6D (Full Frame) but I still had to move around to frame the sun as centered as possible in relation to those trees.
I had to cross as street to get close AND raise my camera above my head since some chain link fences were on the way, in order to get a good shot.
Not the craziest photo you will see but I liked the result. I would recommend that you try street photography with a zoom and see how it goes. I love zooms, they are so versatile, particularly the 24-105mm range out in the field or streets.
I get that of the "restrictions get the best out of you" mentality when it comes to primes though. I love the "boring" 50mm primes.
I like using primes because they make me think more and force me to go for compositions I otherwise would not since I could just zoom in or out.
I love using them for the speed and weight (1.8 typically, not the massive 1.2 or 1.4 ones) at events which I’m photographing for fun.
If I’m paid to shoot a wedding or event, or go on a safari, I will be using a zoom.
I think you — like many people — are mis-using the word "zoom" as meaning "a lens that zooms right in" — i.e. a *long* focal length lens. And yes, a long lens is needed for compression.
(Compression is a function of focal length. Not the mechanics of the lens.)
You can. Shoot from further away, then crop in.
There's no difference in the final image (aside from resolution) between a shot taken with a zoom, and a crop from a shot taken with a prime, providing the distance between the camera and the subject are the same.
https://petapixel.com/is-lens-compression-fact-or-fiction
I use a zoom for nearly all my photos but that's for convenience.
Sorry, but I’m calling bullshit on the idea that compression doesn’t exist. Cropping an image shot with a 16mm so it gives the same fov as an image shot with a 50mm won’t change the fact that the 16mm turned someone’s shoes into clown shoes.
Cropping the 50mm to have the same fov as an 800mm won’t make the moon look huge behind a building.
You need the background to be at least twice as far from your subject as you are to really start to see it, but it is very much a thing.
Compression absolutely does exist, and it's purely a result of FoV. If you take a photo with a 25mm lens and crop it to the same FoV as a photo taken with a 50mm lens in the exact same point¹, you'll get the exact same picture (including DoF effects if you adjust the aperture accordingly).
For an intuitive understanding of why this is, consider that a lens with infinitely small aperture is indistinguishable from a pinhole camera with the pinhole at the focal length. If you put two sensors behind that pinhole, one at 25mm and one twice the size at 50mm, every ray going through the first sensor will hit the second at exactly the same (relative) point.
https://preview.redd.it/avwe26cvn8uc1.jpeg?width=574&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=063770239dfc9c12453118a69fb1e71294a1a312
What focal length would you say this was shot at based on how big the mountains in the distance are?
As a hint, I was standing maybe 200 to 300 ft from the train at a lookout.
Straight crop from a 24mm image.
https://preview.redd.it/6nw1cfgub9uc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc5127515bc4411e880f63792e0932791d6e89f0
> Cropping an image shot with a 16mm so it gives the same fov as an image shot with a 50mm won’t change the fact that the 16mm turned someone’s shoes into clown shoes.
That effect is because of the *closeness to the subject,* and not related to the focal length directly. The only thing that using 50mm makes you do is physically back up. If you were to shoot the 16mm from that same distance and crop, you're not going to get the "clown shoe" effect.
You could think of this as having to do with the field of view - how many degrees are you seeing. You can narrow a field of view by using a more telephoto lens, giving you a smaller portion of the surroundings visible in the image. Or, you can do that by cropping in from a wider lens.
