I’m not native English speaker and I subscribed your channel because you are the only one reviewer out there who actually make subtitles for your videos instead of letting youtube auto-generates it. Thank you. Your videos are always full of information.
Thank you for saying that! It's always hard to "justify" the price for captions. But I really value making them accessible. It's good to hear that they are helping folks.
After forcing myself to only use primes over the years and becoming comfortable with those particular focal lengths, using a zoom is a much better experience than when I first started in photography, with that being said, I still prefer to shoot with primes. I love picking a prime and going somewhere to shoot knowing that I only have this one focal length to get pictures with, it's a great challenge and lot of my best work come from that. Zooms are great for when I need the versatility but they always leaves me questioning my compositions sometimes, i.e, should I zoom in more? Should I zoom out? Should I get closer and zoom in more or should I get closer and zoom out? With a prime lens I know exactly what I want, it makes photography more enjoyable to me and fun. I've taken a few portfolio shots with zooms, nothing wrong with using zooms whatsoever. But I don't find them fun to me. I like being restricted and I think a lot photographers think that way as well.
Something i really love about primes is that you start to think and see the world around you in focal lenght, while with a zoom lens you just .. dont. but something that worked for me quite nicely back then when i was using a zoom here and there was.. forcing me to use the zoom lens like a prime, or as if i had multiple primes. lets say i had a 18-55mm, i would refuse to use whole spectrum but stick to lets say 18mm 30mm and 50mm and only ever use the zoom to change between those 3, while anything in between was non existent. That way it felt more like a convenient 3 prime lenses without swapping and made using it much more fun and consistent.
I would counter that frequently changing lens focal lengths opens the gateway for dust contamination onto the sensor. With a zoom lens you may not need to change lenses as often thereby lessening dust contamination.
The fallacy of "zoom with your feet" and the companion "zooms make you lazy" is one of the most pernicious lies in photography. People gobble it up without thinking about the background assumptions. What they most of the time do not realize is that the feasibility and benefits of using primes instead of zooms are very dependent on the focal length, and the relationship is not linear. The zooms are pretty much indispensable at the ultrawide end of things. No single prime lens can give you what an 8-16 zoom can (I tried). You will find it very hard to move in a way that will enable you to do everything that zoom would allow you to. Period. Similar, but much more forgiving, situation occurs at the long end. The 50-230 mm zoom can give you selective magnification and compressing ability you can duplicate with the 56 mm or 90 mm primes only with great difficulty as it will require to move a long distance or to a location that it might not be feasible. Primes can most effectively replace zooms only in the middle range, like 16-55. Besides feet zooming, there is also cropping, something that the modern optimized lenses and high megapixel cameras favor, but it comes at the expense of deeper DOF and some image quality. This works very well on the long end, wildlife and sports photographers use it all the time. So, if you have a 10-24 lens and a 50-230 lens, 35 f/1.4 instead of 18-55 may be a good idea. 16 f/1.4 instead of 10-24 - much less so. Mind you, "feet zooming" only works for static subjects and scenes where you actually have the time to analyze the scene, then do the feet movement. Many of the most exciting photo opportunities are dynamic and allow you no such luxury. And that's not even beginning to talk about the hassles and dangers of frequent lens changes.
"Primes make you more creative" is another of those things that I feel is highly dubious. Primes force you to have to move, experiment more with framing, and often makes it take longer to get the shot. My suspicion is that all the extra work involved makes people feel like they are being more creative, when they could have likely achieved the same or similar shot with a zoom, in less time, and with less effort.
I'm a Fuji shooter and an ardent prime user cause I'm an aperture whore (lol), but this statement is so true. As hard as I try, I cannot get rid of my 55-200mm because nothing else in the system has that reach at that size. The only prime comparable is the 200mm f2. But that thing is humongous and I have no desire to lug that around. at 200 f4.8 you still get more than decent subject separation for portraits or what ever photography. Sucks at clean low light, but I pump the ISO anyways cause high ISO looks good on Fuji and Capture One. It also has OIS, which is crazy to me in a package that's pretty affordable.
Weather sealing is usually better on primes depending of the zoom, have lower element counts and will generally have better color Fidelity. Though some of the new really fast primes are not much better than zooms in that regard. So really like everything in life, it depends on what your doing and what you need vs what the particular lens offers. I have a feeling these "myths" will live on and persist because no one is doing the same thing at the time in the same way with the same stuff.
To those who ask me, I recommend a zoom to 'documentaeians' like vacation goers and parents but primes to people who want to dive further into photography. Convenience vs. Greater creative options. Sidenote: I do disagree with image quality distances between the two to some extent. Zoom lenses do usually have more distortion and at the same apertures, a prime will usually vignette less and have less CA. At least when comparing lenses in a band's similar price range. Though this shouldn't meaningfully affect most photographers. Content > optical perfection
Believe it or not there are thousands of both hardcore amateurs and pros that shoot zooms extensively. Try working primes while standing on the Cliffs of Moher with wind and mist. I
@@86BBUB Don't get me wrong- I absolutely believe that zooms can be used professionally. I use a couple, myself. I'd just argue that a prime lens teaches better habits and gives the opportunity to 'affordably' experiment with aperture. So often I see both amateurs and some working professionals get lazy with a zoom lens and plant their feet in one location and zoom in/out before considering moving their feet. Of course there are times where zooming is useful but a good photographer will actively select an angle from which to shoot and focal length suited to the subject and composition in mind.
@@Ava-wu4qp Well that's on the photographer, not the gear! My point is that I have a problem with the suggestion that primes are intrinsically superior to zooms or that "good" photographers will inevitably chose primes. That was true when zooms simply could not compete with primes with regard to rendering, "IQ", etc. Today the best zoom are very close; certainly close enough for pro work (when appropriate). In any case they are complimentary instruments. Up to the photographer to know what works best in any given scenario. I tend to use zooms for documentary imaging (e.g. travel) and primes for more artistic endeavours.
I finally bought my first camera. I got the Fuji XT20. And I’m so happy with it and the 18-55 kit Lens is amazing! I’m so satisfied with it. For now, I don’t see any reason to buy a prime lens yet.:)
This comes out as the very excellent 16-80 zoom comes out from Fuji. It could be an all purpose travel lens. Sometimes when on side of road or in a vehicle there is no option to move closer and a zoom can help create interesting frames.
After shooting for a very long time, going from shooting the typical girls to corporation events and studio I'd say that each type of lens has its place. If a zoom makes you lazy that's because you haven't been long enough in the photography world, I'd never shoot an event not matter which type without a zoom lens. It's versatility is undeniable and the ability to have many different compositions is priceless. Try shooting with a prime on a tight space and your client asks you for crowd ambient shots...yeah ain't gonna happen if you have a 50mm prime. Primes are more of an artist lens, good for studio, good for those bokeh shots everyone on social media wants but the money shot is with zoom lenses nowadays, fast, sharp, reliable. Sure I use primes, love them but very niche. I always tell the young ones, if you want to start earning money, get a good zoom and then yes get a good prime.
I own NOTHING but primes, and so far I couldn’t be happier. But zooms will always be superior when it comes to composition, and the reason I say this is because “zooming with your feet” shifts the articles in your image around (for street photography and such) and may potentially affect the initial photo you were intending to capture. With a zoom lens, you can study your scene, line up a composition with your eyes, then adjust your camera to frame that photo. With a prime, you may have lined everything up perfectly, only to realize your lens is too wide.. then you switch from a 23mm to a 35mm and realize it’s too tele. So then you have to either move physically and change the perspective and alignment of your subject, or shoot the 23mm and crop it. With a zoom, you can adjust your field of view to the perfect amount without shifting your perspective by “zooming with your feet”. I am very happy with my 3 F2 primes because I love the tiny size and balanced ergonomics with my X-T4, shooting with small lenses feels like that’s how the X-t4 was intended to shoot, not only for the size of the lenses, but the overall feel of shooting primes. But, I do sacrifice the efficiency of zooming, for that, consciously.
