If you want to learn the more in-depth side of commercial photography that we don't share here on UA-cam, head over to here tinhouse-studio.com/studio-access/
@@andychandler3992 there is definitely a time and a place for it, but it’s been overdone. I see a few photographers who shoot at f1.2/f1.4 all the time and honestly, all their photos look like they have been done against a backdrop in a studio with the subject stuck on, completely disconnected from their environment.
There's arguing about best bokeh which is past, and there's intentionally shallow DOF placed where you want it, which many never experience we will never get past. Notice the owner of this channel has a full view camera base standards setup for his studio still life work, he's as serious about where he puts his focus as a shooter can get and that's why he makes the big bucks.
What's funny is that the same people that say that bokeh is for noobs will glaze a medium format camera "because of the bokeh" i always used APS-C with full frame lenses. I just plug dat ho with a full frame lens taking care of the crops and i get beautiful in-between results.
Seconded. I think Scott is the only pro I’ve heard of who doesn’t like bokeh. I don’t personally care about the “quality” of the bokeh, but I sure like being able to isolate my subject in a sports context.
During the 1990's there was a widespread adoption of various quality methods in manufacturing . TQM, Crosby system , ISO 9001 etc - generally they all had a similar aim to track and incrementally reduce variability by measuring your outputs carefully and reducing tolerances as you worked out where the variation was occurring ... the Japanese were very into this and the example that became well known was the doors on a mazda ... if the metal used on the door can vary in thickness by +/- 40% - then the weight of the 20kg door varies from 12kg to 28kg ... this means the hinges need to be sized to cope with up to 28kg , and the strength of the door frame on the chassis has to be built to cope with higher weight too , which leads to the springs , dampers and suspenson components needing to be uprated too. By getting control of variable inputs manufacturers gradually cut the 'lemons' out of the process. Camera makers found this too- a prime is simple to construct and has few moving parts so the quality is always going to be easier to achieve - but with modern techniques even incredibly complex optical formulas can be turned reliably and consistently into products because the glass , the ABS plastic , the assembly processes now have minimal variability compared to 30 years ago when every xxth zoom lens was an utter dog
Quite a bit of blather there. The real issue is cost of manufacturing, quality control was available 50 years ago, if you could afford it. PS the doors on a Mazda never varied as you say, not even close.
You are totally right. The border between fixed and zoom is open. Even though I am still a fixed lens lover. Wight and size make the difference. Not the image quality anymore.
Nicely put. I've been working since 1972 and always preferred prime lenses because as you say, back then zooms were pretty appalling. I still only use primes today with one exception. I cover street marches and demonstrations quite often, and I find the new Sony 20-70 f4 a complete godsend, With the 135mm 1.8 on the other body I can take on pretty much anything the event throws at me. Love the channel. Take care.
Anything decent will do for a street march, as the actions of the subjects/decisive moment are what it's all about, not the ability to blow it up to wall size.
That new Tamron 35-150mm F2 - F2.8 is such a great option for portraits. Personally I still find I use Zooms for flexibility more than anything - but I prefer shooting primes. I feel like I am more creative with a Prime because I typically have to move and adapt to get the framing I want - and of course, if I have shot it a lot...I can pre-visualize shots. With a zoom - there is almost analysis paralysis because you have so many focal lengths, and so many places you could stand with each of those focal lengths. I think the key difference is how my workflow changes. For Zooms I tend to find that I choose a position a good enough place to stand and then cycle through different focal lengths, whereas with a Prime I shoot it from one location and move around while in that zone and really fine tune to find best shot at that FL before going and changing to a different lens. Maybe I need to change how I approach working with a zoom.... set it to a certain FL and then get "the shot" and then move to the next FL.
I kind of do the same thing and definitely need to move around more with zooms vs primes but I've also found with social media being the primary destination for a lot of photos I love having the variety of focal lengths from a single spot as well (assuming it's a good composition) it adds a nice way to move through a series without it jumping around too much and adding a bit of story telling. Two bodies and two primes can obviously do this as well or better but the simplicity and speed is a huge advantage.
And to think that for 16 years of taking wedding photos on a Hasselblad 500CM film camera I used just one prime lens, an 80mm. The average wedding was 72 shots only, with some as low as even 24 for a budget wedding, but if we really pushed the boat out we'd shoot 144 pics, yet often thought that was a bit excessive. Unlike digital weddings today, where literally thousands of shots can be taken at the event, the key difference is that almost every shot we took on film was actually usable, unlike today. These days, when shooting on my digital kit, I still use primes for 'serious' work, but I do like having a zoom in my bag.
Totally agree on using primes not because of bokeh or sharpness, but because of knowing what type of look you are after, in other words, knowing your focal length.
I agree that the 'bokeh' obsession became crazy, bur fast lenses and the ability to 'isolate' subjects from the background will never go out of fashion, its an important part of the 'artistry' of photography. I know there are fairly fast, excellent zoom lenses, but they are horribly expensive and cripplingly heavy to cart about, so I'm in the camp of using both, dependent on need. 'Horses for courses'.
Thanks for your beautifully presented argument. Those of us who shot refrigerated pro transparency film using top of the line optics for a few decades, need to undo a lot of deeply ingrained logic when moving to shooting video for UA-cam, where optical resolving power is not a factor at all. On a full size modern Sony sensor, I've noticed that even the 24-105 f:4 G is overkill. The only time I would reach for a fast prime is when I have to eliminate the background more than possible with an f:4 aperture.
You're not gonna like what I'm gonna say, but my problem with that 24-70 Art is that it's an amazing studio lens, but for outdoors it has really nervous bokeh. Also, zooms are just really big. I shoot entirely with slow primes.
Bought my Nikon Z 24-120mm as a 'travel' lens. It's so sharp I rarely use my 20, 50 and 85mm f1.8s - now reserved mainly when shooting at night, although I occasionally put on the 50mm for the simplicity of shooting at a 'normal' focal length
You are absolutely right. For work I use a zoom lens and it gets almost every job done perfectly. But for my personal photography I use one camera with one fixed focal length and I appreciate the limitations that come with it. It calms my mind somehow...it is weird, but works for me.
I prefer to create still images with a Prime, because I know what the framing is before I even raise my camera up to my eye. It's a way of intuitively seeing and creating for me.
Absolutely enjoying how your commentary is serious and funny at the same time... I only carry primes, often only 1 one a day, because primes are usually smaller and I enjoy that restriction on composition
Perfect timing on this! As a festival photographer, I use zoom lenses for obvious reasons but this year I'm completely redoing my portrait portfolio and I'm in the market to purchase my first prime lens. Great stuff!
Agreed. I shoot low light concert photography, so I'll stick to my fast primes (they are cheaper and faster than the top of the range zooms for my camera system). But, I definitely get what you are saying.
I'd argue the Ef24-70-2.8 Mk2 was better at the time than my then EF24.1.4 and EF50 1.2 lenses. The RF lens game has moved on quite a bit but I still mostly use a zoom, the RF28-70 F2 lens and honestly bar it's wrist wrecking/back breaking weight it is sharp enough my work. The more interesting point you make is that with a prime lens there's no surprises, if you lift it to your eye ten feet from the subject you'll pretty much no what you'll see. However I can't get past the versatility of my zoom and those micro composition tweaks I make in camera on the hoof. For personal work I will only use a prime because it makes you work harder on your composition... sorry for the long reply, it's the one thing I've mixed emotions about most in my photography. Love the channel btw.
I'm in the prime camp mostly because I love the predictability of a single focal length. In never need to open up more the f2.8 so it's not about soeed/bokeh. I have simplified my kit down to 28mm, 35mm and 55mm lenses and I could not be more happier. Most of the time I'm using the 35mm. I can see how useful a zoom is, but I find I'm more creative when I cannot adjust the focal length and have to work with what's on my camera.
Absolutely! I’ve shot Nikon all my life and the new generation 14-24 and 24-70 2.8’s S lenses are crazy…AND I’ll add the f4’s equally as sharp! The new Nikon 24-120 f4S is as sharp as the 2.8’s! I’ll always have a nifty 50 in the bag still , not cheap nifty fifties (1.8) any longer but still relatively good value for a cutting edge sharpness lens.
Absolutely agree. My Nikon Z 2.8 zoomlenses and de GF45-100 and 20-35 are as sharp as the primes that fall within their ranges. I sold my Nikon primes, but bought the GF 110 2.0. That one can not be beaten by a prime.