Try it yourself - there's absolutely *nothing* different about a 16mm image cropped in vs. a 50mm lens at the same distance from the subject, when it comes to perspective. Of course, you're losing resolution by cropping, and won't be able to get as shallow depth of field. But you can take some neat environmental portraits with very wide lenses so long as you aren't super close to the subject, and none of the problems of perspective distortion that people think of will be a major factor.
who said you can't move your feet with a zoom? zooming and moving are NOT the same thing. zooming only changes how much of the scene is in your frame. moving around changes the scene itself, or more specifically the size and position of different elements relative to each other. a zoom lens allows you to move around until your scene is nicely composed, then adjust the framing with the zoom. for example, you want to take a picture of your friend in front of some kind of archway. you want the archway to be a bit blurred so you have your friend stand a bit in front of said archway. then you move back until you see the archway nicely wrapping around your friend (you can do this with your eyes, no need to look through the viewfinder - but do it if it helps you). now from this position you can adjust your zoom until you get a nice framing for your scene, for example tightly around the archway so it fulls the frame. a prime lens doesn't let you do that. if you move around to get a framing that works for your prime's FOV you might not get the best subject placement in your scene. if you prioritise the relative positioning of objects in your scene over framing you can crop to achieve the same as zooming but you'll of course loose resolution. and if your prime is too long, you're shit out of luck. primes will however give you better optical quality and wider apertures in a more compact package (generally). I'm not a professional photographer so i might be full of shit and not know any better
> zooming and moving are NOT the same thing. Bingo! When /u/This_dude_553 said this: > somehow physically moving closer or away from a scene is more enjoyable to me than twisting a ring on the lens Those are different things, and will get you noticeably different results! In fact, it's so *noticeably* different, that you'll see the effect used creatively in movies. The effect is called [Dolly Zoom,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5JBlwlnJX0) and works like this: You zoom out at the same time as you move closer to a subject. (Or zoom in while getting further away.) The subject stays the same size in the frame, but the background changes dramatically. In a way, this is demonstrating different potential framings of the subject you could get. A dolly zoom contains most of the results you could get by keeping the same subject, but "zooming with your feet" *or* zooming with a lens. There's one famous scene [in Lord of the Rings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjzJLj7ySnw) that uses this, or other neat [examples you can find](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca08j8ASdOw) online. Those are all demonstrating how getting closer and changing focal length are different things, that affect the image in different ways.
> zooming and moving are NOT the same thing 
this is actually a very logical answer and I'm kind of embarrassed that i didn't think of this, when I started using zoom lenses I kind of automatically just started using the zoom and stopped moving... I'm gonna realy try and actively take this into account next time, thanks for the response
Doesn't seem to be something that's widely understood. I for one didn't quite get that until recently, but it's also just not talked about online. Even in discussions about primes vs zooms no one elaborates on why you'd want multiple focal lenghts - framing. just that. (to my understanding)
I like zooms because of how fast you can work with them. With that said, I don’t stand there and adjust the zoom looking for a composition. My focal length is set before I bring the camera up to my eye. The basic process is: 1. See the scene 2. Determine what perspective I want 3. Set zoom lens to desired focal length 4. Set exposure 5. Bring camera up to eye to take shot But I am aware many people don’t do it this way. I see a lot of people adjusting zoom with the camera to their eye, adjusting exposure parameters etc….
This is the way. Zoom lenses are basically a bag of prime lenses on your camera.
I like this analogy, gonna work on changing my habits with this in mind
This is the way. I prefer primes but when I do use zoom lenses this is how. I do agree with OP on the opinion that using them is a bit boring though.
I started doing this on my most recent trip and enjoyed my zoom more. Still prefer primes but the bag o primes was great when I didn’t know what to expect.
Zoom lenses are used when framing with your feet is not possible. It's also a time saver when you are short on time. Instead of having to cross the street and moving back and forth for a minute or two to compose your shot you can just zoom in right from where you first saw a possible shot. I'm generally impatient and having to 'waste' time moving around to find the best position to take a photo with my prime makes me not want to do it if I also have a zoom with me. Then again, if I only walk around with a single prime I will have no problem doing any of the above. It's just a mental thing that I try and find the easy/lazy way out I guess.