Just zooming in/out also will affect your result- you are compressing or expanding the perspective. This is in fact one of the biggest "dangers" of zooms- to not be aware of that and just dial a new zoom factor.
Zooming with your feet only works to a certain extent. a 50mm prime will always be 50mm no matter where you stand. It will never become a 35mm, 85mm or any other focal length and will not give you the look of any other focal length in regards to compression. You have much less control over your background with a prime. I used to shoot primes only for 17 years up until recently. Zooms have gotten much better in recent years.
@@Raist3db This isn't true. Only moving changes perspective. Longer focal length just "crops" the photo. As in if you take a photo with a 35mm and 200mm from the same location and just crop the 35mm photo to match the 200mm one, they will look identical. Talking about myths :D
While I love Fuji's f/2 line, it is a bit soft when shot wide open, especially close up, compared to the 18-55. You take the good with the bad though. For all the positives I gain with the 35/2 prime (lighter, smaller, faster AF, weather resistant, silent, and wider aperture) the small shortcoming of being soft wide open is a more than fair trade-off. That being said, zooms certainly have its rightful place in my collection. The 18-55 kit is my run-and-gun lens. I take it hiking because it covers a broad focal range so I don't have to fuss with constantly changing lenses. Right tool for the right job. I will also say Fuji's lens quality is far superior than many other manufacturers. They're in a league of its own. Take the kit 18-55 for example. Metal construction, superb image quality, solid feel in the hands, and the OIS is one of the best I've used. Got down to 1/4 second with pin sharp images. Probably the best kit lens on the market. To get any of that out of Canon, I'd have to spend at least a grand, which is why I defected to Fuji
I love using primes not simply because of them being smaller, but the photographic approach. By not having a zoom, you are having a less distractions and you can focus better on framing and composition. I simply know what will be in frame and what will not, even before looking through the viewfinder.
My own solution, and the solution I suggest to fellow enthusiasts/starters facing similar choices, is a smaller advanced zoom compact (preferably a fast one) for coverage and emergencies, paired with primes lenses on larger DSLR/mirrorless body. The best from each world really. The advanced zoom compacts are largely meant for backups of larger bodies in the first place. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus all have or had their products that would fall into this category. I probably would even encourage some starters to start with a zoom compact, just to figure out if they really do need a higher end camera at their current stage, and many of them really do not.
I want to expand on the last point. You can use zoom to find out your most prevalent focal length. Use that information to buy your first prime. I found out that my way of perceiving corresponds to 50mm. Then I tried the f2 and f1.4 xf35 and chose the latter.
Interesting video. I enjoy using the small fuji primes but I find one significant advantage to using a good zoom as a walk around lens, especially if the walk around area is a sandy, windy beach. When does a water proof camera become a not waterproof camera? When you take the lens off. Not having to change lenses in the field lessons the chances of getting dirt, sand, water, etc. on you sensor, especially if you are an uncoordinated klutz like me. Sand and sensors do not mix.In this regard I am very eagerly looking forward to getting there Fuji 16-80 if one ever become available. If you can get a hold of one, Andrew, I would be interested in your thoughts about it.
I've been using 2 lens for the last 6years in my line of work NIKON 10-24mm and NIKKOR105 af-d DC. I use 24-70 2.8 for leisure shoot. My grand father told me when i was starting in photography to get one zoom lens first, work around that lens try all the different types of photography in just one lens then you decide what kind of photography you want to pursue. I ended up in a real estate/architecture business photography, hence the lens choice i made. Now i'm saving for Nikkor shift lens which is kinda expensive but essential to my line of work.
Required viewing, thanks for posting this. I would add that prime-centric shooters have a need for a zoom on the long end, like the Fuji 50-140mm... fixed primes in that range (like the 90mm) are difficult walk around/travel/landscape lenses compared to wider primes. Plus, the 50-140 has plenty of compression, shallow DOF, speed, and lovely bokeh for most needs.... not to mention stabilization, which is almost necessary at these lengths.
"The zoom allows you to take full control over the focal length". You could also argue that the zoom FORCES you to take control over the focal length, which naturally is one reason they're not recommended for beginners-it's one less variable to juggle. Even now, having been shooting for coming up on 20 years, I still often prefer to go out with a prime if I want to relax while shooting, just because it's less of a mental load.
As a professional it is nearly impossible working without a Zoom! If you can’t miss the shot because a client is paying you, you need a Zoom since they are faster focusing! and more flexible! As an enthusiast you can work with what you enjoy more. In private I also enjoy to use Primes more, but for me as an professional I need a Zoom.
Great explanation Andrew!! I use red badge zooms to get the shot that i would have missed if i wouldn't have been able to move with my feet,primes i use for subject seperation and low light, red badge zooms are sharper at the smaller focal length than most primes.. i use my trio of fujicrons for travel.
A 3rd option not mentioned for newer photographers is to get the kit lens which will be a zoom in the neighborhood of 24/28 - 70/75 ( they're always cheaper that way ) and if you haven't got much left over, get a vintage prime and adapter for 1/10th the cost of a new prime...as a bonus you will also learn manual focusing ( Fuji's have built in aids for this ), and exposure theory which will only help your photography...and as a hidden bonus you will get lesson #1 in "lens character " - something that most modern lenses seem keen to avoid by everyone clamoring to be "the sharpest" and leaving it at that... as an example I got a Konica Hexanon 50mm 1.7 and adapter for about $60 and that lens is plenty sharp , has nicer bokeh than many modern examples and is quite compact and super solidly built....actually 50 years ago it WAS the "kit lens " with new Konica film bodies ( how times have changed! ) - coming from film it was just a pleasure to use with my X-T20 - which I bought with the much maligned XC 16-50 - actually a very good kit lens that adds only $100 to the body price ( or did when I got mine ) - if I just need snaps with AF it's perfectly fine but when I want to enjoy myself, I use the old stuff on the X-T20 - good times at an even better price....;-)
I started out in photography with a prime lens and here I am 40 years later and I own one zoom lens and about a dozen prime lenses. The zoom is a jack of all trades, master of none, but it serves its purpose when I need it to. I don’t look down at people who use zooms, nor do I deify someone that uses primes. I look at their results and judge the photographer by what they capture and how they present their photo more than what equipment they use.
These myths has always been a pet-peeve for me. I inherited my first Nikon 35 mm camera (F-301) 29 years ago, and just like everyone else I was taught to "zoom with my feet". Heard it from family (we all love photography), teachers, friends, photo-club members... Yet! When stepping into Fuji-land five years ago, I took a look at all my favourite photos and realized that almost all of them (a few 50mm portraits excluded, because the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is amazing) was taken with a zoom lens. Most prime-lens photos needed cropping in some way, or was taken a slight to late, simply because I am more of a snapshot photographer. I take a drive with my camera safely in the passenger seat, and a lot of the time the photos are shot from the open window (have one of those windows mounts). A lot of my best photos are also taken on the way to or from a customer (I am a consultant, so I drive quite a lot). One could argue that I should get out of the car, but that would likely disturb the moment more, if possible at all, and with the zoom lenses I can remain "silent", and not miss the photo. In my current every-day (fuji) kit, I have the 18-55 mm XF, the 50-230 mm and sometimes a 28 mm vintage prime, for the softer landscapes. All in my laptop bag. The 18-55 is on when I am walking, the 50-230 when driving and the 28 mm when I have extra time. So, for me, zoom allows me to focus on framing rather than finding stable footing. I also know the 18-55 so well now, that I am generally zoomed in before looking through the viewfinder. Its almost instinctive. When I travel light, I have two lenses. The 18-55 and the 50-230. When I had my Nikon kit with mostly primes, I packed four lenses. So zooms is definitely more compact for me. Don't get me wrong now, primes are good in the right settings. They work very (VERY!) well in studio. They also impose a creative restraint, which can be really fun if you are up for it, but also extremely frustrating if it causes a missed shot. Ups and downs to both, which is why I tell friends to learn how to take good photos with the kit lens before deciding what to get next. Find what they feel are lacking. Thanks for the video and the open mind. :)
It still generally true that you need an expensive zoom to match the sharpness of a cheap prime. Anyway, I'm all about size and aperture. Whatever is small and enables low-light shooting is what I'm going with.
