David Baldwin wrote:
" ... it may be best to add a full frame camera, giving you 2 effective focal lengths for all of those nice lenses"
I am certainly coming round to that point of view myself, it would certainly maximize the flexibility of primes. Particularly as cameras like the new 50D really look like they would make use of all that resolution in the middle "sweet spot", much like a teleconverter but much, much better.
And that is what I have currently, the 5D as well as the 30D. Unfortunately, while that makes two sets of focal lengths for my primes, it makes it doubly hard to justify to myself why I need both the 85 F1.8 and the 135 F2. It is VERY nice to have that flexibility though, so if I WERE shooting primes ONLY, I'd have 28, 45, 50, 80, 85, 135, 136 and 215 (four primes, 2 bodies). WAY too many choices for my poor brain to wrap itself around, so the 135 F2 may be up for sale soon!
Daniel Heineck wrote:
If you're stuck with a 50mm prime, you're not even going to give much notice to that awesome 135mm shot, because you're looking for things that look cool at 50mm. It's more work, but it means seeking out compositions instead of trying to capture the ones that come to you. Active vs. Passive. I like the experience of active photography more than passive.
I don't see why you would assume that I'm being "passive" when using a zoom.
I see it as I'm looking for THE BEST shot (regardless of focal length), rather than looking for the best shot at a particular focal length.
If anything, I'd say the guy with the prime is being more passive. He only has to find shots for a single focal length . . not search for all kinds of shots at all kinds of focal lengths.
mh2000 wrote:
David will go on an on saying how anyone who finds benefits/enjoyment shooting a prime must be a weak minded idiot.
Only when they claim that primes "force them" to think about composition.
If you want to think about 50mm with a zoom, here's an idea: set the danged zoom to 50mm.
You do NOT need a prime for that.
There ARE benefits of primes. But "primes force me to think about composition" isn't a good reason . . . except for those who are "weak-minded" (as you put it).
Or do you have another way to describe somebody who finds it easier to seek out 50mm shots with just a 50mm prime than if they have a 24-70/2.8 on their camera body? If so, I'd like to hear it.
There was a reason I didn't use AA as one of my examples... he didn't stick to one focal length...
maybe like your friend...
I don't find AA's work particularly inspiring either though...
Ok... I'll restate it, "the photographer's work which seems to inspire me the most comes from people that generally use one prime lens"...
not that all photography needs to be shot this way... just that what I tend to respond to best is...
I've shot L-zooms plenty... and at the end of the day, while I have many nice photos, I rarely have more excellent photos than when I go out with a single prime... so it's a hit in aperture and a giant hit in weight... for what? Removing someone's percieved creative limitation for me nets me very little... and the hit in aperture can be a significant factor in limiting creativety anyway...
there is no right answer for everyone...
just because I and others find shooting a prime very freeing and productive, doesn't mean everyone will... just like shooting with a zoom will not make other people more creative...
danmitchell wrote:
I have a friend who is one of those folks. He was literally an Ansel Adams protege, and he used to shoot large format color film. His work can be found in the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite Valley among other places. From what he tells me, his primary lens these days is a zoom on a MF body with a digital back.
DavidP wrote:
If you're always able to move to the exact right spot and have time to put the exact right focal length on the camera, then all primes is the way to go.
But when you're restricted as to location and you need quick flexibility to change to the correct focal length, then zooms are the way to go.
It really is as simple as that.
I have read Primes vs Zooms debates for years now. Your statement is the most reasonable one yet.
mh2000 wrote:
just because I and others find shooting a prime very freeing and productive,
Well, it does free you from extra weight.
And it frees you from slower max apertures.
But if it frees you from having to choose a focal length . . . come on, man . .it ain't THAT hard . . . just set the zoom for 50mm and be done with it.
Sorry . . just one of my pet peeves. I absolutely CANNOT understand how somebody can think that a prime "makes one more creative" BECAUSE he doesn't have to think about focal length any more. There's NOTHING about a zoom that makes you have to think about focal length . . . except at the beginning of the shoot. "I will set this zoom at 50mm today because I want to limit myself". That's ALL it takes!
All the other benefits of primes I whole-heartedly agree with.
This is a really good topic for a thread. I am actually a "splitter" or whatever you would call it. Like you, I have a 50mm 1.4 which i use for indoors and a 100mm macro which i use for, unsurprisingly, macro (also like you). But if you want to shoot below 2.8 (i.e. indoors w/o flash) you need a prime. Most of the primes I have owned are also sharper. This makes sense mechanically, I think. I know a lot of people who like to shoot below 2.8 for the dof artistic effect. I am lucky if I can get my subject in focus at f8, tho, so I tend to shoot there, or as tight as i can get away with.
I also have a canon 100-400, a 28-135 and a 12-24 (tamron). Of these, I would only swap the 12-24 for a nice prime. I got a good deal on it and i like the idea of wide angle (haven't shot much with it yet). 28-135 is dirt cheap (and underated) walkabout lens. Yes, you need a flash or good light but it's flexible and, again, cheap. One other thing that i am not sure if anyone brought up (didn't read the whole 5 pages) is that zooms mean you have to change your lenses less which means less dust. This is a non-trivial advantage imo.