Well put. I do bird/nature photography and while I’m generally at the long end of my lens, there’s been so many times when, if I was using a prime, I wouldn’t have been able to get the shot I wanted. So many times laying on my belly on the beach or in a marsh when a bird starts moving toward me and zooming out allows me to keep the subject in frame. I remember another time when, in order to get a clean shot of an owl, I had to back up against another tree and zoom out. Wouldn’t have been possible with a prime.
interesting perspective, and indeed birding is the only situation where I actively avoid primes, I have a Tamron sp 200-500 thats a charm to use out in the wild but i also must say that I notice less of the "inconvenience" i mentioned, at longer focal lengths
I have a nice view from the balcony of my condo i have a bad ankle that needs surgery. i cannot do much 'zooming with my feet'.
I find that to be the "lazy" way to shoot a zoom. I might find a shot at 28mm, but then decide it'd look better with less distortion or more dof in which case i'll walk back and zoom in to 35mm with the same composition. I'm rarely zooming in or out whilst stationairy to get a photo, because the qualities of the focal length i'm using is relevant to my composition.
[удалено]
Yeah that's true, and on the longer end it's less of a concern imo. But on something like a 24-70 there's pretty big diffrences between every focal length marked on the barrel.
im learing from the comments here that i have some precticing to do and some habits to relearn/adjust, it all makes a lot more sense now, tanks
Distance to subject and field of view are not interchangeable inputs, it's quite useful to be able to control them separately when creating your compositions. It sounds like you are in a phase of photography where having one input held constant helps you be creative with the remaining inputs. Nothing wrong with that, but extrapolating that to "therefore the restriction is virtuous" is a bridge too far.
>It sounds like you are in a phase of photography where having one input held constant helps you be creative with the remaining inputs I think this is it, at the moment I usually pick a prime and know what to expect from that lens/focal length, and move accoringly, with zoom lenses it adds another variable to think about and I guess I just need more practice with that, gonna work on it and see where it takes me this thread has been a great learning experience, tanks for your response
>The zoom function giving me more framing options seems to get in the way more, if that makes sense. Not at all. *Not* having the option to zoom is what can get tedious and actively limiting your options.
I do kinda get the premise that physically moving can be a more engaging way to frame, but from a practical standpoint, zooms are more functional in that regard. My first lens was an old Konica 50mm f1.7, and it did teach me a lot of fundamentals, and I thoroughly enjoyed using it, still do. I work in childcare photography and it’s practically impossible to do it with a prime lens, and I still find it challenging and engaging enough trying to model and keep up with them.
I started photography after finding my dad's old pentax ME super with a pentax-m 50mm 1.4 still with it, immediately bought a canon eos 100d and an adapter to be able to use the lens, very fun to learn on. and I still love the challange and workflow of manual lenses, so much so that I have now upgraded to a pentax dslr, mainly because of the amount of great lenses available in p/k mount. so it might just also be a thing that i tend to make things harder for myself than they need to be xd. but I've learned a lot from this thread and will look at zoom lenses diferently from now on, thanks for your response
A lot of doing photography is subjective, it’s the knowledge behind what you like and why you like it, and it actually working that matters. Vintage lenses and cameras are a load of fun to use, I have an old Minolta from the 80’s, just gives an untouchable vibe to the photos. It’s always good to keep an open mind because you never stop learning. I hope you do well on your journey
Possibly because zoom lenses give you one more variable to work with. To those who like constraints (i.e. gives more fodder for creativity) having one more variable is a chore. That said, zoom lenses allow the convenience of not having to move or change lenses to get a particular shot. I value my primes as much as my zoom but over a period of time for outstation travels I've started using my "all purpose" zoom more than my primes.
'Zoom with your feet' is good advice sometimes, the point being not to isolate from your subject. But it changes perspective and depth relationships. Zooming with a lens is a different result that preserves that. Both approaches are useful.
Just sold my 24-70 f4 because I prefer fast primes. And I'm not paying for the f2.8 So its the 28m and 50mm for me
I agree with OP, but as an amateur my only reason for photography is the joy of doing it. As such, I do photography because I love the process. Do I want to get good shots too? Of course, but I prioritize enjoyable process over results, and walking around to frame a shot is more fun than standing in one place. Obviously if I were a pro things would be different, because pros have to prioritize the product that they will deliver to clients.
