Midrange zoom or prime?

I found the following assertion on the Ken Rockwell site. I've gotten the sense that his views can be a bit controversial, and I suspect this one might be to some. I'll quote it then ask my questions:

"Don't buy a midrange zoom. Carry a fixed 50mm instead, like a pro.

Pros don't use midrange zooms because they aren't needed, they are too heavy to carry around, they are too expensive. A fixed 50mm lens does the same thing, but better.​

Pros use a wide zoom and a tele zoom, and walk forward or back to cover the middle range if it doesn't fit either lens. Pros only carry a 50mm lens in their pocket for if the light gets too dim.​

Consider a midrange zoom if you only carry one lens, but never carry a midrange zoom if you're also carrying a wide and a tele zoom."

Who agrees and disagrees with this, and why?
If you agree, which of the 50 mm primes do you go for?
If you disagree and go for the 24-70 mm, for example, why would you?

I'm wanting some direction as to how to fill out the lower end of my focal length range. I'm planning on starting out my Nikon full-frame system with a 70-200 mm VR II but don't know what to do below 70 mm. I basically like shooting anything from super-wide (14-16 mm) on up, but don't know if Rockwell's assertion is the best way to go or if I should just get the 24-70 and something like the 16-35 to round out the wide end. Any suggestions or advice are wanted.​

Never read or listen to anything ken Rockwell says. He is a joke and only writes to put his affiliate links and beg for money on his site. Poor kids.

So what makes sense to you. There are time that a 50mm just will not work. You can't get any closer or you can't back up enough. Long zoom is to long and short is not long enough. What are you going to do. I really enjoy my mid zooms. I shoot with my 24-120 on my D750 and really like the range. But you need to decide what is best for your style of shooting and go with that. And lose Ken rockwells address.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not that I often agree with Rockwell but for me personally the midrange zoom is the one I can do without. I have an 18-35mm as shortest and a 70-200mm as next but in between I prefer primes. I would not know what to do with a 24-70mm that I can't do when carrying two primes.

The same can be said of course about a 14-24mm or 70-200mm.

I don't personally follow Ken's recommendations too much,though I admit to liking a 50mm lens!lol
But all that aside I also must admit I am planning on buying the nikkor 24-70mm, the 14-24mm and the 70-200mm VRll lenses over time! I personally don't think the 50mm would cover it for me, for that middle range. But if you buy that 16-35mm then I think it would work, though I obviously prefer my own selection choice for me!lol

A zoom is above all practical. When space -or money- is an issue, a zoom is a very good solution.

I have no use for a 24-70mm and others might not need a 70-200mm. It depends entirely upon what sort of photography one does.

Bill16 said:

But all that aside I also must admit I am planning on buying the nikkor 24-70mm, the 14-24mm and the 70-200mm VRll lenses over time!

Click to expand...

Exactly what I have in mind

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

I shoot a lot of events and the 24-70 is my go to lens.

I guess Ken's statements have a certain validity to them and by that I only mean to say he makes a plausible, if debatable, argument. That being said, I don't really care what Ken Rockwell thinks nor am I obsessed with what pro's do; I use what works for me and if that's a mid-range zoom then I reach for a mid-range zoom. I do think a 50mm prime is a "must have" lens; I find them a joy to shoot with but that's just my opinion.

I love my 50mm f/1.4 prime, my 24-70mm f/2,8 and my 70-200mm f/2.8 as well. Those three lenses cover 99% of my shooting.

I have a 18-55 and 35mm F1.8 for my D3300, The zoom is extremely flexible and good enough in good light.

The prime comes on its own in low light. So though you can do with a 50mm on FX (or 35mm on DX), sheer flexibility of zoom makes it useful for fast paced professional shoots, where moving up and down for framing may not be an option.

If you have all the time in the world and space to move then a prime makes sense, else it is zoom for flexibility.

You could always just get something like a 50mm and assuming you have a screw drive camera, an inexpensive 24-85 vr or 35-70 f/2.8 (screw drive). Think would get you both the zoom and prime for a reasonable price.

The thing I hate most about my 50mm 1.8D lens is it makes every other lens I have feel like a brick! Especially going from a D5200 body to a D610. That focus motor/prism/big sensor/add'l control wheel made a big impact on gross weight, too!
But I have not had a lot of money to spend on glass, either. So far my largest expenditure has been a $400 300mm prime.

Except for the weight, my 24-120 is my favorite, and lives on the camera.

Yes, darn that Ken Rockwell - such a pretty, easy to read website, and so full of misinformation.
Easy to find, too, for the new [Nikon] DSLR user, which makes it all that much more dangerous.

Rob V - $eriou$ digital photographer since last September...

RobV said:

The thing I hate most about my 50mm 1.8D lens is it makes every other lens I have feel like a brick! Especially going from a D5200 body to a D610. That focus motor/prism/big sensor/add'l control wheel made a big impact on gross weight, too!
But I have not had a lot of money to spend on glass, either. So far my largest expenditure has been a $400 300mm prime.

Except for the weight, my 24-120 is my favorite, and lives on the camera.

Click to expand...

Yes, that bigger sensor sure adds a lot of weight. I'm thinking of having the corners cut off . This way I can save on weight and not have to worry about corner sharpness.

Blacktop said:

Yes, that bigger sensor sure adds a lot of weight. I'm thinking of having the corners cut off . This way I can save on weight and not have to worry about corner sharpness.

Click to expand...

Well, my tongue was a bit in cheek on that part, but no doubt the larger surrounding infrastructure has some impact.

I know the battery is larger, too! But it lasts much longer.

RobV said:

Well, my tongue was a bit in cheek on that part, but no doubt the larger surrounding infrastructure has some impact.

I know the battery is larger, too! But it lasts much longer.

Click to expand...

My D750 battery is the same as the one that goes into my D7100. Probably the same as your 610. As a matter of fact the D7100 is pretty much the same weight as the D750.

I can however see that you like the light weight of the 50mm lens, and why not? It's a great little lens. Having said that it hasn't left my bag in quite the while.

It has nothing at all to do with being a pro or non-pro, regardless of what Clown Rockwell says. Almost all of the shooting I do requires a zoom of some sort. The often used argument that one can simply move closer or farther back is fine if one is shooting a stationary object with lots of (safe) walking room nearby. Shooting into crowds & singling out individuals requires a zoom, especially if something is photo worthy right then and there. Sports and events also require the use of a zoom for me as I can't really start walking onto the playing field, down/up the steps of an arena, etc. Not to mention being on a hiking trail with a wall on one side and a vertical canyon on the other with lots of interesting photo ops between. I use a prime maybe once a year, typically if I go to a museum or have a shot in mind where I can just leave the tripod in one spot and use the remote.

Well I love my nifty 50 but when I am going out not knowing exactly what i might shoot, The 16-85 goes on by default. It just gives me so many more framing options and, even then, I might do some zooming with my feet.

Zoom lenses are vasitle but prime lenses are just difference from my experiences. In my opinion, if you could use prime lenses, you will have advantages.

However, if you are having only 1 body, I don't it work if you need to shoot in various situations. By the time you change your lens, it is games over.

I am looking for a vasitle zoom that is wide enough and zoom far enough yet not too costly and heavy. This seem impossible previously till the better sensors appear. But I have yet to test out the f4 lens on body like D600 and above. Heard the d7000 dx are also good in high iso. Good if owners of such bodies can share here.