You are spot again in your analysis. I have been pondering on which lens to buy alongside Fujifilm GFX 100S II, after watching this video, am sure my first lens will be 45-100mm. Covers great focal lengths that lends well to different genre of photography I will be shooting. Thanks Scott for always giving brilliant perspectives that are difficult to find elsewhere!
I know this probably sounds sacrilegious, but I shoot portraits with a 70-200 zoom. Yes, it's an expensive lens, and yes I could probably get a better technical image quality with a prime, but with a zoom lens, I get a significantly better overall image because it allows me to choose my perspective and composition, then select the focal length that gives me that. Technical image quality being put down on the sensor is secondary, and a lot of the newer zooms are good enough. I really only use two lenses. 24-105, and 70-200, mostly 70-200 with the 24-105 for the rare occasion I need something wider than 70mm.
@@boredboiseboy 85mm (on full frame 35mm) is typically considered a portrait lens where the 70-200 is part of the holy trinity lineup that many event photographers use. There are a number of weirdos (like me) that also use the 70-200 for portraits instead of just using an 85 or 100 prime. I strongly prefer to pick the subject to camera distance where the subjects ears are the same approximate size as their nose, then select the focal length that gives me the composition I want, but that’s just me. There are a boatload of photogs that swear by an 85 prime for portraits.
When I was in high school, the teachers mantra was "zoom with your feet". I had a 50 1.8 and that was all. Did my best, but still ended up cropping. With zooms, if not rushed, I rarely crop. Horizontal and vertical from same spot both framed well.
Some really good points...nice video. I am prime prone though...mostly field stills so dovetails into what you said. I want that fast aperture for isolation...but hey, my fast lenses can slow down like any other lens...so I get both. Usually an f1.4 lens dialed down to f2.8 will be sharper than a lens that starts at f2.8.
All good points, but there's still room for other approaches. I do a lot of videos of basically static people with the back wall not all that far away. If I'm going to get any subject separation I want the widest aperture I can get my hands on. Also most of the time I'm working with very similar dimensions all round so one single prime will do me for the majority of jobs.
Agreed modern zooms are amazing in terms of optical quality. With discipline you can shoot a zoom like a series of primes. Look at the scene, decide the composition based on your knowledge of focal lengths and distance from the subject, set the focal length, then raise the camera to your eye & shoot. Done. The key is to set the focal length first.
I've always shot primes, though a couple of years ago I purchased the GF45-100 for my GFX100s kit and, yep I love it. My only qualm with it, is that at f4 and f32 all that beautiful sharpness is compromised quite a bit. If I need to play with focal depth beyond that range, I use the primes. Try a comparison through all the f/stops and see if you notice.
well when i started i got the advice that i should be using prime, not for the quality argument, but because it forces you to move through your scene and use composition in camera. Whereas a zoom might have the picture i wanted without moving and thus not making me understand some stuff about depth of field, composition, etc... Now i do primes because they are cost effective compared to a good zoom lense.
I'm a hobbyist and I've always been a zoom user, always shot crop, and since my first D40 + 18-55 kit my primary lens has always been a standard zoom. Sometimes that's been a 17-50 f2.8, now it's a 16-80 f4, but as a landscape photographer this is the best setup for me (paired with a telephoto, like my current 80-200 f4). I of course shoot other kinds photography, like street and portraits and astro, so I have primes for those specific use cases. I don't know I guess I never grew out of the basic zoom phase haha, but one thing I've loved about moving to mirrorless is the access to so much third party and vintage glass, so I'm using way more primes and interesting lenses now than ever before. And that's the beauty of photography, there is So much gear out there and different ways to do things that everyone has something for them, for what they shoot and how they work.
I cover a lot of events, and I’ve noticed that I use my zoom lens almost exclusively at its extreme ends, either fully zoomed in or out. I’ve simply grown so accustomed to the look of, for example, 200mm, that I treat it like a prime lens with the added flexibility to adjust quickly if something moves closer. My go-to setup is a dual-camera system: one with a 70-200mm lens and a second with a 35mm or 50mm lens, depending on the situation. Additionally, fast lenses with focal lengths of 50mm or below are very affordable, so I don’t have to worry about having a backup stored in my car.
1:00 great point. When I was shooting headshots I found I had to close the aperture down to 4.5 (at 90mm) or the nose would be out of focus when focused on the eye. In fact, I’m not sure if it’s ever appropriate to shoot wide open.
For weddings I use a Nikon 750 with 17-35, 28-70 on the camera most of the time and an 80-200 zoom. No complaints from any clients. For my commercial work I use a Nikon 60 macro, 105 macro and a 85 shift, pc lens, Once again no complains from those clients.
The feel of the out of focus rendering with wide aperture lenses (or, if you like, bokeh) is more important than it’s ever been. Digital cameras have so much detail that the ‘flavour’ of a lens has become more visible than ever, and as a commercial photographer it’s one of the key ways of differentiating yourself. See the work of Jose Villa for an example. That’s why there’s been such a huge movement to more vintage lenses with character.
Detailed test with wall chart and tripod, 45mp sensor. Zeiss 135 1.8 and plena 135 1.8 is only marginally sharper than Nikon z 70-200 2.8 at 135. Tried my some of my other lenses, including z85 1.8, and 70-200 beat them in sharpness. Rendition is phenomenal. 24-135 f4 is also very sharp. I agree, last 5-10 years has changed the lanscape on what gives acceptable sharpness and colour rendition.
Not sure about other brands....with Sony....you can flip to Super APS-C mode, so your 50mm becomes like 80mm, so in a studio, it's super handy for closer up.....people say it just crops....but from experience it looks different. As for zooms, since the Sigma Art zooms dropped 18-35 and 24-70 or 50-100 at 1.8, primes became a luxury you didn't really need, these are better than "making do" for sure.....but im sure we all have too many lenses in the kit!
Looking at it from the other side, doesn't the explosion of megapixels mean that you can zoom in / recrop a picture taken with a prime lens without worrying about quality degrading to a serious extent? I love my zooms for travelling, but for walkabout photography, I find a prime lens on the camera plus one in my pocket is more fun. The OM System 20mm prime (40mm FF equivalent) is my constant companion.
I have been a keen amateur photographer since the mid 1980s. Primes vs. Zooms has been a passionate debate over much of that time. When I was younger I really liked the versatility of zooms, even though back then the quality wasn't supposed to be all that. But I really wasn't printing big, so they were fine for my use. My first lens, and only lens for a long time, was the nifty fifty, which I grew to hate. I hated it because I felt that it was never wide enough, and never long enough. It was always the wrong lens. Over the last decade or so since full frame sensors have become affordable to hobby photographers, and I am in a better position financially, I have amassed what I would consider a full photographic kit. My kit includes zooms covering everything from 17mm all the way to 300mm, which hits almost all that I would ever want to do, without the need to carry the monster lenses. I also had a 35mm prime left over from previous kits, and I bought 50mm f/1.8 for very cheap, and a 105mm Sigma macro lens (which I love). Anyway, now that I have a complete kit, the 50mm which I previously hated starts to make sense. Recently I have been leaving the heavy zooms behind and just going around town with my three prime lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 105mm, in a small bag. I am leaving the big zooms (most f/2.8) behind not because of the weight, but because it makes people around me uncomfortable with the "professional equipment". So I have been going out with the three small primes, two of which are tiny, and people are not so intimidated anymore when I photograph around them. Presumably they don't feel intimidated with the small kit, so they relax, which makes going around an urban setting so much more enjoyable. Finally I am even starting to really love the nifty fifty for its compact size, wide aperture and natural field of view. For the occasions where size is irrelevant I will continue to carry my big zooms. I don't mind the weight at all, and they really do make superb lenses these days. But for walking about town, a small kit is more inconspicuous. So these days, at least for me, image quality is no longer the driving reason for using primes. I can print massive picture from both, and indeed have some big prints from my zooms on my walls, which look superb. But I am still choosing to go out with primes for reasons other than purely for image quality reasons. And yes, when I take my primes out, the main lens of choice most of the time, is that darn nifty fifty!
I started on primes and then switched to zoom. But I use it like 3 primes: all the way in (17mm) and all the way out (55mm) with bits of white tape on the barrel to mark the standard lens length, 28mm, which is my mainstay on Super35. The most noticeable thing about the switch was the zoom wide is much sharper than the prime wide. Also, price, speed, convenience, filters
About a year ago, I made a comment on one photography forum or another, that I couldn’t wait until the bokah fad had passed. Subsequently, I was absolutely crucified for such a blasphemous comment. Needless to say, I thoroughly enjoyed todays video. Thank you!
