Musing zooms

Hello.

I have four zoom lens' in my collection all of which work admirably.
The odd thing I have noticed is, I almost exclusively use them at the extremes and basically waste the middle bit.

I'm wondering, am I the only one who does this?

Nope, me too. But when I looked at going all prime the cost was hideous for the same coverage. Damn you L lenses ߘ

I don't. 24-150, 17-55, 17-40 I'm all over the place. My 100-400 and 70-300 it's more at the extremes.

I don't. My tendencies are to use the entire range of whatever zoom I have mounted. I've usually thought about what I will be shooting and from where when I mount the lens, and I select the range accordingly.

I guess if you are always shooting at the long end of your zoom (for example) then this is a hint that you have the wrong zoom mounted and should select a longer one.

If you are using both ends of the zoom range exclusively.....well, I guess the solution would be to have two bodies and put a wider zoom on one of them and a longer zoom on the other.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17965676
I don't. My tendencies are to use the entire range of whatever zoom I have mounted. I've usually thought about what I will be shooting and from where when I mount the lens, and I select the range accordingly.

I guess if you are always shooting at the long end of your zoom (for example) then this is a hint that you have the wrong zoom mounted and should select a longer one.

If you are using both ends of the zoom range exclusively.....well, I guess the solution would be to have two bodies and put a wider zoom on one of them and a longer zoom on the other.

You're helping me justify more glass. Many thanks.

fordmondeo wrote in post #17965540
Hello.

I have four zoom lens' in my collection all of which work admirably.
The odd thing I have noticed is, I almost exclusively use them at the extremes and basically waste the middle bit.

I'm wondering, am I the only one who does this?

Before digital, I worked for years mostly with the 20mm & 105mm. Next was the 50mm, & 200mm. I almost never used the 35mm.
Once, I felt that I was carrying too much equipment & went to the zoo with the 50 & 1,000, & one roll of 20 exposure B&W film. I came back with 4 shots that I liked enough to blow up to 16X20" & hang on the wall.
I'm not sure what my point is... ; D

If I run exposure plot on all my images, there are spikes at the focal lengths where all my zooms start and end and well as where I have primes. But I still use all the inbetweens as well.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17965676
I don't. My tendencies are to use the entire range of whatever zoom I have mounted. I've usually thought about what I will be shooting and from where when I mount the lens, and I select the range accordingly.

I guess if you are always shooting at the long end of your zoom (for example) then this is a hint that you have the wrong zoom mounted and should select a longer one.

If you are using both ends of the zoom range exclusively.....well, I guess the solution would be to have two bodies and put a wider zoom on one of them and a longer zoom on the other.

Possibly true for a working pro, but not for a weekend warrior like me e.g. fancy dress party or summer ball I don't want to take multiple bodies or lenses so my options are 17-40 or 50L, (not wide enough) my 70-200 being too long. For groups on a table or the dance floor it'll be 17mm all night and couples at 40mm and probably a step back too. This isn't an inability to select the correct lens, its about practicalities.

I haven't checked but I'm guessing that a majority of my shots are at the extremes of my zoom lenses.
I'm a big fan of zoom lenses. I own five and won't part with any of them.

I once had the 24-70 and 70-200 zooms (original f/2.8 v1s), and had the same epiphany as you did, so I sold them and purchased primes. A couple of years later, I started to regret it immensely, so reversed course and ended up with the mixture of primes and zooms I have today.

Moral of the story: keep your zooms and add primes. If you go all prime, someday you'll regret not having the versatility and will end up buying them back.

So yeah, it's justified

MatthewK wrote in post #17966898
I once had the 24-70 and 70-200 zooms (original f/2.8 v1s), and had the same epiphany as you did, so I sold them and purchased primes. A couple of years later, I started to regret it immensely, so reversed course and ended up with the mixture of primes and zooms I have today.

Well, even if you were to shoot 100% at the ends of a zoom range and never use the middle at all, every zoom you have would still perform like two different primes for you while mounted. The 24-70 would be both a significant wide angle 24mm lens and a short telephoto 70mm lens. That's already handy as compared to having to pick just one of those two focal lengths.

And for me (and a lot of other people I would guess) a 24-70 actually works as a very wide 24, semi-wide 35, normal 50 and short telephoto 70.

I also wonder just how folks are interpreting their data. It's inevitable that any use you might like beyond the ends of your zoom range will pile up there. For this reason almost any histogram of lens usage will show some peaks at the ends. Here below is the histogram of my own use of the 24-105 zoom. I guess some people might look at this as showing that I use the lens heavily at the ends, but my take is that a full 66% of all shots taken with the lens were NOT at the ends, meaning I'm really using the entire range of the zoom.

there's no perfect solution. zooms are limited by range and aperture, primes are limited by range.

either get a few zooms to cover everything, or develop a style with primes and make due. I happen to have both primes and zooms (very sharp ones to boot), and I generally stick to primes. I like the discipline and good habits to forces on me. Large aperture certainly cannot be ignored, however if your feet will be planted to a single spot for a long time, it makes sense to shoot with a zoom.

I was all prime when I had FD lenses, from 20mm to 300mm, so it wouldn't be that much of a culture shock to go back. As I said earlier it's just the huge cost involved to get primes for the same coverage as a set of zooms. I think mathewk has the right idea in that they should be added to compliment each other, especially if it's for a particular use. I'm currently resisting the urge to buy either a 24L or 35L for boxing and martial arts. Of course with 1Dx I could probably use my 17-40 by pushing the iso a couple of stops, but that would be even more expensive. And I'd still want the lens

FEChariot wrote in post #17965869
If I run exposure plot on all my images, there are spikes at the focal lengths where all my zooms start and end and well as where I have primes. But I still use all the inbetweens as well.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17967069
Well, even if you were to shoot 100% at the ends of a zoom range and never use the middle at all, every zoom you have would still perform like two different primes for you while mounted. The 24-70 would be both a significant wide angle 24mm lens and a short telephoto 70mm lens. That's already handy as compared to having to pick just one of those two focal lengths.

And for me (and a lot of other people I would guess) a 24-70 actually works as a very wide 24, semi-wide 35, normal 50 and short telephoto 70.

I also wonder just how folks are interpreting their data. It's inevitable that any use you might like beyond the ends of your zoom range will pile up there. For this reason almost any histogram of lens usage will show some peaks at the ends. Here below is the histogram of my own use of the 24-105 zoom. I guess some people might look at this as showing that I use the lens heavily at the ends, but my take is that a full 66% of all shots taken with the lens were NOT at the ends, meaning I'm really using the entire range of the zoom.

I think that from looking at my own figures this is the real situation for a lot of photographers. You will have a significant spike at each end of a zoom range, or where you have a prime. Another thing that will skew things a bit is being Focal Length limited, either end, but especially at the long end. When you are limited in range you will likely see a bigger than usual spike at that limited FL. Jeffery's plot for the 24-105 shows what I would expect a normal distribution to look like where there are both longer and shorter options with other lenses available.

Alan

There is another way to look at the chart. About 660 images were taken at the fringes and about 1290 taken somewhere in between so your about twice as likely to take an image somewhere in between as at one end or the other.