Prime Lens vs Zoom. Do the restraints of a Prime make you a better photographer?

[Danno]

I do not think that primes make you a better photographer. Nor do zooms... I think practice does. I am not a great photographer, but I enjoy it and sometimes I use primes and sometimes I use zooms. Sometimes I take less than stellar shots and sometimes I take ones that I really like.

What I have learned is that perspective changes that whole character of the shot. I learned it watching the sunrise through my office window. In the morning the sun comes up in my window. If I go out and take a shot for the porch 10 feet to the right it is not the same. as when stand in front of my window. Sometimes going two feet to the left of the window is the shot I love.

All the mechanics are important. I still struggle with them sometimes cause of the condition my condition is in, but I do better now than when I started and next week will be better than last month. For me I am looking for that shot that I like. Sure I want others to like it too... but I want it to capture a moment for me and the lens I use, prime or zoom, is either the best for the task or the one I had when the opportunity arose.

My Grandfather took pictures his whole life. He used an old Brownie. Than an old 35 mm and made slides. He took pictures of everything and we watched them at least once a year with him telling the story that went with it from Montana and the Dakotas to Wisconsin and the farm. It was like movie night. All of them were amazing.

I know I am learning every day. But I enjoy it, regardless of the lens. I like primes and I like zooms because both give me opportunities to try things I had not done before.

Sorry for ramblin'. Sometimes I get a bit long winded.

 

[BackdoorArts]

My primes make me a better photographer.

Why?

They are far better in every way then the two mediocre zooms they replaced. YMMV.

Better quality lenses don't make you a better photographer. Give a soccer mom a Lamborghini and she doesn't become a better driver. It's a ridiculous notion. Better equipment can yield better results, but the operator remains unchanged.

Learning to how to properly use any new piece of equipment can cause you to advance your skill set, regardless of whether it's easier or harder to use. But just because the equipment is "better" it doesn't mean you are.

 

[robbins.photo]

"Do the restraints of a Prime make you a better photographer?"

Primes are great BUT I personally find them very limiting. There are many times you can not get close enough of far away enough to get the creative shot you really want/need. You end up have to then crop in post. Or worse you miss the shot because you were having to change the prime lens for another prime lens to get the hot you wanted.

And before anyone gives me grief remember I said "Personally" This is a question that can only be answered by the photographer and what he is shooting.

Oh wow buddy, I'm going to give you so much grief over this... You just wait...

Oh.. personally. Crap. Ok, well guess we'll have to skip the grief session then. Lol

Like you I found that a good 2.8 zoom generally gives me so much more flexibility that I don't find myself shooting primes all that often.

They do have some advantages especially in portrait work, etc, but most of my shots are taken on the fly and I usually don't have the time to adjust position fast enough to get what I want from a prime.


Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[Zeke_M]

Better quality lenses don't make you a better photographer. Give a soccer mom a Lamborghini and she doesn't become a better driver. It's a ridiculous notion. Better equipment can yield better results, but the operator remains unchanged.

Learning to how to properly use any new piece of equipment can cause you to advance your skill set, regardless of whether it's easier or harder to use. But just because the equipment is "better" it doesn't mean you are.

I politely disagree.
Some of us don't print money in the basement for a 17-55 f2.8 zoom or some other spendy short zoom.
If I had the 1000+ dollars for a proper high quality short zoom that's what I'd use.

In my situation I can choose between the 18-55 kit lens or a 35mm f1.8 prime.

I'm guessing most photographers would take the 35mm every time and get better images regardless of skill set. YMMV.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

In my situation I can choose between the 18-55 kit lens or a 35mm f1.8 prime.

I'm guessing most photographers would take the 35mm every time and get better images regardless of skill set. YMMV.

Hold on... I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

Are you saying you think someone with no skill set using $1,000 lens will get superior shots than someone with a truly developed skill set shooting with an 18-55mm kit lens (all other things being equal)?

Maybe we just need to clarify what's meant by "better images".