With Fuji, I've not seen that. The zooms are as sharp as the primes through a large portion of the zoom range with so far, no exceptions. Can't speak for other brands.
Prime for Studio, Portrait, and Landscape Photography and Zooms for flexibility in choosing the multiple focal lengths with one lens for street photography and sports.
All landscape photografers use zooms. Typicaly 16-35 and 70-200 for full frame, 10-24 and 50-140 for APS-C. We take pictures in all kinds of weather and conditions.
I use a 70-200 f2.8 because they're just so good for everything and a 16-35 f4 only because I infrequently need a wide angle. Aside from those two, I also stick to primes. DoF and needing to make that conscious choice. (28-2.8, 35-1.8, 50-1.4, 85-1.4, 100-2.8 macro, 135-2.8) *typo fixed
@@Ava-wu4qp very nice. I use a 200mm prime . I tended to shoot mostly at 200mm with my telephoto. So I sold my 70-200. But I shoot lots of landscapes. Nice glass collection you have. 👍 Btw I love that macro lens!
@@MrCochise71 ha... I'm thinking about selling the macro, too. It's the L version, btw. I am gradually switching to Sony because Canon has recently just seemed confused and Nikon didn't have 2 card slots+battery grip for mirrorless. Anyways-- the 100 2.8 L behaves pretty poorly when adapted to Sony (both AF and aperture) making it manual only. With that in mind, the loawa 100 2.8 and the voightlander 110 2.5 seem a lot more attractive for not too different of price points. On the 70-200, I definitely can't blame you for switching to a 200mm prime and I definitely would too, if I only shot Portraits. Save that weight!
@@Ava-wu4qp I think canon will put out some nice camera's in 2020 and 2021. I know a 5D mark 5 is coming. Oh and that 135mm you have... I've been looking at that one too ha.
@@MrCochise71 heh.... That 135 is actually a Monolta Rokkor-PF version ii. Vintage lenses can be fun. It's small, has a focus throw that's a dream, $40, and while it's not the sharpest lens ever, it out-resolves my modern 85 1.4 (at f1.4 on the 85, wide open on the 135), skin textures are amazing, and manual focus is a treat on mirrorless. Of course it can't substitute for an AF lens when you need to work really fast but that's what my 70-200 is for. Anyways... I don't advertise myself as a 'vintage' photographer at all but I still use this lens from ~1973 professionally and sold about $300 in prints from this lens last week.
As just a casual photographer, I guess I never thought in terms of "primes vs zooms" in absolute terms but rather in the context of what I will be doing with the camera and where. When travelling I think a zoom with a wide focal range (e.g. 18mm - 105 or 18-200mm) is great for an all in one outdoor use in daylight (APS-C) . For inside museums and art galleries a reasonably fast wide lens like a 23 mm F 1.8 lens gives good results. For churches and palaces a moderately fast lens like a 16-50 f2.8 is practical. I could keep going but I guess I just pick the lens I will use based on lighting conditions, subject, photos or video, likely focal length requirements and shooting conditions (which determine suitable weight, need for weather sealing and practicality of frequent lens changes during the session/outing ). Primes can be fun and remind me of the simple days when I was a kid shooting with my Kodak Brownie and Instamatic. Zooms are also fun because of the ability to frame distant objects/people. It's all good :-)
I'm not partial to either - but there are times for one over the other. Usually when I travel or take a long trip where I don't want to carry many things, I take a zoom. Btw kudos for tackling the zoom vs prime sharpness thing. Was true back in the vintage days, not so much anymore : )
The myth Primes are sharper than a zoom probably comes from old photographers who started in film photogràphy when it was true. At least for the most part. The first sharp zoom I owned was a Sigma 24-70 EX DG I bought for my Canon 10D back in 2003 or 04. I have a Sigma Art zoom that blows me away.
This is true; until computer aided design started to really improve zooms, they were fairly awful, especially the wider zooms. Adding more elements decreases sharpness unless you have the technology to calculate and produce specifically shaped lens elements that are aspherical. These days, high end zooms have been good to superb for a few years now.
Great video. I think you explained it well. I use both. Usually a 12-60mm 2.8 and then three or four primes( maybe a 28mm..50.. 135mm). Camera lenses are just tools. Subject matter and composition is what so many photographers seem to miss. Expensive gear will just take really nice bad photos.
I think both is the answer, right tool for the job. Sometimes you can't move your feet. Because of a zoom I discovered I was shooting around 135mm, now there's a small, compact 135 3.5 in my bag.
Now I have ( for 3.5 yrs ) a Lumix Fz2500 fixed zoom lens bridge camera - f 2.8 ~ 4.5, 24 ~ 480mm. Soon, I plan on acquiring a Panny G9 & 2 lenses. I have a harness that can take both cameras which I'll take on the Camera -Totin - Days ( the photography group I'm in ) outings. The Fz I'll use for more distant wildlife shots & the G9 ( bigger sensor & newer features ) closer in subjects. Thanks for doing this topic.
Prime lenses are cheaper though if you want to shoot at smaller aperture. Let say, on Fuji system, if you want to shoot at 35mm at F2.8, you can achieve that by paying $399 on the 35F2 prime or $1,199 on the 16-55F2.8. This is true on telephoto end too. If you want to shoot at 90mm at F2.8, your only options are the $849 90mmF2 (love this lens
Everyone should have primes and zooms. Zooms for flexibility and primes for quality, low light, bokeh, and sometimes, portability. The trick is choosing the right primes for you... What do you shoot most? and would the situation allow you to "get by" with a prime (i.e. you would not have to switch lenses all the time)? Focus your primes on those situations. Creativity is inspired by the constraints that you have (or impose on yourself). Primes are quite a good way of doing that. If you know what focal length you want they definitely give you higher quality, with wider apertures for the same cost as an equivalent zoom. (I know you said that zooms give just as good results - but that one is just not true.... all you have to do is look at DXO mark to see that primes are above zooms when it comes to sharpness - and any zooms that high - are super expensive).
I tried to be clear, but maybe you missed it. I'm talking about Fuji primes vs Zooms (which DxO mark doesn't provide data on so I've had to rely on MTF data manufacturer provides and anecdotal evidence). I can't speak to other brands.
@@AndrewGoodCamera That's not what your video title says, and honestly, it's not the impression I got from the entire video. You start showing all the videos from other people, you talk about the points like its generic advice, the Fuji talk sounds like examples (because that's what you shoot), and you entirely base one of your points / myths being busted on the Canon RF 28-70 F2. If your intent was to create a video focused on why Primes vs Zooms is different for Fujifilm, it fails to come across in the video (honestly I just feel you latched onto something to be right rather than accept some criticism - even though most my comment agrees with a lot you are saying). Also, do you even know if Fujifilm MTF charts come from actually testing lenses? Most MTF charts are theoretical (although I do know Zeiss does actually test their lenses to produce them). Basing a zooms vs primes advice video on theoretical performance does not seem wise....
