Why zooms allow for greater creative control than primes

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17111441
Also, regarding the frog photos, they're really nothing that special; it just happened to be what I found to shoot that day, and so that is what I used as an example for the point I was making. The 173mm version is infinitesimally better than those taken at other focal lengths; the difference is something that would only be noticeable if one was comparing all of the images side-by-side on the same monitor at the same time. But those minute, almost-too-subtle-to-even-notice differences are important to me.

I will add the image to one of the galleries on my website sometime soon, and provide a link to it, if anyone is really interested in seeing it. But I promise you, it is just a simple image of a frog sittin' on a sun-bleached log with some blurred out mud, leaf debris, and spruce needles behind/under it.

Can we see the other ones at different focal lengths, too?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17111681
Nathan I use what matches my vision. Leica M only makes one zoom and in my opinion not exactly great on a rangefinder, the rangefinder shooting experience or the way I work. Time, years of working and hundreds of thousands of images have shown me I see at 35mm on a FF camera. That covers my personal work.

But I only use primes for my professional work to. And I only have primes that work for the way I work and the way I see. Now thats me. It could be something different for someone else.

Really? I can understand using a 35mm for general purpose and street shooting, as it's a focal length that's easy to work with and you can zoom with your feet (unless you're doing architecture). But for landscape or shooting events like a weddings or a marathon. Without a 24-70mm for landscape you're going to have limited flexibility in framing, and without a 70-200mm for events you're always going to miss shots.

I suggest you go back and read. I said for my personal work not my professional work.

I also do not shoot weddings for my professional work (commercial/advertisin​g) For my personal work I don't shoot landscapes now for the most part but I certainly could shoot landscapes with a 35 on FF. I have shot large format zone system landscapes in both 8X10 and 4X5 and used a slightly wide angle lens and made some fantastic landscapes with a slightly wide FoV. Adams and Weston both made some pretty amazing landscape images with the wide angle FoVs. So see what i use works just fine for me and the way I see and work. And I do shoot some sports in my professional life and I do shoot with several lenses but they are all primes and I don't miss shots. If I did I wouldn't be working long. But for my personal work it has been just a Leica MM and a 35 Lux FLE for the past couple of years. Works great for me.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17112373
I suggest you go back and read. I said for my personal work not my professional work.

I also do not shoot weddings for my professional work (commercial/advertisin​g) For my personal work I don't shoot landscapes now for the most part but I certainly could shoot landscapes with a 35 on FF. I have shot large format zone system landscapes in both 8X10 and 4X5 and used a slightly wide angle lens and made some fantastic landscapes with a slightly wide FoV. Adams and Weston both made some pretty amazing landscape images with the wide angle FoVs. So see what i use works just fine for me and the way I see and work.

Fair enough, but I noted you also said you only use primes for professional work.
And the nice thing about landscape is you have plenty of time to change the lens so primes can work.

At the moment I'm mainly using the Sony A7r + 35mm Zeiss for that. With the 24-70mm, 14mm or TS-E on adaptor as needed. I totally get the appeal of the 35mm focal length, most of the time it's just right and I do find I tend to think in 35mm.

Mornnb wrote in post #17112434
And the nice thing about landscape is you have plenty of time to change the lens so primes can work.

except for sunrise/sunset shots...

It takes what, 10 seconds to change a lens. And another say 30 seconds to adjust the focus and composition, which you would be re-adjusting anyway with a zoom when you adjust the focal length.

Mornnb wrote in post #17112452
It takes what, 10 seconds to change a lens. And another say 30 seconds to adjust the focus and composition, which you would be re-adjusting anyway with a zoom when you adjust the focal length.

Moving the tripod, maybe filters, long ish shutters, you really don't have a lot of time.

i was totally joking...i mean, yeah the sky will change all of a sudden, but i don't really think it's a huge issue.

Charlie wrote in post #17112514
Moving the tripod, maybe filters, long ish shutters, you really don't have a lot of time.

Yea, I agree entirely. Landscape shooting in interesting light (usually changing rapidly) can actually be quite frenetic - it is for me anyway.

Not that I'd choose a zoom over a prime just to re-frame quickly. In fact a prime might make composition choice quicker, just because you have a bit less choice.

Use a zoom when you want to use a zoom. Use a prime when you want to use a prime. They both have their place. It's not rocket science, and you can actually have both.

Zooms for the win, i could not imagine having to shoot a wedding or event with only using primes.

Nissanfairladyz32 wrote in post #17117632
Zooms for the win, i could not imagine having to shoot a wedding or event with only using primes.

Is that a creative control preference or is it a you-can't-afford-to-miss-the-shot practical necessity? Isn't a zoom almost a necessity for event photography, where you don't have the luxury of missing a critical shot because you've got the wrong focal length mounted?

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.

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.

Agree with Sandpiper.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17108226
DOF...

As to the landscape comment by someone else, I am not sure how we got onto that subject. This was a portrait/wildlife discussion point, which opens up different factors not involved in a landscape shot.

I don't know if I would really use the words "more creative" when comparing the zoom to the prime, I would think "flexibler" is the proper word. That flexibility then gives you some creative options that a prime may not, like physical access to the subject and ability to get all around it or not, etc. Just my opinion on how I would have worded the OP, otherwise I agree with it.

Good adjustment to the OP's premise. I like the flexibility that a good zoom lens offers. Shooting many forms of wildlife, or standing on the edge of a cliff or watercourse will always be a limiting factor in how much "footzoom" I can get. Property lines can be another line which can't always be crossed. A good range of zoom lenses will allow one to shoot from a fixed point when necessary, and still be able to move around physically when he can.

I would love to have a couple more primes, but my budget just won't allow it. I will have to live with what I have and work within the speed and aperture limitation of my zooms.

It's all good, and it all works. There is no right or wrong, just what is needed to get the shot.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17117804
Is that a creative control preference or is it a you-can't-afford-to-miss-the-shot practical necessity? Isn't a zoom almost a necessity for event photography, where you don't have the luxury of missing a critical shot because you've got the wrong focal length mounted?

Multiple bodies. A 35mm plus an 85mm on two bodies can pretty much carry the entire wedding. A zoom would provide you with "creative control" over composition, especially if space is limited and you can't move around. The sort of creative control is pretty useless however, if you're shooting in very dim settings or really want to achieve additional separation from the background.

Regardless of using a zoom or prime, if you have a 70-200 mounted and something happens close to you... you're going to miss the shot.

I have a combination of zooms and primes that work for me. Nothing expanded my ability to get the shot more than picking up a second body.

Mornnb wrote in post #17112452
It takes what, 10 seconds to change a lens. And another say 30 seconds to adjust the focus and composition, which you would be re-adjusting anyway with a zoom when you adjust the focal length.

And when the best sunrise/sunset light conditions last for 30 seconds, then what? I've seen plenty of times where that's all you get and something changes.

You should have your composition and everything set before the best light is happening. There is plenty of time during twilight to do so.