I think the 100-400 is also pretty cheap for what you get. I guess for some things, I would like a 400mm prime at f4.0 (or if a diamond meteorite lands in my back yard, a 400 f2.8) but the flexibility of 100-400 is kind of a big win. Plus it's one lens, albeit a large one, that you have to carry instead of a couple.
I am with you, btw, I don't flatter myself that I am an artist tho I do really love photography. I know some people are religious about prime vs zoom (on either side) just like they are religious about nikkon vs canon or ford vs chevy or mac vs pc. etc.
I tend to think of all these things as tools. Everything is broken down to cost/benefits. It would be hard to switch to nikkon because I own so much glass and selling stuff is either not cost effective or a major pain, but I have no real love for canon.
so if other people have this experience, why does it bother you so much?
The 24-70L is a huge heavy lens... why would anyone chose to carry around a huge f2.8 zoom to shoot only at 50mm? (Ok, the EF 50/1.4 is kind of nasty, so I did this for a while, so from actual experience, I will tell you that it isn't worth it).
DavidP wrote:
Only when they claim that primes "force them" to think about composition.
If you want to think about 50mm with a zoom, here's an idea: set the danged zoom to 50mm.
You do NOT need a prime for that.
There ARE benefits of primes. But "primes force me to think about composition" isn't a good reason . . . except for those who are "weak-minded" (as you put it).
Or do you have another way to describe somebody who finds it easier to seek out 50mm shots with just a 50mm prime than if they have a 24-70/2.8 on their camera body? If so, I'd like to hear it.
This is only a problem for a small subset of photography... if this is what you do, then you pretty much need a zoom... I don't think this is what we are talking about though...
Tom K. wrote:
I have read Primes vs Zooms debates for years now. Your statement is the most reasonable one yet.
mh2000 wrote:
so if other people have this experience, why does it bother you so much?
It doesn't bother me if they wish to shoot with a single focal length.
What bothers me is the irrational conclusion that "using primes" is what forces them to be able to think clearly.
No, No, No! It's not "using primes" that does this, it's "using a fixed focal length". And there is a difference. The latter can be done with a zoom or a a prime.
The 24-70L is a huge heavy lens... why would anyone chose to carry around a huge f2.8 zoom to shoot only at 50mm?
You wouldn't.
BUT, again, choosing the zoom is NOT what is allowing you to "clear your mind" or "be creative" or whatever it is you believe. It's choosing the single focal length!
You've got cause and effect backwards.
Say it with me: I do NOT choose primes to force me to be creative. Instead, I choose a single focal length to do that. And, because I make this choice, then I don't need zooms. But, I could use zooms and still use a single focal length. I am not an idiot, and I could handle this (using a zoom at a single focal length) just fine. Therefore, choosing primes is NOT what forces me to be creative.
no, nothing is so stupidly simple. I shoot primes for a number of reasons and that choice leads to different shooting situations than using a zoom... there are primary considerations and more sublte outcomes...
mh2000 wrote:
no, nothing is so stupidly simple. I shoot primes for a number of reasons and that choice leads to different shooting situations than using a zoom... there are primary considerations and more sublte outcomes...
In other words, you choose primes for OTHER reasons than the clearly illogical "it forces me to be more creative and compose better".
well... ok, sorta... I do choose primes for other reasons, but sometimes it does force me to make creative decisions that I otherwise may not have made, would have had to make... and over time, this can lead to a deaper creative experience with a single FL. I'm not going to tell anyone to specifically shoot primes for this reason alone, but it is a valid side effect of using a single prime exclusively.
DavidP wrote:
In other words, you choose primes for OTHER reasons than the clearly illogical "it forces me to be more creative and compose better".
mh2000 wrote:
I'm not going to tell anyone to specifically shoot primes for this reason alone, but it is a valid side effect of using a single prime exclusively.
Daniel Heineck wrote:
It's more work, but it means seeking out compositions instead of trying to capture the ones that come to you. Active vs. Passive. I like the experience of active photography more than passive.
Again, nonsense. There is nothing at all "passive" about how I seek subjects and compositions when I'm using a zoom instead of a prime. I look for subjects and composition and then use the lens or focal length that is best adapted to my vision for that subject. Whether I use a zoom or a prime that takes just as much thought.
I suppose one could argue that in a sense working with multiple focal lengths and/or zooms requires _more_ engagement with the surroundings since one then considers a wider range of possible successful compositions.
I don't have any problem with you preferring to limit yourself to primes - either out of familiarity with that way of working or a belief that it results in better images for you.
I do have a big problem with wrong preconceptions about how folks who may take a different approach shoot, particularly the assumptions that those who use zooms are "passive" or "shoot from the hip" or don't think as "creatively" or don't consider their photographs just as carefully as anyone else.
Again, nonsense.
Those assumptions are on the same level as MF photographers who presume that no good work can be created with a DSLR; film photographers who presume that those using digital technology can't produce good work, etc. There is plenty of photographic evidence to disprove all of that.
