Well, I don't *have* to do it, since I also own primes (primarily because I need them for very low-light work).
In general, though, I feel that using a zoom is what REALLY enhances creativity. Simply by giving me more opportunities to explore.
Who can be more creative? A carpenter who only owns a hammer? Or one who also owns a saw and a sander and a screwdriver?
The carpenter who owns only a hammer might be more creative with just a hammer, but I submit that his total creativity is limited compared to the carpenter who has more tools.
well... I can't go anywhere directly with this one since I don't know what a carpenter can actually do by himself with just a hammer... but in a general sense, artists who devote themselves to a specific artform tend to end up doing that one thing better than a multimedia artists that dabbles in it... just like photographers who concentrate on either color or b&w work tend to do the one they do better than someone who just occasionally does the other "for effect." This really comes down to whether you think being a generalist is more desirable than a specialist... I personally believe that more often than not, the specialist ends up with a skill that warrants more respect than the generalist. Many people like the challenge of being able to say they can do *anything* reasonably well instead of limiting themselves to one specific something... and I say this from the point of view of being a multi-media artist... I always wished I could devote my life to one specific art form... oh well... it's everyone's life to throw away as they find most interesting!
>>Who can be more creative? A carpenter who only owns a hammer? Or one who also owns a saw and a sander and a screwdriver?
mh2000 wrote:
I would never shoot an event professionally with only primes... for my fine art work it is usually with a prime... but if I have my 24-70L with me, no problem. I'm not on one side or the other.
>>Conceptually, I'm more on your side in a debate between those who promote "primes only" over "zooms only" or "primes plus zooms."
I might not have been clear here. I shoot both primes and zooms, choosing whichever is right for what I happen to be shooting. So my personal position is that I prefer to use both rather than eschewing either primes or zooms.
In other words, I think we're pretty much on the same page here.
Take care,
Dan
(For whom the idea of shooting with only one focal length to increase "creativity" not only seems backwards, but seems sort of like shooting at only 1/30 second for a month, or only shooting vertical format for a month, or only using f/2.8 for a month. Maybe a fine little exercise for someone taking a freshman photo class but hardly necessary for someone who already knows how to shoot. But YMMV. It also seems sort of like decideing to eat nothing but brussels sprouts for a month in order to learn to appreciate them more... ;-)
Hey.Underpants wrote:
...
But, for all my other shooting, I like the primes. Not just for the bokeh, the sharpness, etc. But more for me personally. I know the lenses, I can picture their exact field in my mind. Now yes, I'm sure I could do that with a zoom too, but it just never flowed well for me. With my primes, I never find myself thinking about focal range, I just get my body into position and I shoot, and it works for me.
...
I started out with only zooms and for a long time I thought that that was my thing, but then I got the 50/1.4 and fell in love. Since then I have also gotten 35L and 135L and don't use the zooms anymore. I hadn't been able to figure out why I prefer primes (besides the obvious such as larger aperture etc.), but your post made me understand it.
The 35L is my favourite and I often walk around framing 35mm focal length compositions with my eyes. When I see something nice I just pick up the camera and shoot, and am generally very happy with the result. I have never been good at handling too many choices. If I can zoom I often end up with no shot, because I can't decide which focal length to use. I keep zooming in and out until it's too late.
That the primes are sharper, smaller and lighter than my L zoom doesn't hurt either.
Disclaimer: I have two camera bodies (one 1.6 crop and one FF), which means that I rarely have to change lenses. If I only had one maybe I'd feel differently (or maybe not).
DavidP wrote:
Well, I don't *have* to do it, since I also own primes (primarily because I need them for very low-light work).
In general, though, I feel that using a zoom is what REALLY enhances creativity. Simply by giving me more opportunities to explore.
Who can be more creative? A carpenter who only owns a hammer? Or one who also owns a saw and a sander and a screwdriver?
The carpenter who owns only a hammer might be more creative with just a hammer, but I submit that his total creativity is limited compared to the carpenter who has more tools.