I appreciate you sharing your opinions Dean. I'm not out to deceive anyone. I honestly feel this way about the zoom lenses and the prime lenses in Fuji land. I don't just go off of MTF data of course. I have been shooting with Fuji primes and zooms for 3 years now and have reviewed many of them. Right now I'm sitting with every single Fuji zoom lens creating a buying guide. I feel like I know what I'm talking about. But feel free to disregard if you don't trust me. That's totally fine. Cheers
In the end is a matter of what suits your work better. I used to shoot with zooms for years and I love the photos I took with them but the transformative moment for my photography came when I bought my first Zeiss prime (for Canon). No zoom, whatever the manufacturer or the price point can match a Zeiss prime lens (except the Leica primes) in terms of sharpness, build quality, aperture and character (the last one is the reason I pay so much money for a prime). Sure, you can have impressive sharpness (if you know how to focus correctly) on any lens today but sharpness 1) isn’t everything in photography and 2) in zooms and some cheaper primes aren’t even across the frame. In photography the sad truth is that you always getting what you’re paying for, and I’ve learned that the hard way! Skills and experience can only take you to a certain level. If you want the best image quality you have to pay for this…
I have and like both primes and zooms. One area you did not touch upon was camera balance in the hand. I currently use a Sony A7iii as my main full frame camera. I have three native lenses for it and about six adapted Minolta AF lenses. My latest lens purchase for the Sony was the 35mm 2.8 Zeiss. 4.4 oz. This lens just transforms using this body and having it balance in my hand. With this lens on the Sony body it is a really small light kit. I also have the Sony 24-105 f4 zoom. 23 oz on the front of a 23 oz body. This lens makes the Sony unbalanced for me. I usually add the extra battery /grip to it for better balance. But now we have a 50oz + camera. Same thing with my Nikon D750 a year ago. 24-120mm f4 on the 750 and there was a lot of weight on the front. When I put a Nikon 50mm f1.4 on the 750 it was much better in the hand. Newer model camera zooms are stupid heavy and expensive for full frame. I have a Minolta 70-210 from the 1990's that is a 3.5-4.5 and weighs about 10oz. It works quite well on my Minolta 600si film body or Sony A7iii digital body without completely unbalancing either camera. I have carefully tested it and for the most part it is as sharp as the modern Sony 24-105 zoom. I also have a Minolta 100-400 zoom that weighs about 16oz compared with 49oz for the new Sony 100-400. I like the fact that when you are using a prime all day you learn what the size of the shot is going to be and how far back you have to stand by instinct. My favorite camera body of all time is the Olympus OM2n. I have a zoom for it that I almost never use. 95% of the shots I take are with the 50mm f1.8 or the 28mm f2.8. This is a super light and comfortable camera to use. Too bad Oly never made a digital one like this.
If you never intent to buy primes, you need to purposefully restrict yourself when learning composition. If you learn with primes, you are forced to take time with each new lens and learn to utilize that focal lenght and aperture. So you could either buy a really expensive zoom, tape it to same focal lenght for few days or weeks, then change that over time. Or you could naturally collect prime lenses over time, for same or probably larger amount of money. Once you have done that, and when given a zoomlense think in terms of focal lenght instead of aimlessly framing with the zoom effect, it doesn't matter which you use. You can learn new things with any kind of lense (that is capable of doing what you want to learn). If there were really cheap lenses with fixed focus distance, we would probably tell beginners to use them. And some professionals would prefer them in certain cituations. The main reason for prime lenses is their role in history of photography as an art and as a medium of communication, as well as their limitation as said medium and in said art. Any limitation would be fine - lack of colour, fixed, super big aperture or a pinhole lense, would be fine, and is often given as an exersise for students. Primes just happen to have a history and are widely available and good for use outside of learning, which makes them a sensible suggestion for new photographers. Also cheap bokeh is a prime reason to buy a prime. Zooms with good subject separation at around 75-100mm usually cost a lot more than 2.8 prime
Congratulations for this interesting topic! As a long time photographer (and videographer) which have many primes and many zooms, I would say these 4 statementnts are not totally myths! From my experience I learned that you must match the lens to your need, preferences, mood, and actual situation in the field. Yes, as you said, some zooms are even sharper than some primes (and not only legacy primes at their maximum aperture), and they not make you lazy... In some events it's more convenient to use a zoom to compose your shot from the other corner of the room / hall than sit in front of other viewers or cameras, so, even if a normal zoom is slower, it will make your life (and others') easier! And very fast zooms like Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 are sharper than many 35 mm primes (shame on Sony's), and enables you to compose very beautiful shots with 3D appearence easily (with the expense of that dreadful weight and size) BUT the primes are smaller and sometimes less obtrusive (Sigma 30 mm f/1.4). So, ideally, you have to rely on 2-3 Zooms in your bag WITH at least too fast primes. (and sometimes two bodies) That's what I do at events (exposition openings, corporate events etc, even weddings). A fast prime and a decent zoom (in a normally lit room/hall) with a modern camera prevents you from using the flash, and a small continous light (Lume Cube is awesome) makes people think you are only make video, so they are less rigid.
i shot many years with a prime lens on my film camera, i used the 50mm a lot, then the 24mm and the 200 sometimes in nature. When i switched to fuji (for their experience with film cameras), it was a big question. Prime lenses or zooms? I mean, if i was rich, i probably would to buy the entire range of fuji's lenses, but i was on budget. So i bought the 16-55 2.8. And it's a joy !!! I mean, if you have experienced prime lenses before and know what you will see with a specific focal in front of you, that is not a problem. I often set my zoom on 16mm or 35mm or another focal, and stay with it all day long, then i can switch to another! i don't "zoom", but i like to consider that i have a 16, 23, 35 and more with just one lense!!! I think when you first experienced prime lenses before having a zoom, you can think about what focal to use in the scene you see, and set your focal range on your lense, before even take a look in your viewfinder! I mean, zoom are greats for that, and fuji made outstanding quality zooms with 2.8 constant aperture...
Another point regarding the use of zooms, is that as we get older, we are not as quick to move around to get the shot....further to this, a prime limits your ability to quickly react to action or even models moving in portraits where limbs are outside your field of vision....the zoom gives you the ability to react
wonderful video, makes me wonder so I ask you when you get your first camera which comes with kit lenses, what you buy or upgrade first? buy better lenses or buy good lights? what's more important or recommendable?
I have realized that photographers will always standardize everything in the end that is more expensive. • Full frame? Standard format Vs. Crop and of course it’s more expensive. • Prime lenses? Better than the "zooms" because in the end you will need 3 primes to have the necessary tools, and definitely 3 primes would be more expensive than a zoom with that focal range. • Profoto? Also the standard, you can do the same with another product but they are not so expensive and that is why they may not be what we all need. I am quite tired with that situation, this seems more like a competency of elitism than an artistic profession. Just my two cents. Excellent video keep that feeling.
I used to think that there was this major image quality difference between primes and zooms, including wide apertures. Then I shot the Sigma f1.8 zooms and there's not many primes on the market as sharp as the 50-100 at f1.8. The 18-35 is sharper than any of the Fuji primes I had in that range. I use both of the Sigmas on the Fuji XH1... no more primes for me.
A simple way (but not the only way) to look at it is: Zooms for general use and flexibility. Primes for specific use cases where there is a definite and demonstrable reason for using them. If you can’t clearly articulate why you NEED a prime, then stick with a zoom. It will save you time and money over the long run. (ie. I have an old Nikon macro lens that I never been able to beat with any zoom lens.... and I really have tried a lot of zoom “macro” lenses.) There are soooo many other things to spend your money on that will improve your photography much more than a prime lens 90% of the time. (IMHO)
For me, the choice of prime or zoom depends on environment. I do a lot of walking and take two bodies with me, XT20 and XT3 and have a zoom on each. XF18-55 on one and XF55-200 on the other. When taking portraits I use one of three primes - 35mm f2, 50mm f2 or 90mm f2.
I think the "zoom lenses aren't as sharp" thing is mainly true for older lenses. Modern ones are usually very sharp, but the loss of an F stop or two is why I prefer primes. If I could have an F1.4 zoom that didn't weigh a metric ton, I would buy it immediately :-)
Out of curiosity, I got 16-55 as my first zoom lens hoping that could replace my 16 18 23 35 56. I was wrong... For me zoom makes photography boring and less engaging. I actually find it harder to compose when using a zoom haha. You just need to experience both prime and zoom to understand your preference on shooting.