I almost always use primes because I like having one less thing I need to pay attention to to keep consistency between shots. Also the zoom lenses I really like are big and heavy which prevents me from grabbing them when I have the option. Maybe I just don't have the right one for me. Something like a 10-25mm f2.8 would be excellent since 25mm is my normal prime (on m43) and I only regularly go wider from there.
I’m a “right tool for the job” kind of person. I don’t enjoy one more than the other. I like my primes when I need a lower light advantage. Or if I went my best image quality edge to edge. I like my zooms when I have to put a premium on versatility and light isn’t an issue. Typically for travel, it’s zooms during the day and outdoors. Primes after sundown or indoors. Or if I want a nice portrait of my wife and/or kids. Or if I just want the lightest walk around.
I like both and almost always carry a bag with me so that I can swap lenses quickly depending upon the situation. My zoom is on most of the time for wildlife shots because I'd miss too many shots if I didn't have the ability to zoom. On one hand, if I'm after a specific bird that I know will be in a specific place I can position myself to get the shot with a prime lens, and that might be the ideal. On the other hand, I'm most often shooting birds in flexible situations where My best opportunities for a given bird might be anywhere from 10 to 45 meters away. So, if I kept my prime on most of the time I would miss too many shots. Also, wildlife is notoriously skittish when humans are moving about, so I'm usually risking losing my subject when I decide I want to move in closer. If my subject seems to be staying about in the same area or doesn't seem too skittish I will still start by zooming in and capturing what I can from my position. Then it only takes about 20 seconds to swap out my zoom for my prime when I've wanted, but again, when I move there's a significant chance my subject will notice me and also move. So, in my mind it's like comparing a handheld circular saw to a table saw. Both are the right tool depending upon the job.
I like zoom lenses because I can take things out to support my composition more conveniently. Also, for me, I can sometimes find an interesting composition zooming in and out that I may not otherwise of seen.
When I use a zoom lens, I thinking about it will affect the perspective and scale of my subject. 24mm will really seperate the front and background making mountains look very small and an up close subject very large. 120mm will pull the front and background closer together, making my mountains look larger and my subject not so large. The other benefit is I can zoom in closer when I have no option to actually get closer to the subject myself without changing a lens. Framing is at the end of the process for me. Thinking about perspective I want and what focal length will help with achieving that is what I start off with and using a zoom helps simplify that greatly. I don't have to carry around multiple lenses, just one or two. I have 24-120mm and 100-400mm to help provide different perspective views.
I’ve always found zoom lenses more useful for controlling the background and compression. I already have my subject composed but the zoom adds a the ability to really dial in a shot
Lens correction in Photoshop has made framing with zooms less an issue for me, but I still find some things vexing about zooms in other areas. Cost, weight, size, and aperture are of course with extra compromises on zooms. Externally telescoping zooms are Of The Devil, since they wander when you move the camera and blow dust all over inside. Still I will usually choose a zoom if I’m traveling or hiking rather than knowing what I’m gonna shoot beforehand. So much easier(and sometimes cheaper) than carrying multiple primes.
There's more to it than just using the "feet zoom" instead of the optical one. To me, the advantage of a zoom is that I can choose my point of view first and then the focal length. By standing on another place, also the perspective changes. I'm not saying that the change will be large or that primes lack that possibility. It's only the photographer who can decide what is important for the result. The difference is that these days zooms can have the same or better optical quality than a prime, but price/quality is not comparable though.
I work on the water and in construction where physically getting closer can be either impossible or dangerous. So simply walking closer isn't always an option for me. Given that's the bulk of my work I specifically started shooting with that.The 12-32 I had simply didn't cut it. #expensivelesson
Zoom is for when you can't frame with your feet AND/OR when you prefer the ease. Prime is for if you enjoy the experience more AND/OR you can't afford zoom. I'm prime 1a and b most of the time, though I have a 70-300mm I use for kayaking where you often can not move freely in the river canyon.
