Why zooms allow for greater creative control than primes

A common subject on photography forums is the "zoom vs. prime" debate, with regards to creativity.

Many people have the idea that prime lenses force you to be more creative, and to think about composition more. I disagree with this premise. I do not need my gear to force me to think about composition - it should be obvious that if I am photographing something, I am already thinking about composition.

Anyway, today I came across this discussion on another photography forum, and I wrote a lengthy reply. In my reply, I explained why zooms allow me to be more precise with my compositions (and for me, being more precise is being more creative). I have copied and pasted my explanation below (with a few minor edits to what I posted on the other forum):



Why zooms allow for greater creative control than primes:

I have found zooms to be a huge creative advantage. Why? Because they allow me to create the exact composition I want to create, often times in situations where no prime would do the job just as precisely.

Let me give you an example:

This Monday I located a Cascades Frog at a mountain wetland. It hopped upon a log at the water's edge and stayed there for an inordinate amount of time (they are usually quite skittish in my locale).

I set up my tripod and experimented by moving the camera into many different positions, moving it maybe a centimeter or two at a time; up, down, side to side. After about 10 minutes of such experimentation (re-setting the length of the tripod legs was quite time consuming, due to the fact that two of them continually sunk into about 12 inches of pond-bottom muck), I finally found the precise angle at which I had the best composition.

The challenge was not only to show the frog from an aesthetically pleasing angle, but to align the frog with the various foreground and background elements in the most aesthetically pleasing manner. So now that I finally had the camera angle figured out to a very precise degree, I needed to determine the other factors which would have an effect upon composition.

I then began to experiment with different camera-to-subject distances and different focal lengths. I was using a zoom lens, the Canon 50-200mm f3.5/4.5L. The fact that I was using a zoom lens allowed me to vary the ratio between the camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distances, while keeping the subject the exact same size in the frame. If I had been using a prime lens, changing the ratio between the camera-to-subject distance and the subject-to-background distance would result in a change in how much of the frame would be filled with the subject.

After experimenting by taking hundreds of images of this frog in this spot, I found that the absolute best images were taken at 173mm. Sure, I could have framed the frog the same way by moving back a little and shooting at 180mm or 190mm or 200mm . . . but then the blurry background would look a wee bit different than it did at 173mm, and I preferred the very subtle difference that the 173mm image provided.

Likewise, I could have moved a few centimeters closer and shot at 150 or 160mm, but then I would have had the same problem - a background that would be a tiny little bit less appealing than the one I got with the 173mm image.

Of course, at every given focal length/camera-to-subject distance combination, I took images at many different apertures, so as to discover the very best amount of blur in the out-of-focus areas of the frame.

As far as I know, there is no such thing as a 173mm prime lens. So, if I would have shot this with a prime, I would have had to settle for an image that would have a wee bit less aesthetic appeal than the image I was able to create with my zoom lens. And, of course, only by having a zoom was I able to experiment with a great array of different focal lengths, and therefore learn which one was the very, very best for this particular subject at this exact time in this exact location. So, the zoom lens allowed me to create the exact image I had created in my mind's eye, whereas a prime lens would have limited this creativity.

So, having a zoom lens to work with caused me to think about composition far more than I would have if I had been shooting with a prime lens. The more factors we are able to manipulate, the more precise our compositions can be. The ability to manipulate focal length allows us to be more precise with our compositions. I don't see how anyone can argue against this logic (although I am sure someone will try to do so).

Good for you!

Tom, I agree completely. I also use a zoom to regulate the foreground/background framing to get the best possible creative outcome.

It took you hundreds of images to figure this out?

Wow can you Imagine if Ansel Adams had zoom lenses back then. Oops he actually did I think they
called them feet.

Numenorean wrote in post #17108108
It took you hundreds of images to figure this out?

To figure what out? If you are asking me if it took hundreds of images to figure out that a zoom allows for greater creativity than a prime, then the answer is "no". I already knew that.

If you are asking if it took me hundreds of images to figure out that shooting the frog at a distance of "x" centimeters, at a focal length of 173mm, and at an aperture of f11, would produce a more aesthetically appealing image than any other combination of those factors, then the answer is "yes".

I ended up with hundreds of images that look extremely similar, but there are some very subtle differences, and those very minor differences look a tiny bit better at 173mm than at 176mm or 171mm. And these differences are so minute that there is really no way to know which is the very best unless I shoot every single possibility that promises good results, download all of the images onto my big hi-res monitor, and examine the results very closely.

Furlan wrote in post #17108114
Wow can you Imagine if Ansel Adams had zoom lenses back then. Oops he actually did I think they
called them feet.

But all those feet do is allow you to vary the camera-to-subject distance and the angle of perspective.

It should be clear from reading my post that simply changing the camera-to-subject distance, and the angle one is shooting from, is not sufficient if one wants to exercise the greatest degree of precision and control over ones compositions.