Primes are good. Zooms are good. Superzooms are... Ok I guess? In regards to the "lazy" aspect, fast primes are as lazy-enabling as zooms are if the person allows it. Truth is, more and more fast prime lens user (me included) tend to focus on the bokeh more than the actual composition. So in a way, slower zooms allow you to work on your composition without depending too much on bokeh.
Hi Andrew, this is a good discussion. Personally I enjoy shooting primes. I find not having the choice of zooming in and out to make a composition choices, helps me to mentally focus - you come to know your field of view, and step into naturally. It's a preference. What I see out in the world is wedding photographers seem to all carry two bodies, one with 24-105mm and one 70-200mm. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But this seems right, given the task of covering a room or field, going from groups to portraits. My personal take on my Fujifilm 18-55 is the lack of an aperture ring really bothers me. I like looking down and seeing all my settings, using the analog dials...and I love collecting and shooting vintage primes. Either way, aren't we fortunate to have choices? Thanks for the good channel, I have learned a lot from you.
Nice video and thanks for telling the truth. Prime lenses are always overrated and inflated in IQ and sharpness. In reality, Zooms can do almost everything Primes do. To be honest, most people might not be able to tell the differences from pictures. Zooms are always gonna be your better choice if the weights and sizes are not your concern.
曾憲涼 You forgot a very important point, price, not everyone can buy a 24-70 2.8 and for practically nothing you can get a 35 or 50 1.8 only expensive zooms are excellent and most primes are excellent for a fraction of the price.
For outdoor shooting I love my 18-55 lens on my xt-2. I started my photographic journey with film cameras and primes and I still "zoom" with my feet. Old habits die hard.
I've always leaned towards primes, and still do, but when I tried that Fujinon 16-55 f2.8, I couldn't bring myself to sell it, as was the plan (got it with a kit deal). It's soo good and fun to use. Color is great, focusing is good, and it just spits out sharp photos with the XH-1 at all times. Are you going to cover it, or afraid you'll have to keep it ;)?!
I can't help but feel the need to call you out for a moment. Many people who are asking these questions are amateurs or novices, and they may be getting their feet wet without investing too much money. At the high end, there may be less of a difference between primes and zooms outside of price, but on the low end, these differences are more pronounced.
On both ends the differences are huge. I don't believe I tried to mitigate that there aren't large differences between them. But I do feel it is often fairly arbitrary what folks choose.
I find that both types of lenses have their place. I haven't seen many zooms other than maybe a 70-200mm 2.8 being as sharp or sharper than a prime though. I'm not sure why anyone would consider zooms being as sharp as primes. There are some unique exceptions of course. Like using a $200 kit lens on a m43 camera that enables you to shoot in high res mode. The Olympus for example allows you to capture 64mp RAW files. Once you tweak those images in post, the sharpness and noise free images you get are crazy. Using a prime lens takes that even further. The isolation of subjects with larger apertures excentuates sharpness which is why images taken with primes seem to pop more, but its not just sharpness, primes just seem to render images much more beautifully and you can spot it from a mile away. The main drawback with primes of course is having to constantly change focal lengths and especially when travelling. On the other hand using a FF 2.8 zoom can get quite heavy throughout the day. All I know is that every time I look at images taken with the likes of Nikon 20mm 1.8G, Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art or a Rokinon 14mm 2.8, I'm blown away.
I have studied photography, always have only shot with Primes, now after I have graduated and my business becoming more serious there is no way as a professional to not have at least one zoom lens!
10-24, kit 18-55, 50-140... 2 bodies...for versatility...and for certain cases a 27mm pancake, 90mm, and maybe 56mm for low light...??? This is gonna take a couple years...lol Hope to have a kit soon, and will then have to decide which lens will be second... one of the Zoom options, or the 90 is my guess... In the meantime, i have a DSLR with 18-55, 50-200, amd 50/1.8, so I can evaluate how I use that most, amd what things are important to me... Thankfully the Fuji 2.8-4 kit lens is much better than your typical 18-55 type kit lens... Are the focal lengths on these roughly the same views you get from APS-C cameras of the DSLR variety?
Primes can offer faster focusing and a better OVF experience when shooting in low-light. This can be helpful even if you are using strobes or speed-lights to shed more light on the subject.
Im new to photography... And i bought real camera esspecialy to have a possibility of zooming esspecially! It was one of main reason. Zoom in or out gives that perspective and change everything!
I'm glad I went the route of primes with my Olympus instead of the pro wide angle zoom. The 17, 25 and 45mm are excellent lenses, beautiful bokeh, small, light and honestly it inspires me more. I won't be buying the Pro 12-40mm. I was thinking about getting the 75mm f/1.8 but I find even with the 45mm I stop down to f/2.8 and even f/4 because of the shallow depth of field is a bit too much at f/1.8 so I would rather put my money on the f/2.8 40-150mm.
Thanks! Very good. I am your "Private Shooter", family. I just returned to real cameras. For me zooms are priceless. I don't have the time to fiddle about with primes for bokeh. My Leica zoom is good enough. I don't even have a prime. I used to have a prime, that was a Zuiko 50mm f1.4. I basically never used it. I am now on MFT.
I use a prime because they're less complicated and force me to commit to a specific vision and look. I like that they impose restrictions on you and reduce the number of potential variables, it makes me think more outside the box
I like to shoot primes for 2 reasons: 1st they are small and lighter 2nd I don't have to botter thinking the best focal distance for every shot...I have what I have and I only need to think about the best composition.
@@law32O8 Yes zoom burst can be fun, but as I said, zoom lenses is not fast enough and usually too big and clumsy, and I have no interest in video at all.
Great video... I believe for landscape, wildlife and action, zoom lens is a must. Prime lenses good for macro and other type of photography . Zoom lenses are heavier, it has stabilizer and moving elements and more complicated design, on contrary some modern prime lenses has more glass inside and much more expensive than zoom lenses! Zeiss for example!
The real reason for using a prime over a zoom is that there is much less glass involved... Less glass = more micro-contrast = "3D" images. Micro-contrast is the ability of the lens to communicate the richness and vibrancy of the inter-tonal shifts between the brighter to darker parts of the very same color onto the sensor. In this regard zooms render a "flatter" image. If you process Black & White images and wonder why the best images that ever were taken are softer in sharpness yet so impactful, this is one of the reasons. If you can't tell the difference then it doesn't matter. Happy snappy.
Great video, plz help, I want a Fujifilm and a lens, which pair should I buy, I want to take cyberpunk-like photos, a lot of neon, and smoke, great colors, and sharpness...
Old school logic: build your system around what you value, how you shoot: engage, do portraits, basic prime or 75 or 90 mm equiv. fast prime; landscapes, cityscapes, street photography if you sort of flow through your subjects, faster wide angle; stalk your subjects? Wildlife? Go long. Use your zooms to fill in your gaps or extend. At that point, it really falls into place much easier . My kit: 2 MFT bodies, 28 and 50 equiv mm primes; 24-120. 90-300 equiv mm zooms and instead of a 90 equiv prime, I ended up buying the 24-120 which really duplicates the 28-85 equiv kit lens. If I had to choose just two of the lens: the 28 mm prime and the 24-90 equivalent zoom which would cover me in about 85% of anything I wanted to go for. If I were going out to do just waterfowl, the 90-300 and 28-85 equiv lenses. Portraits: the 50 mm equiv prime. Another carry over from traditional photography: using two identical bodies. Bigger concerns than hassling endlessly about the perfect kit: make sure you have extra chips and charged batteries, and protect whatever you are using with UV or circular polarizers.