Great video! Like you said, it depends on the type of photography you are doing. I love zooms but I feel that they give you too much choice. Leica has done some click zooms with very specific focal lengths. Maybe that’s a way forward for some pro lenses of the future.
If that can keep the quality high and the size down it would be perfect, especially with high megapixel sensors you can just crop for any of the in between focal lengths. Seems unlikely but I'd love it honestly.
I used to complain that my zoom lens only went down to 5.6 until I realized that I didn't need bokeh for most shots. Having said that, I prefer prime lenses because I can look at things and know what they're going to look like through a specific focal length. Zoom lenses are really good now, I agree. ISO's up to 12,000 are pretty common on even budget cameras these days. You can get really good shots.
With studio portraiture, f/8 and big watt-seconds from the para, so 70-200 because no need for the prime. But I still want it because my head and heart are at war. 🙄
Hi, I think that your work is exceptional. It’s driven from this sharpness, colors, composition and light. When it comes to portraits you are right. The new zooms are very sharp and they are good to get an idea of what you want to shot. But for portraits sometimes it’s not that important how sharp a lens is. It’s more important what kind of a fall of the lens generates. I use a combination of new and old lenses to find this. The other point is that there are trend in photography and they will change. Having to discuss your work with clients is also very important. Thanks for the good work and demystifying the work of a professional photographer. I enjoy this very much. Cheers Peter
I'm at the point where I don't touch my primes. I love the versatility of the zoom lenses. Now I do shoot primarily sports and the zoom is king for me. We obviously can't get as close as we want so having a zoom is helpful especially when the action gets closer. When I do portraits I typically use my Nikon 24-70 2.8 and it produces great quality images especially with studio lighting.
I came to this realization after I stopped pixel peeping 200% on Lr. Every time I printed the image, I couldn’t tell any difference in resolution. I never considered the documentary and the knowing the focal length aspect of shooting street too. I have both great zooms and primes, but I reach for them not because of image resolution or bokeh. I grab them for different reasons. Great video!
For my portrait work my EF 70-200 2.8L ii lives on my camera, it’s a beast of a lens and saves going to the gym but it covers 75% of the focal lengths I need and saves swapping lenses all the time.
I have the 45 to 100 fir the gfx and I agree: its really Sharp Lens, I actually use it for still Life and its amazing The Zoom for my xt5 on the other Hand Isn‘t as Sharp as the Primus for the X line up, but hey I Never thought: man hat’s a Bad Image because it Lacks sharpness haha Nevertheless the Reason i prefer Primes for the x line Is That i keeps my gear small and light
As someone who has more prime lenses than I know what to do with and who shoots a lot of studio portraiture, I have to say you are correct. Shooting at f/8 the difference between a zoom and a prime is negligible. I recently, bought a Panasonic 70-200mm f/4 and optically it is great. It is lighter than my f/2.8 zoom and a lot of my fast primes Where for me, prime lenses are still an advantage is where I have to think about the shot. I still love my Zeiss primes, not because the image quality is better, but because they slow me down and make me pre-plan and prepare. I can't just click away. I have to set up the shot, in a similar way to how I would shoot product photography. Generally, I use a tripod, the rear LCD and punch in focus to make sure I have everything framed and in focus. So every shot is deliberate, which can mean l lose some spontaneity, but when I get the shot, I can then play around a bit later. It also stops me from hiding behind the camera, and allows me to interact with the client more. In the end, it all comes down to the individual and how they like to work. There is no wrong answer, just the answer that works for the individual.
This doesn't really apply to me because I'm using old cameras and film. But, from what date do you think this is true? I suppose my point is that you are a great advocate of most people buying used kit. So if I'm buying used kit is this still true?
Clever advices ! I would ad that zoom is interesting for a beginner to find his preferred focal length and then he can get a prime that he likes and have a lighter set up compared to a zoom.
The Fuji 16-55 f2.8 has always been commented on as having a bag full of primes and on crop frame it covers what most people regard as the most practical zoom range of 24-70 on a full frame but with a bit more reach.
Why not block the zoom ring from moving with a gaffer tape? Would at least extend the usage range. However in some situations primes are just more easy use, less variables to control. And try to dial in 59mm on a typical 24-70mm lens.
Most photographers I watch are saying exactly what you just said. But I also agree with you on the prime letting you catch the shot quickly when you need to pick up the camera and shoot quick, and know what you got.
I recently bought the Tamron 35-150mm F2 - F2.8 and think this to be the perfect all-rounder. Yes, I still have and use a wide range of primes for unique occasions but for the most part the modern high-tech zoom is the way to go.
I find that, as the days get longer, I end up using my zooms more and my primes less. But as the days get shorter (and for night/astrophotography) I end up using my primes more and my zooms less. In those situations, I want my f1.4 lens because there is little light to be had and I want all of it. :-) If there is more light, then I don’t need every bit of it and I’m happy to use zooms for their versatility. In studio, I mostly shoot portraits. And, for those, I really like the look of macro lenses. My favorite portrait lens, in fact, is the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro art lens, which is dirt cheap as full frame lenses go. So I guess that puts me in the land of primes for the studio. :-)
I think this is fair! Iv Mainly been a zoom user myself and turn the zoom ring until it’s good to go but primes for sure imo provide that perspective that needs to be understood and appreciated. Iv done one studio shoot and swapped between 4 lenses one was a macro but id need more bodies to soley use primes in that situation
I had that epiphany some years ago when I got one of the Sigma Art zooms. Image quality was stellar and even exposed some nice micro contrast. The only downside was some pretty strong vignetting and distortion on some focal ranges.
I feel like my 28-105 F4 is my most handy lens, but nothing beats the 40mm 2.8 for the sharpness and weight combo.. even if I use a big camera, it's just a perfect normal lens for pictures as I see them. I think F4 zooms plus a prime normal or portrait/macro lens depending on your style of work. And maybe a big telephoto if you do wildlife. But the 28 50 135 of yesterday is a 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 F4 trio, imo. ~600 for wildlife.
Spot on, the Fuji GF zooms are amazing the 20-35mm zoom has surpassed the 23mm prime, and I could not do without my set of Canon RF zooms for the day to day work horses which are also a huge leap forward compared to the EF zooms
I like them smaller. I like them faster. And I like to think less about having to pick a focal length. Primes will always be my choice. One isn't better, one is better for me.
Particularly once you get to the mid range apertures, very little difference that will show up a print between a good zoom and a good prime, at least when printing average size prints or on the lower megapixel count cameras like 24, although I'm still struggling to comprehend that 24 is on the lower end now. I recently switched to mirrorless and bought the Nikon 24-70 F4 and its surprisingly good. Easily good enough. The Nikon 70-200 F2.8 is ridiculously good better than most of the old generation F mount primes. Where I do still like primes its now more about the art side of things, I'm no longer shooting professionally and so I'm shooting in a completely different way with a different end goal. When I was working it was all about getting good enough to be paid, now I can slow down and shoot what I want to in my own time frame and be more methodical and I am a sucker for depth of field with the right compression ratio. I use primes for two main reasons now, the weight and size, I'm happy to compromise on versatility to get the weight and size down as I mostly shoot while I'm out walking rather than at a wedding or event. The image quality doesn't factor into it.
I’ve always used zoom lens and I decided to start to use primes mainly for certain types of photography like street. As time went by and because the primes I use for Fujifilm (X series, not G :)) are smaller and lighter I started to take at least a prime with me for landscape photography or travel. These days i have always with me a 35 or a 50mm equivalent prime and every single time I decide to use it I have more keepers. Not because of image quality, as I don’t really think that a good photography needs to have that extra definition at 200% magnification. It changes your mindset. You think about what you have in frame with more intention. I know that this sounds stupid because intention can also be done with any lens or camera. So I took this a bit further and decided to put to use some roll of film. And I realized that knowing that each picture costs 1 euro (roll plus revelation plus scanning) makes me be even more intentional. So, to sum it up, it’s not about the camera or the lens, it’s about the mindset that you have when using certain gear that makes you think more, be more aware of what you are doing that makes you have in turn more keepers. The funny thing is that going back to digital (I have both with me usually the digital and the field cameras) I started to realize that I was shooting less but keeping more also. I do believe that shooting Keith primes is a really good way to improve your photography and shooting with film to slow down and make each frame more special. But at the end of the day you can use zooms or any recent camera to accomplish that. There are no bad cameras and no bad lens these days. Ok there are a few bad lenses but even those are not unusable. We have amazing image quality from sensors and lens these days that the only thing that remains of the quality of your photography. Or editing skills. But that’s another story :) cheers
😂 Great Video. I’ve move around lenses over the years but now I have 9 lenses, a 3 primes, 3 zooms, 2 Anamorphic & 1 Vintage Who would have thought 😅 I wholly agree my Sigma Zooms against my Primes (at times) is really splitting hairs.