I'm a carpenter--not by trade but raised to be one non the less so I can speak to this directly. Your analogy, while it may make sense to some, is more related to primes rather than zooms. You have a saw (50mm) a sander (85mm) and a screwdriver (135mm)--all different tools for different jobs. If anything a zoom in the carpenter world would be closer related to a four head molder or a leatherman than any other tool. OTOH, if you have a sawsandriver then you hold some ground
M Vers wrote:
I'm a carpenter--not by trade but raised to be one non the less so I can speak to this directly. Your analogy, while it may make sense to some, is more related to primes rather than zooms. You have a saw (50mm) a sander (85mm) and a screwdriver (135mm)--all different tools for different jobs. If anything a zoom in the carpenter world would be closer related to a four head molder or a leatherman than any other tool. OTOH, if you have a sawsandriver then you hold some ground
Well spoken, Officer. You should make yourself a little "Analogy Police" bagde to use for an avatar on these forums.
The analogy of a leatherman vs. screwdriver, sander and saw is a pretty acurate one.
I personally prefer shooting with primes, but I know some likes zooms more. And thats just fine with me. I sure as hell don't go around telling zoom shooters that they are wrong. I've made my choice about my future lineup a couple of pages ago but this thread seems to have a life of it's own... There were some good points earlier but now it just seems like people arguing semantics and personal oppinions.
I was shooting primes only for about 22 years. I would have sayd "yes" than. Zooms where worse or not payable. A complete set of an analogue camera with a 35mm, 50mm and 135mm prime was about € 1000 in those days and the primes (I shot Minolta) where phantastic. Today it has changed a lot in my opinion. First: Any more expensiv consumer cam (DSLR) has a better resolution today than any 24x35mm cam had ten years ago.
And its (less) up to 2 times as expensive. Like everything except elektronic stuff. The gas was at 40 eurocent in those times its 1.50 today.
The first zoom I bought was a tamron (bullshit) the second was a 28-135 IS (my was bad)
the third was a 70-200 4.0 IS. Its great. At € 1.050. I would not have spend that amount of money 25 years ago for a lense. But I am happy I did 1 1/2 year ago. I am not sure the 2.8 prime gives me better IQ. But if I do not care. I do not see it. I am photographer no labor rat. And no prime gives me the flexibility. I am shooting concerts n (f.e.). There is no time to change a lense. You miss the moments when changing lenses first. Best by I ever did in photography was nopt a prime. If I purchase the imagerange in primes with that quality I would have to buy some 4 different lenses at a much higher price without beeing as fast or flexible I am now. And still I do not care about an advantage in IQ.
I think I am growing into the solution to all this debate.
I'm old. I have noticed I sometimes forget things. I'm hoping that I will get so senile that, even when I have one of my zooms mounted, I will forget that it zooms and be "forced" to treat it as a prime until the inevitable eureka moment when I remember that it is a zoom and then I can do that too.
I think Alzheimer's may be the best solution to this problem. Can't wait!
About ... abaou ... ah ... what was your question?
Wait ... please.
You tghink you are gro ... growing?
Welcome ... Peter? What again was your age? No. Moment ... I re... member?
For press work, for example, zooms are the way to go. In many, many situations a zoom in the 28mm – 70mm range will save the day and allow getting the picture – even when you are shoved back in a crowd or find yourself much closer to the subject than expected. It may not always be possible to move forward or quickly enough. The the opportunity is gone. Around here, at least, virtually all press photographers use two cameras, one fitted with a 70-200 and the other fitted with either a 16-35 or 28-70. A guy trying to do the job with a single prime is going to miss shots, so almost all use zooms in spite of having to carry around the extra weight. Unless of course you only shoot the type of pictures where primes do best.
I’d choose maybe two zooms and two primes, get to know them well and feel I was well equipped to tackle nearly any situation. Maybe add a long prime, such as a 300 or 400, if you can afford it. Use the zooms where you cannot control where people stand etc, and the primes for situations where you cannot or have more time to play around.