Things I learned from this video: 1. Faux VU-meters made from Fuji lenses look cool. 2. Thinking about how long it takes to make a few seconds of faux VU-meter video reduces comprehension of the concepts that follow. 3. I'm an undeveloped photographer. 4. I'm actually not lazy when it comes to using zooms but I'm very lazy when it comes to changing lenses. 5. Andrew has new glasses. Or are they different glasses? Both frames look good. :-)
😂 Deep thoughts, Timothy. Deep thoughts. But shh, don't tell anyone. They are non-perscription glasses. I got lasik, but am not brave enough to commit to the glassesless look on video yet. :)
The story that primes are sharper isn’t a myth. I’ve never seen any zoom lense which is as sharp at 21mm as my zeiss distagon 21mm f2.8. It just doesn’t exist. I own quite a few lenses including many of the best including new and vintage lenses. Also there will never ever be a 24-70 f1.4 or or f1.2. It’s just physically not possible. So there is that.
Harrison Bond I totally agree. For photos I’m not impressed with the 18-55mm. I’ve compared it against my 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 and there is no comparison. The “Fujicrons” walk all over the 18-55mm.
My 16-55 is my "bread and butter" lens. In my Nikon times it was the 24-70. Always on my camera, use it in at least 90%. ...if I could have only one lens, this would be it.
with my 24-105 i only use it at 24, 35, 50, 85, 105 on the dots cause I'm OCD like that. Plus random lengths just seem "off". a landscape at 31 just doesn't feel/look right.
I'm a lot like that, except I don't have OCD about it. Looking in my info I find I'm either full zoomed in or out. I have a 50mm 1.4 and if I ever have my 24-70mm 2.8 on camera and I need to shoot mid I just swap the the 50mm 1.4.
Great video! Just my 2 cents though: statements #2 and #3 are myths when considered in isolation, but are actually true together. Primes and zooms in the same price range will have quite a difference in maximum aperture; while fast-aperture zoom lenses are (will be?) extremely expensive. Once again, engineering is about tradeoffs.
Well, both are good for sure. I am thinking about buying 18-135mm for traveling and long shoots of ppl when i dont want to invade their privacy etc. and 16mm 1.4 since its dark in scotland really fast and i like street photography and wide photos as well. Not sure what other lenses to buy but those two seems best for me. Great videos Andrewv ;)
I love my Fuji 16-55mm and think people are too quick to assume us 'zoomers' just stand still and use zoom. I still move with my feet to compose nicely, so don't think that something specific to primes. Really, the main reason I still need primes is because of the better f-stops in this gloomy British winter! I am enjoying the excellent autofocus and sharpness on my 33mm f1.4 prime too. I avoided getting the 18mm prime or similar, as I think all that distortion would make me get gimmicky with my shot choices.
@@AndrewGoodCamera disturbingly generic maybe? Slick video - really nice work. But every slickly-produced photog vlog these days seems to be using pretty much the same cookie-cutter backing track. Where does this ubiquitous youtube vlogging musak actually come from? It's sounds like easy-listening jazzy hip-hop, but without the actual rapping. The volg itself then becomes an out-of-synch rap spoken over generic easy-listening rap musak. Why do we even need this repetitive incidental music in the background anyway?
I agree, the music is just distracting and brings nothing to the video. I much prefer video with more emphasis on content rather than being forced to listen to an unnecessary Muzak elevator ride as it’s background.
Of course, you should be free to do as you want, but it's more of a mixing issue. As a mixing engineer, if the music is too loud when someone is speaking i can't concentrate anymore on what the person is saying. Trying to have a constructiv criticism !
When I shoot I try to pretend I'm using a fixed lens, but I very often carry a zoom lens. There's too many cool animals that I see on my hikes, and while I'd love that bird or that bug to stay where it is and let me get closer, it often won't. So I zoom in, get a shot, move closer, get a shot, and keep doing this until I notice it has noticed me, then that's the last shot I take.
I agree on all points of your great video (loved the intro with the lenses btw 😁👍) and would say that everyone who has the money to get a used fast prime like the 35mm f2, saved my butt photographing a kids birthday indoors recently. Because of its fast autofocus you still can shoot wide open, those kids are damn fast! 😁 I actually wanted to sell this lens but I’m glad I didn’t!! It’s just perfect for a family dinner or a walk :)
I use zoom lenses when shooting scenes on the stage (i.e. of theater). You are quicker. Unfortunately the light is not always the best in a theater. When shooting within a party, like wedding, stand-up ore drink party etc. I go on and say to the guys and girls: "Hey, let's take a picture" - and then I have to be very very quick, because otherwise the smile would cool down. In all such situations you will fail when changing lenses or placements. And: Why not shoot with a zoom lens when you have enough light i.e. whith strobes, although you have enough time to shoot and take a prime lens.
did you colour grade this video or directly got this done by any mode on fuji [i dont know much about these things i dont know whether i said right or not ] which lens did you use to shoot you talking i wabt switch to fuji so thats why this much doubts
I’m not native English speaker and I subscribed your channel because you are the only one reviewer out there who actually make subtitles for your videos instead of letting youtube auto-generates it. Thank you. Your videos are always full of information.
Thank you for saying that! It's always hard to "justify" the price for captions. But I really value making them accessible. It's good to hear that they are helping folks.
After forcing myself to only use primes over the years and becoming comfortable with those particular focal lengths, using a zoom is a much better experience than when I first started in photography, with that being said, I still prefer to shoot with primes. I love picking a prime and going somewhere to shoot knowing that I only have this one focal length to get pictures with, it's a great challenge and lot of my best work come from that. Zooms are great for when I need the versatility but they always leaves me questioning my compositions sometimes, i.e, should I zoom in more? Should I zoom out? Should I get closer and zoom in more or should I get closer and zoom out? With a prime lens I know exactly what I want, it makes photography more enjoyable to me and fun. I've taken a few portfolio shots with zooms, nothing wrong with using zooms whatsoever. But I don't find them fun to me. I like being restricted and I think a lot photographers think that way as well.
Best art is done within constraints.
Something i really love about primes is that you start to think and see the world around you in focal lenght, while with a zoom lens you just .. dont.
but something that worked for me quite nicely back then when i was using a zoom here and there was.. forcing me to use the zoom lens like a prime, or as if i had multiple primes. lets say i had a 18-55mm, i would refuse to use whole spectrum but stick to lets say 18mm 30mm and 50mm and only ever use the zoom to change between those 3, while anything in between was non existent. That way it felt more like a convenient 3 prime lenses without swapping and made using it much more fun and consistent.
I'd say that weather sealing is probably also superior with a prime. Fewer moving parts, fewer entry points for dust and water.
I would counter that frequently changing lens focal lengths opens the gateway for dust contamination onto the sensor. With a zoom lens you may not need to change lenses as often thereby lessening dust contamination.
The fallacy of "zoom with your feet" and the companion "zooms make you lazy" is one of the most pernicious lies in photography. People gobble it up without thinking about the background assumptions. What they most of the time do not realize is that the feasibility and benefits of using primes instead of zooms are very dependent on the focal length, and the relationship is not linear.
The zooms are pretty much indispensable at the ultrawide end of things. No single prime lens can give you what an 8-16 zoom can (I tried). You will find it very hard to move in a way that will enable you to do everything that zoom would allow you to. Period.
Similar, but much more forgiving, situation occurs at the long end. The 50-230 mm zoom can give you selective magnification and compressing ability you can duplicate with the 56 mm or 90 mm primes only with great difficulty as it will require to move a long distance or to a location that it might not be feasible.
Primes can most effectively replace zooms only in the middle range, like 16-55. Besides feet zooming, there is also cropping, something that the modern optimized lenses and high megapixel cameras favor, but it comes at the expense of deeper DOF and some image quality. This works very well on the long end, wildlife and sports photographers use it all the time. So, if you have a 10-24 lens and a 50-230 lens, 35 f/1.4 instead of 18-55 may be a good idea. 16 f/1.4 instead of 10-24 - much less so.
Mind you, "feet zooming" only works for static subjects and scenes where you actually have the time to analyze the scene, then do the feet movement. Many of the most exciting photo opportunities are dynamic and allow you no such luxury.