I was a "Primes only" shooter for years until I switched from a Sony A6500 to the Sony A7IV and bought the Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM II. I'm not sure what magic they're using but the G Master second generation zooms with Sony are 100% prime level quality. I still use my 35mm F1.4 GM, but their "holy trinity" of zooms rival everyone else's prime lenses IMO.
You get lens history a bit wrong, if history extends back to the 70s. The reason we needed fast lenses was not film sensitivity. The reason you needed a fast lens was to see to focus in low light. Back in the day you focused your own camera, and to do that you needed to see, and in low light with a slow lens you could not see very well through the damned camera. Even though you may never take a shot (outside action sports) at f1.4 because of the lack of DOF, you still used f1.4's most valuable attribute on every shot - the extra light with which to see to focus. Related to this is that old school film lenses included finely detailed focus scales engraved on their barrel, so guessing/knowing your distance to subject, you could prefocus via those numbers. Good street & sports photographers back in the day became very adept at focusing instinctively via the amount of twist of the focus barrel and could follow action nicely, one more skill (along with judging exposure without a meter) that is lost to today's learners. Historical note: we used to have a bit of a debate about which way a lens should rotate to focus near/far, Nikon & Canon being opposite each other. A parallel issue was lack of film speed, but that worked the other way around - you chose or developed your film for the requirements of the shoot and lived with the look. You push-processed the fastest BW film available for indoor sports without flash - you could get ASA 1600 out of Kodak Tri-X push processed, then came some fast Ilford. If you really want to talk history consider that back in the day you could carry on shooting without a battery - considered a primary advantage. More on that if anyone asks.
@@gregorylagrange - I'd be happy to correct you if you were clearly expressing a criticism but you are not. You say, "that doesn't make sense because ..." then follow with a non sequitur: "... lenses would stop down to the aperture during the taking of the photo." Yes, the lens of course stops down to the aperture you've chosen for exposure during the exposure, but that is AFTER focusing. During focusing, you view the scene through the lens at the widest aperture the lens offers. Thus it is far easier to see to MANUALLY focus with a fast lens. Fast lenses compensate for low film sensitivity just like longer shutter speed does, but the real value of a fast lens was being able to see to focus (there was no autofocus) in relative darkness. Even when you intended to use f8, 11, 16, you still viewed through f1.4 or whatever the widest aperture was.
Very true. My Nikon Z 24-70 2.8s is literally so sharp with great contrast and detail, I use it to compare all my primes to. For all my paid shoots (events/gigs), I use two zooms alone (the other being my 70-200 Nikkor). I've tried some of my gjgs with primes, but there was really no difference. I was looking for perhaps more subject separation with the faster primes, but it was a moot point. The zooms are so practical and perfect for shooting gigs and events (particularly the fast 2.8 zooms), any disadvantages in weight and size is very easily offset by there incredible use-ability and practicality. However, when I travel overseas for my trips photographing ancient cultures and religions and far off countries, it's never a big zoom, always a couple of small primes (come on Nikon, we need some smaller, better primes than your two plastic mount Z lenses).!
Brings up a good point, the focal length at which you are zoomed to should display in the viewfinder - it's in the metadata! Maybe it does on some brand camera? Adobe Bridge asset manager does display whatever focal length the zoom was at when the shot was made, perhaps Bridge does too I don't use that software.
Recently switched to 35-150 2.8 and Lost 1.4 worth of F stop, sometimes I still use the 85 1.4 if I want a soft creamy look but my 35-150 is really sharp. The sony Handles low light so well I rarely feel the difference aside from blue hour shots with no strobe
Good perspective on this old argument - that still goes on today. I prefer primes, but other than the weight, zooms are very practical for event photography. It comes down to 2 bodies and 2 primes or one body and a zoom. You still need the 2nd body and 2 primes for backup - or really poor light. But still, I hesitate choosing a zoom. Resistance to change, I suppose.
True, prime lenses are also better for removing a set of doubts, decisions etc. you simply have to move and or understand the perspective will change and you have to live with that. I was thinking about the zoom for my medium format too… but the lightness of the other primes I have my eyes on…. Mmmm. I will have to dust that sensor more often…. Right, lovely… anyway your video and my recent search for lenses reminded me of those photographers with at least 2 cameras each with a different lens on.
I’m editing a lot of photos at the moment taken on various RF L series lenses on the 45MP R5, and I cannot tell the difference between them. More often than not I’m frustrated someone is using f1.2 and had the focus in the wrong spot. The only lens that stands out is the 85 1.2, and even then it’s only in the focus fall off.
Maybe you got cataracts?.....Just kidding.....for me it all about small and light. The Sony 55mm made me realize how much I hated the weight of zooms. Then I got the RX100vii(figured it was wise money spent vs a lens) and that made me realize I hated carrying a full frame but I'm just playing around with cameras. Enjoyed the video.
I use the original trio of Tamron zooms on my Sony bodies. Their performance is excellent and the handling is unmatched in terms of weight through a day of shooting. I love Zeiss rendering and prefer their lenses for portrait and personal work, but I don't miss it in a commercial capacity. The Tamrons have always delivered.
I used one of the Tamron 35-150 lenses last year for Sony and it was too large and heavy for what I needed it for but I was minorly devastated that it was equally as sharp as my 35 1.4. Then last week I tried the GF 45-100 and now I'm sunk. It was (relatively) light, fast AF, super sharp and now I'm debating what prime child to give up for it. As much as I would prefer to be a primes only photographer, for both the distinctiveness in field of view and style and image quality and it's what I prefer for event/portraiture, mostly doing landscape now and I would much rather leave the house with half as many lenses.
I've been using zooms professionally for the past 8 years. I have 2 very sharp Nikon zooms (18-35 and 70-200 f2.8) and a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 that have all been optically very sharp. The only thing I don't love about the wide and mid range ones are the amount of distortion, but the versatility kind of outweighs that. The only time I use primes is with tilt-shift lenses, but if a tilt-shift zoom lens existed, I'd be all over that.
In the old days I had Nikon SLRs and prime Nikkors, but now it is convenience and zooms (strictly a hobby photographer). However, had a pro turn up to do school photos... granted they had some flash units for fill in, but the core rig (end of 2024) was a Nikon D750 and a 28-300mm zoom. Supposedly "consumer" kit... from ten years ago.
If you want to learn the more in-depth side of commercial photography that we don't share here on UA-cam, head over to here tinhouse-studio.com/studio-access/
Totally different question.
Are UGG adverts your work ? Look like yours
"Technical sheets be damned" is something so many people need to hear, thank you.
1:40 "thankfully, we've all got past bokeh."
There are quite a few who have not gotten that memo.
@@andychandler3992 there is definitely a time and a place for it, but it’s been overdone. I see a few photographers who shoot at f1.2/f1.4 all the time and honestly, all their photos look like they have been done against a backdrop in a studio with the subject stuck on, completely disconnected from their environment.
There's arguing about best bokeh which is past, and there's intentionally shallow DOF placed where you want it, which many never experience we will never get past. Notice the owner of this channel has a full view camera base standards setup for his studio still life work, he's as serious about where he puts his focus as a shooter can get and that's why he makes the big bucks.
What's funny is that the same people that say that bokeh is for noobs will glaze a medium format camera "because of the bokeh"
i always used APS-C with full frame lenses. I just plug dat ho with a full frame lens taking care of the crops and i get beautiful in-between results.
@@andychandler3992 I mean, you can still get nice back ground blur and cool bubbles in the background and still shoot with an adequate depth of field.
Seconded. I think Scott is the only pro I’ve heard of who doesn’t like bokeh. I don’t personally care about the “quality” of the bokeh, but I sure like being able to isolate my subject in a sports context.
Gave up on primes when I switched to Sony. Gave up on primary lenses vs third-party too. Everything is fantastic now. We are so spoiled it's insane.
Yes kids today are spoiled.