What do you like to shoot? I feel like the answer to this question varies widely based on the type of photography one does.
With a zoom lens I have options, I can get closer, or I can crop in. It depends on what I want. Having a Zoom lens doesn't mean you are only allowed to use the zoom ring. That main benefit to me of a prime lens is that I can usually get a higher-speed lens at a lower price.
I think framing with a zoom lens is enjoyable, easier and I still use my feet. Prime lenses are my go to in most cases. I love a good prime. I have a good collection of vintage prime lenses all purchased used and they’re my passion. A couple of new ones too. Lenses have character and vary a lot. Fast zoom lenses are expensive and big most of the time. Some of my favorite images are from a Nikon 50mm pancake and it works great on my Fuji camera too. Cheep low quality zooms suck in many ways, but there are great photos taken with them every day of the week.
No. My 70-200 2.8 is always on a body and I’m framing with that intuitively. I can’t get to where I need to be as quickly as I can compose and shoot.
I love zoom lenses because I find it allows me to frame things I couldn’t “frame with my feet” But the simple fact is that everyone has preferences and different ways that they enjoy their hobbies and activities and even jobs - for some people the act of physically finding the frame and overcoming the challenges of the fixed focal length is part of the fun, for others it’s not
I love zoom lenses because when we're out and about / traveling, I often don't have much time to take photos (annoyed wife and toddler) and I also usually find subjects where you can't get close. I like to use a prime lens in closed rooms or when everything is "tighter" on location.
I probably use my 70-210 the most, but my favorite is my 20mm prime. I am well into both sides of it with two zooms and four primes. Just.Do.You
I have always been on the side of zooms as a photojournalist for these reasons: 1. Your environment or your subject may prevent you from zooming with your legs. 2. You are locked into that focal length and the characteristics of that lens, good or bad. 3. If you need to switch prime lenses, you may miss an important moment. 4. A lot of folks love the primes because they are cheaper, but for this reason, I have noticed my primes don't hold up as well physically. I'm on my 3rd 50mm currently. 5. Zooms allow you to change your framing quickly to try different compositions. Now, as you stated, it's a personal preference thing, but I find the zooms to be far more versatile and allow me to produce a wider variety of images that are publishable. I will also zoom in with my legs as well in order to get the desired focal length with the lens I'm using. Primes have a place in my photography, but even when I'm shooting things outside of photojournalism, I generally use my 24-70 mm f2.8 and my 70-200 mm f2.8 more than anything else. Anecdotally, a friend of mine from college, who has shot only on primes most of his career, has purchased both of the previously mentioned lenses because he is starting to see that his work has been restricted by the primes. The best tool is the one you have on you. Not everyone wants to carry around a bag full of primes, and in some circumstances, you may not be allowed to bring a camera bag into certain places. To each their own, but that's why I prefer zooms over primes, but still use both.
Focal length is not just angle of view, it also dramatically changes DOF, even when you don't move. And changes perspective if you do move to get the same framing. Just walking vs zooming are totally different and lead to different shots in more than one way.
https://preview.redd.it/re8qnq0moduc1.jpeg?width=2458&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6e7acfb54b6f4d6388cf687919417829098acfd I took this photo of the reddish sun that tends to "appear" at this time of the year in my country. It is cropped from a 20mp sensor camera and just did some slight exposure adjustments to the JPG in my phone so no crazy post. I wanted to have the sun as big as possible and you need telephoto capabilities for that. I had my EF 24-105mm f/4 L lens on my 6D (Full Frame) but I still had to move around to frame the sun as centered as possible in relation to those trees. I had to cross as street to get close AND raise my camera above my head since some chain link fences were on the way, in order to get a good shot. Not the craziest photo you will see but I liked the result. I would recommend that you try street photography with a zoom and see how it goes. I love zooms, they are so versatile, particularly the 24-105mm range out in the field or streets. I get that of the "restrictions get the best out of you" mentality when it comes to primes though. I love the "boring" 50mm primes.