And that's not even beginning to talk about the hassles and dangers of frequent lens changes.
"Primes make you more creative" is another of those things that I feel is highly dubious. Primes force you to have to move, experiment more with framing, and often makes it take longer to get the shot. My suspicion is that all the extra work involved makes people feel like they are being more creative, when they could have likely achieved the same or similar shot with a zoom, in less time, and with less effort.
I'm a Fuji shooter and an ardent prime user cause I'm an aperture whore (lol), but this statement is so true. As hard as I try, I cannot get rid of my 55-200mm because nothing else in the system has that reach at that size. The only prime comparable is the 200mm f2. But that thing is humongous and I have no desire to lug that around. at 200 f4.8 you still get more than decent subject separation for portraits or what ever photography. Sucks at clean low light, but I pump the ISO anyways cause high ISO looks good on Fuji and Capture One. It also has OIS, which is crazy to me in a package that's pretty affordable.
Eric A. Kantchev True, you just can’t zoom in on a window on the 8th floor by your feet. You must buy another lens for it or just use a zoom lens.
Sooooo zooms are for lazy people, and primes are for pretentious people?
Weather sealing is usually better on primes depending of the zoom, have lower element counts and will generally have better color Fidelity. Though some of the new really fast primes are not much better than zooms in that regard. So really like everything in life, it depends on what your doing and what you need vs what the particular lens offers. I have a feeling these "myths" will live on and persist because no one is doing the same thing at the time in the same way with the same stuff.
To those who ask me, I recommend a zoom to 'documentaeians' like vacation goers and parents but primes to people who want to dive further into photography.
Convenience vs. Greater creative options.
Sidenote: I do disagree with image quality distances between the two to some extent. Zoom lenses do usually have more distortion and at the same apertures, a prime will usually vignette less and have less CA. At least when comparing lenses in a band's similar price range. Though this shouldn't meaningfully affect most photographers. Content > optical perfection
Really it depends on what you want to shoot, I'd very rarely recommend a prime to someone trying to get into sports photography.
@@comicbstudios unless they can find a cheap 300/ 400mm lol
Believe it or not there are thousands of both hardcore amateurs and pros that shoot zooms extensively. Try working primes while standing on the Cliffs of Moher with wind and mist.
I
@@86BBUB Don't get me wrong- I absolutely believe that zooms can be used professionally. I use a couple, myself. I'd just argue that a prime lens teaches better habits and gives the opportunity to 'affordably' experiment with aperture. So often I see both amateurs and some working professionals get lazy with a zoom lens and plant their feet in one location and zoom in/out before considering moving their feet. Of course there are times where zooming is useful but a good photographer will actively select an angle from which to shoot and focal length suited to the subject and composition in mind.
@@Ava-wu4qp Well that's on the photographer, not the gear! My point is that I have a problem with the suggestion that primes are intrinsically superior to zooms or that "good" photographers will inevitably chose primes. That was true when zooms simply could not compete with primes with regard to rendering, "IQ", etc. Today the best zoom are very close; certainly close enough for pro work (when appropriate). In any case they are complimentary instruments. Up to the photographer to know what works best in any given scenario. I tend to use zooms for documentary imaging (e.g. travel) and primes for more artistic endeavours.
I finally bought my first camera. I got the Fuji XT20. And I’m so happy with it and the 18-55 kit Lens is amazing! I’m so satisfied with it. For now, I don’t see any reason to buy a prime lens yet.:)
How has your hobby grown in the following years?
This comes out as the very excellent 16-80 zoom comes out from Fuji. It could be an all purpose travel lens. Sometimes when on side of road or in a vehicle there is no option to move closer and a zoom can help create interesting frames.
After shooting for a very long time, going from shooting the typical girls to corporation events and studio I'd say that each type of lens has its place. If a zoom makes you lazy that's because you haven't been long enough in the photography world, I'd never shoot an event not matter which type without a zoom lens. It's versatility is undeniable and the ability to have many different compositions is priceless. Try shooting with a prime on a tight space and your client asks you for crowd ambient shots...yeah ain't gonna happen if you have a 50mm prime. Primes are more of an artist lens, good for studio, good for those bokeh shots everyone on social media wants but the money shot is with zoom lenses nowadays, fast, sharp, reliable. Sure I use primes, love them but very niche. I always tell the young ones, if you want to start earning money, get a good zoom and then yes get a good prime.
When I went on safari I was glad for the zoom lenses, I didn't fancy walking right up to the lions etc
I own NOTHING but primes, and so far I couldn’t be happier. But zooms will always be superior when it comes to composition, and the reason I say this is because “zooming with your feet” shifts the articles in your image around (for street photography and such) and may potentially affect the initial photo you were intending to capture. With a zoom lens, you can study your scene, line up a composition with your eyes, then adjust your camera to frame that photo. With a prime, you may have lined everything up perfectly, only to realize your lens is too wide.. then you switch from a 23mm to a 35mm and realize it’s too tele. So then you have to either move physically and change the perspective and alignment of your subject, or shoot the 23mm and crop it. With a zoom, you can adjust your field of view to the perfect amount without shifting your perspective by “zooming with your feet”.
I am very happy with my 3 F2 primes because I love the tiny size and balanced ergonomics with my X-T4, shooting with small lenses feels like that’s how the X-t4 was intended to shoot, not only for the size of the lenses, but the overall feel of shooting primes. But, I do sacrifice the efficiency of zooming, for that, consciously.
Just zooming in/out also will affect your result- you are compressing or expanding the perspective. This is in fact one of the biggest "dangers" of zooms- to not be aware of that and just dial a new zoom factor.
Zooming with your feet only works to a certain extent. a 50mm prime will always be 50mm no matter where you stand. It will never become a 35mm, 85mm or any other focal length and will not give you the look of any other focal length in regards to compression. You have much less control over your background with a prime. I used to shoot primes only for 17 years up until recently. Zooms have gotten much better in recent years.
@@Raist3db This isn't true. Only moving changes perspective. Longer focal length just "crops" the photo. As in if you take a photo with a 35mm and 200mm from the same location and just crop the 35mm photo to match the 200mm one, they will look identical.
Talking about myths :D
While I love Fuji's f/2 line, it is a bit soft when shot wide open, especially close up, compared to the 18-55. You take the good with the bad though. For all the positives I gain with the 35/2 prime (lighter, smaller, faster AF, weather resistant, silent, and wider aperture) the small shortcoming of being soft wide open is a more than fair trade-off. That being said, zooms certainly have its rightful place in my collection. The 18-55 kit is my run-and-gun lens. I take it hiking because it covers a broad focal range so I don't have to fuss with constantly changing lenses. Right tool for the right job. I will also say Fuji's lens quality is far superior than many other manufacturers. They're in a league of its own. Take the kit 18-55 for example. Metal construction, superb image quality, solid feel in the hands, and the OIS is one of the best I've used. Got down to 1/4 second with pin sharp images. Probably the best kit lens on the market. To get any of that out of Canon, I'd have to spend at least a grand, which is why I defected to Fuji
I love using primes not simply because of them being smaller, but the photographic approach. By not having a zoom, you are having a less distractions and you can focus better on framing and composition. I simply know what will be in frame and what will not, even before looking through the viewfinder.
That intro audio meter effect was excellent! I love that idea and recognize the effort that went into those 5 seconds. Well done!
My own solution, and the solution I suggest to fellow enthusiasts/starters facing similar choices, is a smaller advanced zoom compact (preferably a fast one) for coverage and emergencies, paired with primes lenses on larger DSLR/mirrorless body. The best from each world really.
The advanced zoom compacts are largely meant for backups of larger bodies in the first place. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus all have or had their products that would fall into this category.
I probably would even encourage some starters to start with a zoom compact, just to figure out if they really do need a higher end camera at their current stage, and many of them really do not.