During the 1990's there was a widespread adoption of various quality methods in manufacturing . TQM, Crosby system , ISO 9001 etc - generally they all had a similar aim to track and incrementally reduce variability by measuring your outputs carefully and reducing tolerances as you worked out where the variation was occurring ... the Japanese were very into this and the example that became well known was the doors on a mazda ... if the metal used on the door can vary in thickness by +/- 40% - then the weight of the 20kg door varies from 12kg to 28kg ... this means the hinges need to be sized to cope with up to 28kg , and the strength of the door frame on the chassis has to be built to cope with higher weight too , which leads to the springs , dampers and suspenson components needing to be uprated too. By getting control of variable inputs manufacturers gradually cut the 'lemons' out of the process. Camera makers found this too- a prime is simple to construct and has few moving parts so the quality is always going to be easier to achieve - but with modern techniques even incredibly complex optical formulas can be turned reliably and consistently into products because the glass , the ABS plastic , the assembly processes now have minimal variability compared to 30 years ago when every xxth zoom lens was an utter dog
This is a fascinating insight, thanks for sharing
Quite a bit of blather there. The real issue is cost of manufacturing, quality control was available 50 years ago, if you could afford it. PS the doors on a Mazda never varied as you say, not even close.
You are totally right. The border between fixed and zoom is open. Even though I am still a fixed lens lover. Wight and size make the difference. Not the image quality anymore.
Nicely put. I've been working since 1972 and always preferred prime lenses because as you say, back then zooms were pretty appalling. I still only use primes today with one exception. I cover street marches and demonstrations quite often, and I find the new Sony 20-70 f4 a complete godsend, With the 135mm 1.8 on the other body I can take on pretty much anything the event throws at me. Love the channel. Take care.
Anything decent will do for a street march, as the actions of the subjects/decisive moment are what it's all about, not the ability to blow it up to wall size.
@@johnsmith1474 I don't recall mentioning any walls! The 20-70 fits the bill because of its focal length coverage.
I became a zoom only person when I went mirrorless. Like you said, my eyes can't tell and being in studio i need the versatility.
That new Tamron 35-150mm F2 - F2.8 is such a great option for portraits. Personally I still find I use Zooms for flexibility more than anything - but I prefer shooting primes. I feel like I am more creative with a Prime because I typically have to move and adapt to get the framing I want - and of course, if I have shot it a lot...I can pre-visualize shots. With a zoom - there is almost analysis paralysis because you have so many focal lengths, and so many places you could stand with each of those focal lengths. I think the key difference is how my workflow changes. For Zooms I tend to find that I choose a position a good enough place to stand and then cycle through different focal lengths, whereas with a Prime I shoot it from one location and move around while in that zone and really fine tune to find best shot at that FL before going and changing to a different lens. Maybe I need to change how I approach working with a zoom.... set it to a certain FL and then get "the shot" and then move to the next FL.
I kind of do the same thing and definitely need to move around more with zooms vs primes but I've also found with social media being the primary destination for a lot of photos I love having the variety of focal lengths from a single spot as well (assuming it's a good composition) it adds a nice way to move through a series without it jumping around too much and adding a bit of story telling. Two bodies and two primes can obviously do this as well or better but the simplicity and speed is a huge advantage.
And to think that for 16 years of taking wedding photos on a Hasselblad 500CM film camera I used just one prime lens, an 80mm. The average wedding was 72 shots only, with some as low as even 24 for a budget wedding, but if we really pushed the boat out we'd shoot 144 pics, yet often thought that was a bit excessive. Unlike digital weddings today, where literally thousands of shots can be taken at the event, the key difference is that almost every shot we took on film was actually usable, unlike today.
These days, when shooting on my digital kit, I still use primes for 'serious' work, but I do like having a zoom in my bag.
Bravo!
Totally agree on using primes not because of bokeh or sharpness, but because of knowing what type of look you are after, in other words, knowing your focal length.
I agree that the 'bokeh' obsession became crazy, bur fast lenses and the ability to 'isolate' subjects from the background will never go out of fashion, its an important part of the 'artistry' of photography. I know there are fairly fast, excellent zoom lenses, but they are horribly expensive and cripplingly heavy to cart about, so I'm in the camp of using both, dependent on need. 'Horses for courses'.
Thanks for your beautifully presented argument. Those of us who shot refrigerated pro transparency film using top of the line optics for a few decades, need to undo a lot of deeply ingrained logic when moving to shooting video for UA-cam, where optical resolving power is not a factor at all. On a full size modern Sony sensor, I've noticed that even the 24-105 f:4 G is overkill. The only time I would reach for a fast prime is when I have to eliminate the background more than possible with an f:4 aperture.
You're not gonna like what I'm gonna say, but my problem with that 24-70 Art is that it's an amazing studio lens, but for outdoors it has really nervous bokeh. Also, zooms are just really big. I shoot entirely with slow primes.
Bought my Nikon Z 24-120mm as a 'travel' lens. It's so sharp I rarely use my 20, 50 and 85mm f1.8s - now reserved mainly when shooting at night, although I occasionally put on the 50mm for the simplicity of shooting at a 'normal' focal length
You are absolutely right. For work I use a zoom lens and it gets almost every job done perfectly. But for my personal photography I use one camera with one fixed focal length and I appreciate the limitations that come with it. It calms my mind somehow...it is weird, but works for me.
I prefer to create still images with a Prime, because I know what the framing is before I even raise my camera up to my eye. It's a way of intuitively seeing and creating for me.
Absolutely enjoying how your commentary is serious and funny at the same time...
I only carry primes, often only 1 one a day, because primes are usually smaller and I enjoy that restriction on composition
Perfect timing on this! As a festival photographer, I use zoom lenses for obvious reasons but this year I'm completely redoing my portrait portfolio and I'm in the market to purchase my first prime lens. Great stuff!
Never given two 💩about bokeh myself. If people are looking at that in a portrait then the portrait failed completely.
Agreed.
I shoot low light concert photography, so I'll stick to my fast primes (they are cheaper and faster than the top of the range zooms for my camera system). But, I definitely get what you are saying.
I felt like a time traveler. I am still using an 90D with sigma 18-35mm 1.4 and a EF 85mm 1.8 for 90% of my photos and videos.
The Sigma unicorn. You were truly blessed.
I'd argue the Ef24-70-2.8 Mk2 was better at the time than my then EF24.1.4 and EF50 1.2 lenses. The RF lens game has moved on quite a bit but I still mostly use a zoom, the RF28-70 F2 lens and honestly bar it's wrist wrecking/back breaking weight it is sharp enough my work. The more interesting point you make is that with a prime lens there's no surprises, if you lift it to your eye ten feet from the subject you'll pretty much no what you'll see. However I can't get past the versatility of my zoom and those micro composition tweaks I make in camera on the hoof. For personal work I will only use a prime because it makes you work harder on your composition... sorry for the long reply, it's the one thing I've mixed emotions about most in my photography. Love the channel btw.
I'm in the prime camp mostly because I love the predictability of a single focal length. In never need to open up more the f2.8 so it's not about soeed/bokeh. I have simplified my kit down to 28mm, 35mm and 55mm lenses and I could not be more happier. Most of the time I'm using the 35mm. I can see how useful a zoom is, but I find I'm more creative when I cannot adjust the focal length and have to work with what's on my camera.
Absolutely! I’ve shot Nikon all my life and the new generation 14-24 and 24-70 2.8’s S lenses are crazy…AND I’ll add the f4’s equally as sharp! The new Nikon 24-120 f4S is as sharp as the 2.8’s! I’ll always have a nifty 50 in the bag still , not cheap nifty fifties (1.8) any longer but still relatively good value for a cutting edge sharpness lens.
I shoot events and zoom lenses are so convenient. A pair of zoom lenses cater for all my needs while keeping the weight of my carry-bag down.
Absolutely agree. My Nikon Z 2.8 zoomlenses and de GF45-100 and 20-35 are as sharp as the primes that fall within their ranges. I sold my Nikon primes, but bought the GF 110 2.0. That one can not be beaten by a prime.
You are spot again in your analysis. I have been pondering on which lens to buy alongside Fujifilm GFX 100S II, after watching this video, am sure my first lens will be 45-100mm. Covers great focal lengths that lends well to different genre of photography I will be shooting.
Thanks Scott for always giving brilliant perspectives that are difficult to find elsewhere!