Even though I was using my 70-300L (I didn't yet have the 400L f/5.6), I had it at 300mm and it just wasn't enough length.... so I was walking a little closer... a little closer, to get the best shot I could of a beautiful great blue heron. Off in the distance, I heard my wife yelling at the top of her lungs.... I look over that way and she's running toward me, waving her arms frantically, pointing down at the ground.

I look down and there are two very large alligators about 4 feet in front of me. I wish I were exaggerating about the distance, but I'm not. I obviously hadn't noticed them when I set up my tripod as I was concentrating on the heron.

This long story to make a short point: sometimes you are limited by how much you can zoom in or out with your feet by natural circumstances.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17108119
To figure what out? If you are asking me if it took hundreds of images to figure out that a zoom allows for greater creativity than a prime, then the answer is "no". I already knew that.

If you are asking if it took me hundreds of images to figure out that shooting the frog at a distance of "x" centimeters, at a focal length of 173mm, and at an aperture of f11, would produce a more aesthetically appealing image than any other combination of those factors, then the answer is "yes".

I ended up with hundreds of images that look extremely similar, but there are some very subtle differences, and those very minor differences look a tiny bit better at 173mm than at 176mm or 171mm. And these differences are so minute that there is really no way to know which is the very best unless I shoot every single possibility that promises good results, download all of the images onto my big hi-res monitor, and examine the results very closely.

You can't compose in the camera and shoot 5-10 shots and you're offering advice here?

Hrm,

Well, kind of an aged old debate. I'll just chalk this up to "one more perspective" on the subject. I don't see there being a compelling argument to say one is more creative than the other. That's so absolutely subjective that it just comes down to personal experience and opinion. The word creative is the key adjective that signifies this.

The reality is, those folk who use mostly just primes and favor them likely only favor them because of their aperture and sharpness at that aperture, and/or size. Zooms are bigger and slower. There are some zooms that rival a good prime, and they're still relatively slow by a prime's standard, and really, really big and heavy. When they release a zoom that does F1.4 and is sharp at F1.4, I'll care more about a zoom.

On another note, I didn't buy my 600mm lens to use it at 150mm, 200mm, 300mm or 400mm. It stays nearly always locked at 600mm. Am I limiting my "creative control?" Sure. But again, I didn't get the 600mm for anything other than 600mm.

Very best,

primes limit what I can do at any given time and I don't like to be limited. Thus I mostly use zooms. It's also a much faster zoom than my feet and I won't fall off canyon walls or step into traffic or have uncomfortably short or long distances to a model. I prefer things that are flexible. Others don't, makes no difference to me. A bit in the Canon/Nikon area of endless debates with no possible solution IMO.

Furlan wrote in post #17108114
Wow can you Imagine if Ansel Adams had zoom lenses back then. Oops he actually did I think they
called them feet.

This just shows that you have completely missed Tom's point, and that the importance and use of perspective in composition is lost on you.

I find where I need to place the camera, to create the composition I need, with the best balance between various parts of the scene. I then select the focal length I need to frame the part of the scene I wish to capture. In the absence of a wide range of primes (I only have 4 prime lenses and they cover a wide range of focal lengths) I will frequently use a zoom to give me the FL I need.

If I were to use my feet to frame the subject, and move forwards until the subject area filled the frame, then the relationship between the various elements would change, potentially very significantly. It is now a different composition to the one I wanted to create.

Zooming from a chosen position is very different to changing your position to suit a specific focal length. If you want to keep your composition the same with a prime, you need to stay in place and use the nearest FL that you have, which will fit in the whole scene, and then crop away the unwanted excess in post, which is how Ansel would have done it.

"Composition", maybe zoom helps achieve your pre-concieved notion of how it's shot. "Creativity" is about loosening up the cobwebs and breaking barriers.

sandpiper wrote in post #17108179
This just shows that you have completely missed Tom's point, and that the importance and use of perspective in composition is lost on you.

I find where I need to place the camera, to create the composition I need, with the best balance between various parts of the scene. I then select the focal length I need to frame the part of the scene I wish to capture. In the absence of a wide range of primes (I only have 4 prime lenses and they cover a wide range of focal lengths) I will frequently use a zoom to give me the FL I need.

If I were to use my feet to frame the subject, and move forwards until the subject area filled the frame, then the relationship between the various elements would change, potentially very significantly. It is now a different composition to the one I wanted to create.

Zooming from a chosen position is very different to changing your position to suit a specific focal length. If you want to keep your composition the same with a prime, you need to stay in place and use the nearest FL that you have, which will fit in the whole scene, and then crop away the unwanted excess in post, which is how Ansel would have done it.

I don't think you quite understand either based on the bold part.

Numenorean wrote in post #17108189
I don't think you quite understand either based on the bold part.

Would you care to enlighten me as to where I am going wrong?