 

[robbins.photo]

I politely disagree.
Some of us don't print money in the basement for a 17-55 f2.8 zoom or some other spendy short zoom.
If I had the 1000+ dollars for a proper high quality short zoom that's what I'd use.

In my situation I can choose between the 18-55 kit lens or a 35mm f1.8 prime.

I'm guessing most photographers would take the 35mm every time and get better images regardless of skill set. YMMV.

Well, at the time a 35mm prime would have run me roughly $180.00, whereas my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 I paid $104.00. I bought an older, used model without the built in motor. So if the argument is you need to spend an arm and a leg to buy a 2.8 zoom I'm afraid that isn't the case.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[Woodyg3]

The argument that you have to move your feet when using a prime instead of "just zooming" has never made sense to me. Are your feet glued to the ground when you use a zoom?

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

The argument that you have to move your feet when using a prime instead of "just zooming" has never made sense to me. Are your feet glued to the ground when you use a zoom?

I prefer Duct Tape

 

[carguy]

Prime, zoom, different tools for different jobs

 

[hark]

My first SLR was a manual Minolta camera with a 50mm lens. Back in the 1980's, primes tended to be better than zooms. I added a 28mm, 135mm, and a 200mm. Wide angle lenses make a scene appear further away than what the eye sees whereas telephoto lenses compress distance. One advantage of using primes is being able to see in your minds eye how the scene will appear before you look through the viewfinder (when you take the time to study the differences between lenses). Using primes gives people a chance to learn the differences between focal lengths.

In Bryan Peterson's original book, Learning to See Creatively, he spent time teaching about different focal lengths. It looks like he has a much newer, updated version of the book (August 2015) that leaves out a lot of the teaching that focused on wide angle, normal, and telephoto lengths. Here is a link to the original book: Learning to See Creatively: How to Compose Great Photographs: Watson-Guptill: 9780817441777: Amazon.com: Books

Looking through the table of contents of the latest version, it doesn't appear to go nearly as much in depth between differences of wide angle vs normal vs telephoto. I learned a lot about focal lengths because of it.

 

[robbins.photo]

The argument that you have to move your feet when using a prime instead of "just zooming" has never made sense to me. Are your feet glued to the ground when you use a zoom?

Nope, but in many instances for the type of photography I do most by the time my feet get me to where I need to be I missed my shot. Primes are great, in cases where I have time. But I often shoot events where I only get one chance at catching that moment, and that's where a good zoom is worth it's weight in gold.

For me, it's simple. I don't use a screwdriver to hammer in nails and I don't use a hammer to turn screws. That doesn't make a hammer superior to a screwdriver or vice versa. Different tools for different jobs.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[BackdoorArts]

I politely disagree.
Some of us don't print money in the basement for a 17-55 f2.8 zoom or some other spendy short zoom.
If I had the 1000+ dollars for a proper high quality short zoom that's what I'd use.

In my situation I can choose between the 18-55 kit lens or a 35mm f1.8 prime.

I'm guessing most photographers would take the 35mm every time and get better images regardless of skill set. YMMV.

You obviously missed my point entirely, which is that it doesn't make a darn bit of difference what you're using or what you've spent on it, a new piece of equipment does nothing in and of itself to make you a better photographer. Learning any new piece of equipment should do something to improve your skill set. None of this has anything to do with the inherent image quality, or lack thereof, of the piece of equipment used.

The argument that you have to move your feet when using a prime instead of "just zooming" has never made sense to me. Are your feet glued to the ground when you use a zoom?

The argument isn't so much that you can't move your feet, it's that moving your feet is a conscious act the photographer makes using any lens. I would argue that many photographers, and beginners to advanced novices in particular, would never think about moving their feet to expand/contract the frame if they are using a zoom that's not already at a focal length limit.

 

[Ruidoso Bill]

I mostly use everyday my 14-24 and 24-70. I do commercial and real estate now days and I can do it all with two lenses, yes they are expensive but I seldom use primes, just too restrictive. I use a 105 macro for food and product, and the 14-24 (mostly around 20) for real estate and rely on the 24-70 for closer up and exterior real estate. I put on the 70-200 for exterior long off shots.