I know this probably sounds sacrilegious, but I shoot portraits with a 70-200 zoom. Yes, it's an expensive lens, and yes I could probably get a better technical image quality with a prime, but with a zoom lens, I get a significantly better overall image because it allows me to choose my perspective and composition, then select the focal length that gives me that. Technical image quality being put down on the sensor is secondary, and a lot of the newer zooms are good enough. I really only use two lenses. 24-105, and 70-200, mostly 70-200 with the 24-105 for the rare occasion I need something wider than 70mm.
I thought a 70-200 f2.8 was a portrait lens 😂
@@boredboiseboy - It is.
@@johnsmith1474 wait a minute, it's a sport photography lens.
@@boredboiseboy 85mm (on full frame 35mm) is typically considered a portrait lens where the 70-200 is part of the holy trinity lineup that many event photographers use. There are a number of weirdos (like me) that also use the 70-200 for portraits instead of just using an 85 or 100 prime. I strongly prefer to pick the subject to camera distance where the subjects ears are the same approximate size as their nose, then select the focal length that gives me the composition I want, but that’s just me. There are a boatload of photogs that swear by an 85 prime for portraits.
Agree with you totally, wish more people would be on board with this
When I was in high school, the teachers mantra was "zoom with your feet". I had a 50 1.8 and that was all. Did my best, but still ended up cropping.
With zooms, if not rushed, I rarely crop. Horizontal and vertical from same spot both framed well.
Exactly. If you are unable to move, zoom.
Some really good points...nice video. I am prime prone though...mostly field stills so dovetails into what you said. I want that fast aperture for isolation...but hey, my fast lenses can slow down like any other lens...so I get both. Usually an f1.4 lens dialed down to f2.8 will be sharper than a lens that starts at f2.8.
This.
All good points, but there's still room for other approaches. I do a lot of videos of basically static people with the back wall not all that far away. If I'm going to get any subject separation I want the widest aperture I can get my hands on. Also most of the time I'm working with very similar dimensions all round so one single prime will do me for the majority of jobs.
Agreed modern zooms are amazing in terms of optical quality. With discipline you can shoot a zoom like a series of primes. Look at the scene, decide the composition based on your knowledge of focal lengths and distance from the subject, set the focal length, then raise the camera to your eye & shoot. Done. The key is to set the focal length first.
I've always shot primes, though a couple of years ago I purchased the GF45-100 for my GFX100s kit and, yep I love it. My only qualm with it, is that at f4 and f32 all that beautiful sharpness is compromised quite a bit. If I need to play with focal depth beyond that range, I use the primes. Try a comparison through all the f/stops and see if you notice.
well when i started i got the advice that i should be using prime, not for the quality argument, but because it forces you to move through your scene and use composition in camera. Whereas a zoom might have the picture i wanted without moving and thus not making me understand some stuff about depth of field, composition, etc... Now i do primes because they are cost effective compared to a good zoom lense.
I'm a hobbyist and I've always been a zoom user, always shot crop, and since my first D40 + 18-55 kit my primary lens has always been a standard zoom. Sometimes that's been a 17-50 f2.8, now it's a 16-80 f4, but as a landscape photographer this is the best setup for me (paired with a telephoto, like my current 80-200 f4). I of course shoot other kinds photography, like street and portraits and astro, so I have primes for those specific use cases. I don't know I guess I never grew out of the basic zoom phase haha, but one thing I've loved about moving to mirrorless is the access to so much third party and vintage glass, so I'm using way more primes and interesting lenses now than ever before. And that's the beauty of photography, there is So much gear out there and different ways to do things that everyone has something for them, for what they shoot and how they work.
There is in-camera lens correction manufacturers now use to help their lens performance.
I cover a lot of events, and I’ve noticed that I use my zoom lens almost exclusively at its extreme ends, either fully zoomed in or out. I’ve simply grown so accustomed to the look of, for example, 200mm, that I treat it like a prime lens with the added flexibility to adjust quickly if something moves closer.
My go-to setup is a dual-camera system: one with a 70-200mm lens and a second with a 35mm or 50mm lens, depending on the situation. Additionally, fast lenses with focal lengths of 50mm or below are very affordable, so I don’t have to worry about having a backup stored in my car.
1:00 great point. When I was shooting headshots I found I had to close the aperture down to 4.5 (at 90mm) or the nose would be out of focus when focused on the eye. In fact, I’m not sure if it’s ever appropriate to shoot wide open.
It always depends. For some people, image quality matters more. In that case, image circle size is what really matters.
For weddings I use a Nikon 750 with 17-35, 28-70 on the camera most of the time and an 80-200 zoom. No complaints from any clients. For my commercial work I use a Nikon 60 macro, 105 macro and a 85 shift, pc lens, Once again no complains from those clients.
The feel of the out of focus rendering with wide aperture lenses (or, if you like, bokeh) is more important than it’s ever been. Digital cameras have so much detail that the ‘flavour’ of a lens has become more visible than ever, and as a commercial photographer it’s one of the key ways of differentiating yourself. See the work of Jose Villa for an example. That’s why there’s been such a huge movement to more vintage lenses with character.
Detailed test with wall chart and tripod, 45mp sensor. Zeiss 135 1.8 and plena 135 1.8 is only marginally sharper than Nikon z 70-200 2.8 at 135. Tried my some of my other lenses, including z85 1.8, and 70-200 beat them in sharpness. Rendition is phenomenal. 24-135 f4 is also very sharp. I agree, last 5-10 years has changed the lanscape on what gives acceptable sharpness and colour rendition.
Not sure about other brands....with Sony....you can flip to Super APS-C mode, so your 50mm becomes like 80mm, so in a studio, it's super handy for closer up.....people say it just crops....but from experience it looks different. As for zooms, since the Sigma Art zooms dropped 18-35 and 24-70 or 50-100 at 1.8, primes became a luxury you didn't really need, these are better than "making do" for sure.....but im sure we all have too many lenses in the kit!
Looking at it from the other side, doesn't the explosion of megapixels mean that you can zoom in / recrop a picture taken with a prime lens without worrying about quality degrading to a serious extent?
I love my zooms for travelling, but for walkabout photography, I find a prime lens on the camera plus one in my pocket is more fun. The OM System 20mm prime (40mm FF equivalent) is my constant companion.
I have been a keen amateur photographer since the mid 1980s. Primes vs. Zooms has been a passionate debate over much of that time. When I was younger I really liked the versatility of zooms, even though back then the quality wasn't supposed to be all that. But I really wasn't printing big, so they were fine for my use.
My first lens, and only lens for a long time, was the nifty fifty, which I grew to hate. I hated it because I felt that it was never wide enough, and never long enough. It was always the wrong lens.
Over the last decade or so since full frame sensors have become affordable to hobby photographers, and I am in a better position financially, I have amassed what I would consider a full photographic kit. My kit includes zooms covering everything from 17mm all the way to 300mm, which hits almost all that I would ever want to do, without the need to carry the monster lenses. I also had a 35mm prime left over from previous kits, and I bought 50mm f/1.8 for very cheap, and a 105mm Sigma macro lens (which I love).
Anyway, now that I have a complete kit, the 50mm which I previously hated starts to make sense. Recently I have been leaving the heavy zooms behind and just going around town with my three prime lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 105mm, in a small bag. I am leaving the big zooms (most f/2.8) behind not because of the weight, but because it makes people around me uncomfortable with the "professional equipment". So I have been going out with the three small primes, two of which are tiny, and people are not so intimidated anymore when I photograph around them. Presumably they don't feel intimidated with the small kit, so they relax, which makes going around an urban setting so much more enjoyable. Finally I am even starting to really love the nifty fifty for its compact size, wide aperture and natural field of view.
For the occasions where size is irrelevant I will continue to carry my big zooms. I don't mind the weight at all, and they really do make superb lenses these days. But for walking about town, a small kit is more inconspicuous.
So these days, at least for me, image quality is no longer the driving reason for using primes. I can print massive picture from both, and indeed have some big prints from my zooms on my walls, which look superb. But I am still choosing to go out with primes for reasons other than purely for image quality reasons.
And yes, when I take my primes out, the main lens of choice most of the time, is that darn nifty fifty!
I started on primes and then switched to zoom. But I use it like 3 primes: all the way in (17mm) and all the way out (55mm) with bits of white tape on the barrel to mark the standard lens length, 28mm, which is my mainstay on Super35. The most noticeable thing about the switch was the zoom wide is much sharper than the prime wide. Also, price, speed, convenience, filters
About a year ago, I made a comment on one photography forum or another, that I couldn’t wait until the bokah fad had passed. Subsequently, I was absolutely crucified for such a blasphemous comment. Needless to say, I thoroughly enjoyed todays video. Thank you!