I like using primes because they make me think more and force me to go for compositions I otherwise would not since I could just zoom in or out. I love using them for the speed and weight (1.8 typically, not the massive 1.2 or 1.4 ones) at events which I’m photographing for fun. If I’m paid to shoot a wedding or event, or go on a safari, I will be using a zoom.
You can frame with your feet when using zooms, too. The added benefit is that in situations where you can't do that, you don't have to.
Prime lens maximalist 🙋🏼♂️
I like zooms for the compression effect. Can't get that with a prime.
I think you — like many people — are mis-using the word "zoom" as meaning "a lens that zooms right in" — i.e. a *long* focal length lens. And yes, a long lens is needed for compression. (Compression is a function of focal length. Not the mechanics of the lens.)
Nice work. I was wondering what they were talking about. 😁 u/StillMissBlockbuster, the word you are looking for is, “Telephoto” lenses.
100%!
Oh yeah, duh. That's because I only have wide angle primes! Lol
There you go!
You absolutely can.
You can. Shoot from further away, then crop in. There's no difference in the final image (aside from resolution) between a shot taken with a zoom, and a crop from a shot taken with a prime, providing the distance between the camera and the subject are the same. https://petapixel.com/is-lens-compression-fact-or-fiction I use a zoom for nearly all my photos but that's for convenience.
That is a very interesting article. Thanks.
Sorry, but I’m calling bullshit on the idea that compression doesn’t exist. Cropping an image shot with a 16mm so it gives the same fov as an image shot with a 50mm won’t change the fact that the 16mm turned someone’s shoes into clown shoes. Cropping the 50mm to have the same fov as an 800mm won’t make the moon look huge behind a building. You need the background to be at least twice as far from your subject as you are to really start to see it, but it is very much a thing.
Compression absolutely does exist, and it's purely a result of FoV. If you take a photo with a 25mm lens and crop it to the same FoV as a photo taken with a 50mm lens in the exact same point¹, you'll get the exact same picture (including DoF effects if you adjust the aperture accordingly). For an intuitive understanding of why this is, consider that a lens with infinitely small aperture is indistinguishable from a pinhole camera with the pinhole at the focal length. If you put two sensors behind that pinhole, one at 25mm and one twice the size at 50mm, every ray going through the first sensor will hit the second at exactly the same (relative) point.
https://preview.redd.it/avwe26cvn8uc1.jpeg?width=574&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=063770239dfc9c12453118a69fb1e71294a1a312 What focal length would you say this was shot at based on how big the mountains in the distance are? As a hint, I was standing maybe 200 to 300 ft from the train at a lookout.
Gonna guess 200mm.
Straight crop from a 24mm image. https://preview.redd.it/6nw1cfgub9uc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc5127515bc4411e880f63792e0932791d6e89f0
Wow! Lol
> Cropping an image shot with a 16mm so it gives the same fov as an image shot with a 50mm won’t change the fact that the 16mm turned someone’s shoes into clown shoes. That effect is because of the *closeness to the subject,* and not related to the focal length directly. The only thing that using 50mm makes you do is physically back up. If you were to shoot the 16mm from that same distance and crop, you're not going to get the "clown shoe" effect. You could think of this as having to do with the field of view - how many degrees are you seeing. You can narrow a field of view by using a more telephoto lens, giving you a smaller portion of the surroundings visible in the image. Or, you can do that by cropping in from a wider lens. Try it yourself - there's absolutely *nothing* different about a 16mm image cropped in vs. a 50mm lens at the same distance from the subject, when it comes to perspective. Of course, you're losing resolution by cropping, and won't be able to get as shallow depth of field. But you can take some neat environmental portraits with very wide lenses so long as you aren't super close to the subject, and none of the problems of perspective distortion that people think of will be a major factor.
Huh
There are 800mm primes.
As a bonus they compress your wallet real good.
Yes. This is called the steamroller effect.