I have now had these lenses for several years and just don't need to look back, expensive yes, worth it they are "priceless" for me.

 

[BackdoorArts]

I mostly use everyday my 14-24 and 24-70. I do commercial and real estate now days and I can do it all with two lenses, yes they are expensive but I seldom use primes, just too restrictive. I use a 105 macro for food and product, and the 14-24 (mostly around 20) for real estate and rely on the 24-70 for closer up and exterior real estate. I put on the 70-200 for exterior long off shots.

I have now had these lenses for several years and just don't need to look back, expensive yes, worth it the are "priceless" for me.

They don't call them "Holy Trinity" lenses for nothing. I've had the opportunity to watch my brother shoot enough to know that zooms live on his cameras in most situations where the shooting environment is in flux, but when he's shooting for himself he'll swap lenses incessantly. Again, the skill set knows what works and the toolbox provides the right tool for the job. A pipe wrench is only good for a couple things, but for those things it's indispensable.

 

[RON_RIP]

You always have to use the right tool for the job at hand, whether your cabinetmaker or a photographer. And you are better off using the best tool that you can afford. I do not buy cheap tools, but instead , get the exact tools that will let me accomplish the task I set out to do. But judgement, forged by experience, is what should guide you in picking up the right tool for the job.And of course, practice, practice, practice. That right tool will do you no good if you do not know how to yield it.
I feel that the complete photographer will have an eclectic mix of primes and zooms chosen to accomplish the photographic genre that most appeals to you, and if your interest changes, then you might very well change your lenses out for ones more suitable. There is no right or wrong, just the need to capture that perfect image.
That is why this site is so valuable. We have access to the combined wisdom of so many knowledgable photographers.

 

[Woodyg3]

The argument isn't so much that you can't move your feet, it's that moving your feet is a conscious act the photographer makes using any lens. I would argue that many photographers, and beginners to advanced novices in particular, would never think about moving their feet to expand/contract the frame if they are using a zoom that's not already at a focal length limit.

You have a point. Similarly, I see photographers who never bend their knees, climb up on a rock, or get their belly on the ground to get a shot from the best angle. Some will never turn the camera to portrait orientation, either.

 

[Ruidoso Bill]

I don't have the option to switch incessantly, when one shoots for a living you use what works, the rest becomes optional speculation. I also prefer the term "Trilogy" Trinity refers to something much more sacred than a lens.

BTW I hate changing lenses when on can do what is needed.

 

[Danno]

You have a point. Similarly, I see photographers who never bend their knees, climb up on a rock, or get their belly on the ground to get a shot from the best angle. Some will never turn the camera to portrait orientation, either.

I do move my feet to get the right angle or focal length but I am not up to the other stuff anymore... now what I need is a stool that will let me stoop. No laying on the ground though and no rock climbing.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

 

[Carroll]

In defense of the Carpenter's hammer, I offer this from waaaay out in left field:

A dent in the wood while driving a finish nail has nothing to do with the defenseless and honorable hammer, or the type of woodworking hammer, or the weight, size, price, brand, etc.

The dent in the wood, beside or around the finish nail head, has everything to do with the hammer operator not comprehending why the proper size of nail set should be used.

So there. :cheerful:

 

[BackdoorArts]

In defense of the Carpenter's hammer, I offer this from waaaay out in left field:

A dent in the wood while driving a finish nail has nothing to do with the defenseless and honorable hammer, or the type of woodworking hammer, or the weight, size, price, brand, etc.

The dent in the wood, beside or around the finish nail head, has everything to do with the hammer operator not comprehending why the proper size of nail set should be used.

So there. :cheerful:

And here you've finally echoed my point. It's not the tool that makes you better, it's what you've learned to do with it. A lens doesn't make you a better photographer, learning how and where to use it does.