Thank You Tin House!
Great video. My thought was if you use a prime lens, crop in, then you are using a zoom but in post.
Great video! Like you said, it depends on the type of photography you are doing. I love zooms but I feel that they give you too much choice. Leica has done some click zooms with very specific focal lengths. Maybe that’s a way forward for some pro lenses of the future.
If that can keep the quality high and the size down it would be perfect, especially with high megapixel sensors you can just crop for any of the in between focal lengths. Seems unlikely but I'd love it honestly.
I used to complain that my zoom lens only went down to 5.6 until I realized that I didn't need bokeh for most shots. Having said that, I prefer prime lenses because I can look at things and know what they're going to look like through a specific focal length.
Zoom lenses are really good now, I agree. ISO's up to 12,000 are pretty common on even budget cameras these days. You can get really good shots.
With studio portraiture, f/8 and big watt-seconds from the para, so 70-200 because no need for the prime. But I still want it because my head and heart are at war. 🙄
Hi, I think that your work is exceptional. It’s driven from this sharpness, colors, composition and light. When it comes to portraits you are right. The new zooms are very sharp and they are good to get an idea of what you want to shot. But for portraits sometimes it’s not that important how sharp a lens is. It’s more important what kind of a fall of the lens generates. I use a combination of new and old lenses to find this. The other point is that there are trend in photography and they will change. Having to discuss your work with clients is also very important. Thanks for the good work and demystifying the work of a professional photographer. I enjoy this very much. Cheers Peter
I'm at the point where I don't touch my primes. I love the versatility of the zoom lenses. Now I do shoot primarily sports and the zoom is king for me. We obviously can't get as close as we want so having a zoom is helpful especially when the action gets closer. When I do portraits I typically use my Nikon 24-70 2.8 and it produces great quality images especially with studio lighting.
I came to this realization after I stopped pixel peeping 200% on Lr. Every time I printed the image, I couldn’t tell any difference in resolution. I never considered the documentary and the knowing the focal length aspect of shooting street too. I have both great zooms and primes, but I reach for them not because of image resolution or bokeh. I grab them for different reasons. Great video!
When my primary cameras were micro 4/3 I needed primes in lower light but the actual best lens I owned was a 12-40mm f2.8.
Me too! I love my 12-40
Why choose, when you can have both?
For my portrait work my EF 70-200 2.8L ii lives on my camera, it’s a beast of a lens and saves going to the gym but it covers 75% of the focal lengths I need and saves swapping lenses all the time.
Agreed
I have the 45 to 100 fir the gfx and I agree: its really Sharp Lens, I actually use it for still Life and its amazing
The Zoom for my xt5 on the other Hand Isn‘t as Sharp as the Primus for the X line up, but hey I Never thought: man hat’s a Bad Image because it Lacks sharpness haha
Nevertheless the Reason i prefer Primes for the x line Is That i keeps my gear small and light
As someone who has more prime lenses than I know what to do with and who shoots a lot of studio portraiture, I have to say you are correct. Shooting at f/8 the difference between a zoom and a prime is negligible. I recently, bought a Panasonic 70-200mm f/4 and optically it is great. It is lighter than my f/2.8 zoom and a lot of my fast primes
Where for me, prime lenses are still an advantage is where I have to think about the shot. I still love my Zeiss primes, not because the image quality is better, but because they slow me down and make me pre-plan and prepare.
I can't just click away. I have to set up the shot, in a similar way to how I would shoot product photography. Generally, I use a tripod, the rear LCD and punch in focus to make sure I have everything framed and in focus. So every shot is deliberate, which can mean l lose some spontaneity, but when I get the shot, I can then play around a bit later. It also stops me from hiding behind the camera, and allows me to interact with the client more.
In the end, it all comes down to the individual and how they like to work. There is no wrong answer, just the answer that works for the individual.
This doesn't really apply to me because I'm using old cameras and film. But, from what date do you think this is true? I suppose my point is that you are a great advocate of most people buying used kit. So if I'm buying used kit is this still true?
Clever advices !
I would ad that zoom is interesting for a beginner to find his preferred focal length and then he can get a prime that he likes and have a lighter set up compared to a zoom.
The Fuji 16-55 f2.8 has always been commented on as having a bag full of primes and on crop frame it covers what most people regard as the most practical zoom range of 24-70 on a full frame but with a bit more reach.
Why not block the zoom ring from moving with a gaffer tape? Would at least extend the usage range. However in some situations primes are just more easy use, less variables to control. And try to dial in 59mm on a typical 24-70mm lens.
Most photographers I watch are saying exactly what you just said. But I also agree with you on the prime letting you catch the shot quickly when you need to pick up the camera and shoot quick, and know what you got.
I recently bought the Tamron 35-150mm F2 - F2.8 and think this to be the perfect all-rounder. Yes, I still have and use a wide range of primes for unique occasions but for the most part the modern high-tech zoom is the way to go.
I find that, as the days get longer, I end up using my zooms more and my primes less. But as the days get shorter (and for night/astrophotography) I end up using my primes more and my zooms less. In those situations, I want my f1.4 lens because there is little light to be had and I want all of it. :-) If there is more light, then I don’t need every bit of it and I’m happy to use zooms for their versatility.
In studio, I mostly shoot portraits. And, for those, I really like the look of macro lenses. My favorite portrait lens, in fact, is the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro art lens, which is dirt cheap as full frame lenses go. So I guess that puts me in the land of primes for the studio. :-)
I think this is fair! Iv
Mainly been a zoom user myself and turn the zoom ring until it’s good to go but primes for sure imo provide that perspective that needs to be understood and appreciated. Iv done one studio shoot and swapped between 4 lenses one was a macro but id need more bodies to soley use primes in that situation
I had that epiphany some years ago when I got one of the Sigma Art zooms. Image quality was stellar and even exposed some nice micro contrast. The only downside was some pretty strong vignetting and distortion on some focal ranges.
I feel like my 28-105 F4 is my most handy lens, but nothing beats the 40mm 2.8 for the sharpness and weight combo.. even if I use a big camera, it's just a perfect normal lens for pictures as I see them. I think F4 zooms plus a prime normal or portrait/macro lens depending on your style of work. And maybe a big telephoto if you do wildlife. But the 28 50 135 of yesterday is a 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 F4 trio, imo. ~600 for wildlife.
Spot on, the Fuji GF zooms are amazing the 20-35mm zoom has surpassed the 23mm prime, and I could not do without my set of Canon RF zooms for the day to day work horses which are also a huge leap forward compared to the EF zooms
Always a fresh perspective! Thanks for that
I like them smaller. I like them faster. And I like to think less about having to pick a focal length. Primes will always be my choice. One isn't better, one is better for me.
Particularly once you get to the mid range apertures, very little difference that will show up a print between a good zoom and a good prime, at least when printing average size prints or on the lower megapixel count cameras like 24, although I'm still struggling to comprehend that 24 is on the lower end now.
I recently switched to mirrorless and bought the Nikon 24-70 F4 and its surprisingly good. Easily good enough. The Nikon 70-200 F2.8 is ridiculously good better than most of the old generation F mount primes.
Where I do still like primes its now more about the art side of things, I'm no longer shooting professionally and so I'm shooting in a completely different way with a different end goal. When I was working it was all about getting good enough to be paid, now I can slow down and shoot what I want to in my own time frame and be more methodical and I am a sucker for depth of field with the right compression ratio. I use primes for two main reasons now, the weight and size, I'm happy to compromise on versatility to get the weight and size down as I mostly shoot while I'm out walking rather than at a wedding or event. The image quality doesn't factor into it.
I’ve always used zoom lens and I decided to start to use primes mainly for certain types of photography like street. As time went by and because the primes I use for Fujifilm (X series, not G :)) are smaller and lighter I started to take at least a prime with me for landscape photography or travel. These days i have always with me a 35 or a 50mm equivalent prime and every single time I decide to use it I have more keepers. Not because of image quality, as I don’t really think that a good photography needs to have that extra definition at 200% magnification. It changes your mindset. You think about what you have in frame with more intention. I know that this sounds stupid because intention can also be done with any lens or camera. So I took this a bit further and decided to put to use some roll of film. And I realized that knowing that each picture costs 1 euro (roll plus revelation plus scanning) makes me be even more intentional. So, to sum it up, it’s not about the camera or the lens, it’s about the mindset that you have when using certain gear that makes you think more, be more aware of what you are doing that makes you have in turn more keepers. The funny thing is that going back to digital (I have both with me usually the digital and the field cameras) I started to realize that I was shooting less but keeping more also. I do believe that shooting Keith primes is a really good way to improve your photography and shooting with film to slow down and make each frame more special. But at the end of the day you can use zooms or any recent camera to accomplish that. There are no bad cameras and no bad lens these days. Ok there are a few bad lenses but even those are not unusable. We have amazing image quality from sensors and lens these days that the only thing that remains of the quality of your photography. Or editing skills. But that’s another story :) cheers
We always have to check our generalizations based upon current information.
