Why zooms allow for greater creative control than primes

Numenorean wrote in post #17118644
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.

For landscape photos, I don't do a lot of fumbling changing lenses back and forth during that 30 second window. For a typical landscape, I would have decided that already decided to use my wider 16-35 zoom or my 50mm maybe 15-20 minutes before the sun goes down/up.

Numenorean wrote in post #17118644
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.

This point is not a pro or con for either system (zoom or prime).

I used a zoom AND a prime on two separate cameras to cope with light changing so fast that I didn't want to miss it at 3 different focal lengths (11mm, 16mm and 22mm at the same time) with different compositions from different locations.

11mm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oADh​KG

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oApn​UM

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oyDp​75

Let's make this conversation a bit less abstract. Take a look at your gear and tell us why you have what you have.

• My focal lengths have little overlap.
  
• 2 bodies lessen my need to swap lenses.
  
• I chose to sell my 24L to pick up a 16-35 because it allows me to go wider or narrower. Using the OP's terminology, I've decided that the 16-35 gave me more creative control when I'm shooting wide. This means I put less value on the larger aperture and sharpness of primes.
  
• I decidedly own a 50mm prime lens instead of a 24-70. I have found that the large aperture at this focal length provides me with much more creative control over my images than a broad zoom range.
  
• Because I don't own a 24-70, I will normally carry with me my 85 or the 70-200 for greater reach.
  
• I've noticed that when I'm going outdoors, I prefer to carry with me the 70-200 because it is a convenient zoom range.
  
• It's hard to state, however, why I grab the 85mm. It's light, so it's not a big deal. In the appropriate situation, I prefer to shoot it at f2 rather than using the 70-200 at f2.8. Call it a whim... or maybe call it a creative urge. Sometimes I just don't want to shoot with the 70-200 and I want to limit myself with the 85 and NO OTHER LENSES, because I want to force myself to see things a bit differently. I have limited myself to a single focal length, but I am forced to become more creative because I've taken all my other tools away.
  

MalVeauX wrote in post #17118661
This point is not a pro or con for either system (zoom or prime).

I used a zoom AND a prime on two separate cameras to cope with light changing so fast that I didn't want to miss it at 3 different focal lengths (11mm, 16mm and 22mm at the same time) with different compositions from different locations.

Not even a zoom let me do that. I had to be in physically two separate locations. I had to mix both. BOTH. And it took two cameras. And two tripods. And me bouncing between the two. In a very short few seconds time frame.

So I don't see an argument here.

Very best,

My post was with regards to the person who was saying just change things around as needed - that doesn't always work.

It's very nice that you had two camera setups and changed lenses and all that but the resulting photos are mediocre anyway so what did it get you?

Numenorean wrote in post #17118692
It's very nice that you had two camera setups and changed lenses and all that but the resulting photos are mediocre anyway so what did it get you?

It got him some photos to help illustrate a point. What does critiquing the quality of his images have anything to do with this thread? Whether he posted prize worthy images, I don't think they would help bolster his argument. In either case, I think his line of reasoning still stands.

By the way, I think his photos are pretty nice. Not awe inspiring, but not every sunset will be.

Numenorean wrote in post #17118692
but the resulting photos are mediocre anyway so what did it get you?

Typical response from you. And you completely missed the point and went straight to insults. Typical troll you are, as always.

Good day.

Very best,

Nathan wrote in post #17118702
It got him some photos to help illustrate a point. What does critiquing the quality of his images have anything to do with this thread? Whether he posted prize worthy images, I don't think they would help bolster his argument. In either case, I think his line of reasoning still stands.

By the way, I think his photos are pretty nice. Not awe inspiring, but not every sunset will be.

I fail to see what point he illustrated. That he could run back and forth and change lenses on cameras and move around...for what? The photos don't refute my point that in quickly changing lighting conditions you could miss something if you are not setup in time. Suggesting that changing lenses and moving around is a good strategy is not the best thing. You can have a very very brief time in some situations where you get color on clouds for example. If you're in the middle of moving and changing lenses when that happens, you're out of luck.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17118703
Typical response from you. And you completely missed the point and went straight to insults. Typical troll you are, as always.

Good day.

Very best,

You forgot to make a point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was making a similar point I was making about event photography: Having two bodies allowed him to attach a zoom and prime lens to each respectively and have choices in focal length ready. This meant that he could then help prove your point that it's not very efficient to change lenses when the light is changing so rapidly.

At least in my mind, he was not "run[ning] back and forth and [to]change lenses," but rather was set up on separate tripods and ready to take the shot(s). He was "bouncing" between the two cameras, but I don't think that created much delay. In the end, he got the shots he wanted... maybe not what you wanted, but again he got what he wanted.

Nathan wrote in post #17118830
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was making a similar point I was making about event photography: Having two bodies allowed him to attach a zoom and prime lens to each respectively and have choices in focal length ready. This meant that he could then help prove your point that it's not very efficient to change lenses when the light is changing so rapidly.

At least in my mind, he was not "run[ning] back and forth and [to]change lenses," but rather was set up on separate tripods and ready to take the shot(s). He was "bouncing" between the two cameras, but I don't think that created much delay. In the end, he got the shots he wanted... maybe not what you wanted, but again he got what he wanted.

So he's trying to make some point about event photography which had nothing to do with what I was saying and I didn't reply to him in the first place? Well that sure makes sense.

No, I was... but I wasn't talking to you at that time.

Nathan wrote in post #17118844
No, I was... but I wasn't talking to you at that time.

And I was never talking to either of you when you started replying to things.

It's a forum. This is public dialogue. All I was saying is that you missed his point, which was actually in support of your point.

Nathan wrote in post #17118899
It's a forum. This is public dialogue. All I was saying is that you missed his point, which was actually in support of your point.

When you aren't clear in what you're saying then there you go.

Say what?