Prime of zoom?
There are countless tutorials, Youtube videos and experts who already covered this topic, but I’d like to approach it from a slightly different angle.
First, let me state this: Neither is better or worse than the other.
I know it’s stating the obvious, but I still see heated debates about which is better, or even which is more professional and other absolutely nonsense statements. In the past few years zoom lenses developed so much that nowadays if we compare a photo made by a prime or a zoom I bet 99% of the viewers (even photographers) couldn’t pick what lens was used to take the picture. Of course technical things are important in photography, but there are far more important factors, such as story, meaning, emotion, composition, subject, etc. So it is impossible to narrow down the whole conversation and talk only about the parameters and technical differences. Or not impossible, but pointless.
Ok, but at the end, which is better? How could anyone choose?
It depends on many factors. Zooms are very practical. If you think about it, from one position you can take many different compositions, you can have a wider view than a tighter shot without moving. The other thing is, you don’t have to change lenses that often as you have multiple focal lengths in one lens already. The image quality today is fantastic, the old “primes are far better in quality” is no longer true.
After this very short summary about zooms, there’s a question though. If zooms are so great in quality, so versatile and practical, why on Earth use any prime lens?
There are many reasons to choose primes instead of zooms, here are a few. Primes are generally better quality glass.
But wait, you just said zooms are just as good as primes.
Yes, if you buy the very best top of the line zooms. But anything under those, primes are still much better. And frankly, those top of the line quality zooms are insanely expensive. The other thing is, a zoom cannot be perfect at all focal length. It is impossible to manufacture a zoom lens that is perfect at all positions. Some better when fully zoomed in, some almost perfect in the middle and some provides the best picture at the widest position.
Size and weight.
Maybe you are as strong as Hulk, but the highest quality zooms are big and heavy lenses. If you have to carry them around for long hours, it can be very tiring. Compare it to primes, usually 4 or 5 small high quality primes are still a bit lighter than a big zoom, not to mention the size difference.
But in fact, we have to consider the size factor. If you have 2-3 primes, they take much less space than big zooms. That means you need a smaller bag, which means lighter equipment, less fatigue over time.
28mm prime vs. 28-70 zoom for comparison
The quality of pictures.
This time I don’t mean the technical quality of the pictures. I mean the composition, the story, the moment. For a few years now I really deeply analyze the work of many professional photographers. And upon investigating the equipment they use, it turns out most of them use primes 99% of the time. And this is not about snobbery or esoteric thinking. I think it is strongly related to how our brain works.
With a prime you have work to get the best composition in the right moment. You have to observe, move, position yourself and compose in the moment. In other words, you have to actively engage your brain to get good photos. With a zoom it is too easy to be lazy. Of course you still have to work for a good image, but with the ability to zoom quickly, you eliminate an important factor. Which is convenient, but tells you’re brain that you don’t have to work so actively, so hard.
An example:
We had a huge protest in the capital city of Hungary. The next day I gathered almost all the available articles and photos. As I was there, I saw the press photographers, and only few used primes, most used big zooms. I understand that they had to cover a wide range of shots for the papers, and time was very limited. But still, today, we have a thousand not very good to average pictures of the protest, and some stellar ones. In my opinion, very few stellar ones made with the zooms. (there are some, but not many) Of course if you are there for a paper, you need the wide angle ones, you need a few close ups that shows the main characters, but after that you could grab some really great ones that really convey the emotion of the day.
And honestly very few did that. This is not a critic towards those professionals. I’m very well aware of the pressure press photographers are under in these situations. But if we take a step back and think about it, in 20 or 40 years time which photograph will have more value? The average ones, or the few that makes you fly back in time and makes you feel like if you are there?
The theory
I feel in the long run, with primes your brain is much more active, constantly searching for pictures, trying to predict the next moment and moving your body to be the best possible position to make a really great picture. It is harder, but we know that our brains are wired to solve problems. To be creative. And I honestly feel that if a photographer use one or two primes, the brain is working much harder to get the perfect photographs. The result is: you might have much more engaging and important pictures. I realize that this is gross generalization, but mostly true.
As always, there are exceptions. Some feel the power of the zooms and make outstanding pictures. But I feel that if we study photography from the start of photography to the current times, we would find so much more outstanding work made with some “limitations” (with primes not able to zoom). Of course I can be wrong, but this is my observation.
I can think of 2 specific jobs when zooms are really necessary:
Sport photography: many times you cannot be close enough, action can be at varying distances in seconds and you have to be really fast.
Wild life photography: Obviously you don’t go close to lions and other wild animals for multiple reasons.
There’s a valid argument though that we have many fantastic photographs from sport events before big zooms were available. Of course it is true. However I feel that in that job, zoom lenses are really better serve you in your photography.
The last thing is to consider how we see as humans. If you have 1-3 primes, your brain learns the rectangle. Meaning you start to see instantly which lens would be the perfect choice for a situation, hence you might grab better photos. It is impossible to learn a zoom completely. An alternative thinking is to use the zoom only at certain focal length, for example use a 24-70 only at 24, 35 and 70, which can work just as well, although probably it also eliminates some of the pros of using a zoom.
It is interesting that when I started to discover photography in the film days, I never felt that I would ever need. a zoom lens. After many years I was in serious love with zooms, often choosing them over primes. Still, if the situation call for it, I use zooms. But lately I’ve grown to love primes and don’t feel the real need to use zooms as often.
Some consideration for both:
pros: cover wide range of focal lengths, versatile, don’t have to change lenses that often, you have multiple shots from one position (wide, close up)
cons: heavy, big, not the greatest at all focal length, can easily makes you lazy, high quality zooms are very pricey
pros: usually better quality glass, smaller, lighter, arguably forces you to make better photographs, usually cheaper
cons: only one focal length/glass, have to change lenses more often, have to work harder (zoom by foot, etc.)
See you soon, enjoy taking photos!
Tamas