Ultimately, only those who adapt survive.
I love my Z50mm prime. At 1.8. Love the look and having more DOF options.
😂 Great Video. I’ve move around lenses over the years but now I have 9 lenses, a 3 primes, 3 zooms, 2 Anamorphic & 1 Vintage
Who would have thought 😅
I wholly agree my Sigma Zooms against my Primes (at times) is really splitting hairs.
I was a "Primes only" shooter for years until I switched from a Sony A6500 to the Sony A7IV and bought the Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM II. I'm not sure what magic they're using but the G Master second generation zooms with Sony are 100% prime level quality. I still use my 35mm F1.4 GM, but their "holy trinity" of zooms rival everyone else's prime lenses IMO.
You get lens history a bit wrong, if history extends back to the 70s. The reason we needed fast lenses was not film sensitivity. The reason you needed a fast lens was to see to focus in low light.
Back in the day you focused your own camera, and to do that you needed to see, and in low light with a slow lens you could not see very well through the damned camera. Even though you may never take a shot (outside action sports) at f1.4 because of the lack of DOF, you still used f1.4's most valuable attribute on every shot - the extra light with which to see to focus. Related to this is that old school film lenses included finely detailed focus scales engraved on their barrel, so guessing/knowing your distance to subject, you could prefocus via those numbers. Good street & sports photographers back in the day became very adept at focusing instinctively via the amount of twist of the focus barrel and could follow action nicely, one more skill (along with judging exposure without a meter) that is lost to today's learners. Historical note: we used to have a bit of a debate about which way a lens should rotate to focus near/far, Nikon & Canon being opposite each other.
A parallel issue was lack of film speed, but that worked the other way around - you chose or developed your film for the requirements of the shoot and lived with the look. You push-processed the fastest BW film available for indoor sports without flash - you could get ASA 1600 out of Kodak Tri-X push processed, then came some fast Ilford. If you really want to talk history consider that back in the day you could carry on shooting without a battery - considered a primary advantage. More on that if anyone asks.
No.
Go back to that, then. Change film rolls every ten minutes. Better than batteries.
That doesn't make sense because lenses would stop down to the aperture during the taking of the photo.
Fast lenses were about film sensitivity.
@@jonasweiss5817 - The subject is glass, young nitwit. And not all film is rolls, duh.
@@gregorylagrange - I'd be happy to correct you if you were clearly expressing a criticism but you are not. You say, "that doesn't make sense because ..." then follow with a non sequitur: "... lenses would stop down to the aperture during the taking of the photo."
Yes, the lens of course stops down to the aperture you've chosen for exposure during the exposure, but that is AFTER focusing. During focusing, you view the scene through the lens at the widest aperture the lens offers. Thus it is far easier to see to MANUALLY focus with a fast lens. Fast lenses compensate for low film sensitivity just like longer shutter speed does, but the real value of a fast lens was being able to see to focus (there was no autofocus) in relative darkness. Even when you intended to use f8, 11, 16, you still viewed through f1.4 or whatever the widest aperture was.
Very true. My Nikon Z 24-70 2.8s is literally so sharp with great contrast and detail, I use it to compare all my primes to. For all my paid shoots (events/gigs), I use two zooms alone (the other being my 70-200 Nikkor). I've tried some of my gjgs with primes, but there was really no difference. I was looking for perhaps more subject separation with the faster primes, but it was a moot point. The zooms are so practical and perfect for shooting gigs and events (particularly the fast 2.8 zooms), any disadvantages in weight and size is very easily offset by there incredible use-ability and practicality. However, when I travel overseas for my trips photographing ancient cultures and religions and far off countries, it's never a big zoom, always a couple of small primes (come on Nikon, we need some smaller, better primes than your two plastic mount Z lenses).!
Brings up a good point, the focal length at which you are zoomed to should display in the viewfinder - it's in the metadata! Maybe it does on some brand camera? Adobe Bridge asset manager does display whatever focal length the zoom was at when the shot was made, perhaps Bridge does too I don't use that software.
I use whatever suite my purposes.
The majority of the time I use vintage prime glass on my Fuji GFx, when I use a zoom it's the 35-70 GFx lens
Recently switched to 35-150 2.8 and Lost 1.4 worth of F stop, sometimes I still use the 85 1.4 if I want a soft creamy look but my 35-150 is really sharp. The sony Handles low light so well I rarely feel the difference aside from blue hour shots with no strobe
Excellent commentary Scott!
Good perspective on this old argument - that still goes on today. I prefer primes, but other than the weight, zooms are very practical for event photography. It comes down to 2 bodies and 2 primes or one body and a zoom. You still need the 2nd body and 2 primes for backup - or really poor light. But still, I hesitate choosing a zoom. Resistance to change, I suppose.
True, prime lenses are also better for removing a set of doubts, decisions etc. you simply have to move and or understand the perspective will change and you have to live with that. I was thinking about the zoom for my medium format too… but the lightness of the other primes I have my eyes on…. Mmmm. I will have to dust that sensor more often…. Right, lovely… anyway your video and my recent search for lenses reminded me of those photographers with at least 2 cameras each with a different lens on.
Not the case w/ the Fuji 100-200mm. Sadly it was built for the GFX 50 and doesn't resolve beyond ~50MP.
I’m editing a lot of photos at the moment taken on various RF L series lenses on the 45MP R5, and I cannot tell the difference between them. More often than not I’m frustrated someone is using f1.2 and had the focus in the wrong spot.
The only lens that stands out is the 85 1.2, and even then it’s only in the focus fall off.
Maybe you got cataracts?.....Just kidding.....for me it all about small and light. The Sony 55mm made me realize how much I hated the weight of zooms. Then I got the RX100vii(figured it was wise money spent vs a lens) and that made me realize I hated carrying a full frame but I'm just playing around with cameras. Enjoyed the video.
I use the original trio of Tamron zooms on my Sony bodies. Their performance is excellent and the handling is unmatched in terms of weight through a day of shooting. I love Zeiss rendering and prefer their lenses for portrait and personal work, but I don't miss it in a commercial capacity. The Tamrons have always delivered.
I have the Nikon Z 14-24 F2.8 , 24-70 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8 and all three of them are freaking sharp and avery good contrast
I used one of the Tamron 35-150 lenses last year for Sony and it was too large and heavy for what I needed it for but I was minorly devastated that it was equally as sharp as my 35 1.4. Then last week I tried the GF 45-100 and now I'm sunk. It was (relatively) light, fast AF, super sharp and now I'm debating what prime child to give up for it. As much as I would prefer to be a primes only photographer, for both the distinctiveness in field of view and style and image quality and it's what I prefer for event/portraiture, mostly doing landscape now and I would much rather leave the house with half as many lenses.
Focusing so much on the out of focus areas in a picture is such a point 🤣
Been using the Canon RF 24-70 for a while now. Haven’t used any RF primes but it certainly matched any EF prime.
I've been using zooms professionally for the past 8 years. I have 2 very sharp Nikon zooms (18-35 and 70-200 f2.8) and a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 that have all been optically very sharp. The only thing I don't love about the wide and mid range ones are the amount of distortion, but the versatility kind of outweighs that. The only time I use primes is with tilt-shift lenses, but if a tilt-shift zoom lens existed, I'd be all over that.
In the old days I had Nikon SLRs and prime Nikkors, but now it is convenience and zooms (strictly a hobby photographer).
However, had a pro turn up to do school photos... granted they had some flash units for fill in, but the core rig (end of 2024) was a Nikon D750 and a 28-300mm zoom. Supposedly "consumer" kit... from ten years ago.
As always, I think it depends on the lens. Fuji lenses in the main are on another level when it comes to the ability to resolve detail.
Back in the dark ages of film, my wedding setup was Contax with a Tamron 80-210 zoom for the majority of shots. 50mm Carl Ziess, prime.