I want to expand on the last point. You can use zoom to find out your most prevalent focal length. Use that information to buy your first prime. I found out that my way of perceiving corresponds to 50mm. Then I tried the f2 and f1.4 xf35 and chose the latter.
Interesting video. I enjoy using the small fuji primes but I find one significant advantage to using a good zoom as a walk around lens, especially if the walk around area is a sandy, windy beach. When does a water proof camera become a not waterproof camera? When you take the lens off. Not having to change lenses in the field lessons the chances of getting dirt, sand, water, etc. on you sensor, especially if you are an uncoordinated klutz like me. Sand and sensors do not mix.In this regard I am very eagerly looking forward to getting there Fuji 16-80 if one ever become available. If you can get a hold of one, Andrew, I would be interested in your thoughts about it.
I've been using 2 lens for the last 6years in my line of work NIKON 10-24mm and NIKKOR105 af-d DC. I use 24-70 2.8 for leisure shoot.
My grand father told me when i was starting in photography to get one zoom lens first, work around that lens try all the different types of photography in just one lens then you decide what kind of photography you want to pursue. I ended up in a real estate/architecture business photography, hence the lens choice i made. Now i'm saving for Nikkor shift lens which is kinda expensive but essential to my line of work.
Required viewing, thanks for posting this. I would add that prime-centric shooters have a need for a zoom on the long end, like the Fuji 50-140mm... fixed primes in that range (like the 90mm) are difficult walk around/travel/landscape lenses compared to wider primes. Plus, the 50-140 has plenty of compression, shallow DOF, speed, and lovely bokeh for most needs.... not to mention stabilization, which is almost necessary at these lengths.
"The zoom allows you to take full control over the focal length".
You could also argue that the zoom FORCES you to take control over the focal length, which naturally is one reason they're not recommended for beginners-it's one less variable to juggle. Even now, having been shooting for coming up on 20 years, I still often prefer to go out with a prime if I want to relax while shooting, just because it's less of a mental load.
Andy Farrell this exactly. It is way more relaxing to shoot with a prime!
Agreed
As a professional it is nearly impossible working without a Zoom! If you can’t miss the shot because a client is paying you, you need a Zoom since they are faster focusing! and more flexible! As an enthusiast you can work with what you enjoy more. In private I also enjoy to use Primes more, but for me as an professional I need a Zoom.
Great explanation Andrew!! I use red badge zooms to get the shot that i would have missed if i wouldn't have been able to move with my feet,primes i use for subject seperation and low light, red badge zooms are sharper at the smaller focal length than most primes.. i use my trio of fujicrons for travel.
A 3rd option not mentioned for newer photographers is to get the kit lens which will be a zoom in the neighborhood of 24/28 - 70/75 ( they're always cheaper that way ) and if you haven't got much left over, get a vintage prime and adapter for 1/10th the cost of a new prime...as a bonus you will also learn manual focusing ( Fuji's have built in aids for this ), and exposure theory which will only help your photography...and as a hidden bonus you will get lesson #1 in "lens character " - something that most modern lenses seem keen to avoid by everyone clamoring to be "the sharpest" and leaving it at that... as an example I got a Konica Hexanon 50mm 1.7 and adapter for about $60 and that lens is plenty sharp , has nicer bokeh than many modern examples and is quite compact and super solidly built....actually 50 years ago it WAS the "kit lens " with new Konica film bodies ( how times have changed! ) - coming from film it was just a pleasure to use with my X-T20 - which I bought with the much maligned XC 16-50 - actually a very good kit lens that adds only $100 to the body price ( or did when I got mine ) - if I just need snaps with AF it's perfectly fine but when I want to enjoy myself, I use the old stuff on the X-T20 - good times at an even better price....;-)
I started out in photography with a prime lens and here I am 40 years later and I own one zoom lens and about a dozen prime lenses. The zoom is a jack of all trades, master of none, but it serves its purpose when I need it to. I don’t look down at people who use zooms, nor do I deify someone that uses primes. I look at their results and judge the photographer by what they capture and how they present their photo more than what equipment they use.
These myths has always been a pet-peeve for me.
I inherited my first Nikon 35 mm camera (F-301) 29 years ago, and just like everyone else I was taught to "zoom with my feet". Heard it from family (we all love photography), teachers, friends, photo-club members...
Yet! When stepping into Fuji-land five years ago, I took a look at all my favourite photos and realized that almost all of them (a few 50mm portraits excluded, because the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is amazing) was taken with a zoom lens. Most prime-lens photos needed cropping in some way, or was taken a slight to late, simply because I am more of a snapshot photographer. I take a drive with my camera safely in the passenger seat, and a lot of the time the photos are shot from the open window (have one of those windows mounts). A lot of my best photos are also taken on the way to or from a customer (I am a consultant, so I drive quite a lot). One could argue that I should get out of the car, but that would likely disturb the moment more, if possible at all, and with the zoom lenses I can remain "silent", and not miss the photo.
In my current every-day (fuji) kit, I have the 18-55 mm XF, the 50-230 mm and sometimes a 28 mm vintage prime, for the softer landscapes. All in my laptop bag. The 18-55 is on when I am walking, the 50-230 when driving and the 28 mm when I have extra time. So, for me, zoom allows me to focus on framing rather than finding stable footing. I also know the 18-55 so well now, that I am generally zoomed in before looking through the viewfinder. Its almost instinctive.
When I travel light, I have two lenses. The 18-55 and the 50-230. When I had my Nikon kit with mostly primes, I packed four lenses. So zooms is definitely more compact for me.
Don't get me wrong now, primes are good in the right settings. They work very (VERY!) well in studio. They also impose a creative restraint, which can be really fun if you are up for it, but also extremely frustrating if it causes a missed shot. Ups and downs to both, which is why I tell friends to learn how to take good photos with the kit lens before deciding what to get next. Find what they feel are lacking.
Thanks for the video and the open mind. :)
It still generally true that you need an expensive zoom to match the sharpness of a cheap prime. Anyway, I'm all about size and aperture. Whatever is small and enables low-light shooting is what I'm going with.
With Fuji, I've not seen that. The zooms are as sharp as the primes through a large portion of the zoom range with so far, no exceptions. Can't speak for other brands.
Prime for Studio, Portrait, and Landscape Photography and Zooms for flexibility in choosing the multiple focal lengths with one lens for street photography and sports.
All landscape photografers use zooms. Typicaly 16-35 and 70-200 for full frame, 10-24 and 50-140 for APS-C. We take pictures in all kinds of weather and conditions.
I bought my Fuji 18-55 in a bundle with the XE-1for 400 CAD. Then I sold the XE-1 body for 200 CAD. It was a good day 😎.
Billy was furious!
"Welcome to Golf Chat™️ with Andrew." 😎
😆
I'm a Canon prime shooter. 20 years now. I learned with them and loved them ever since. Zooms are great too though.
I use a 70-200 f2.8 because they're just so good for everything and a 16-35 f4 only because I infrequently need a wide angle.
Aside from those two, I also stick to primes. DoF and needing to make that conscious choice. (28-2.8, 35-1.8, 50-1.4, 85-1.4, 100-2.8 macro, 135-2.8) *typo fixed
@@Ava-wu4qp very nice. I use a 200mm prime . I tended to shoot mostly at 200mm with my telephoto. So I sold my 70-200. But I shoot lots of landscapes. Nice glass collection you have. 👍 Btw I love that macro lens!
@@MrCochise71 ha... I'm thinking about selling the macro, too. It's the L version, btw. I am gradually switching to Sony because Canon has recently just seemed confused and Nikon didn't have 2 card slots+battery grip for mirrorless. Anyways-- the 100 2.8 L behaves pretty poorly when adapted to Sony (both AF and aperture) making it manual only. With that in mind, the loawa 100 2.8 and the voightlander 110 2.5 seem a lot more attractive for not too different of price points.
On the 70-200, I definitely can't blame you for switching to a 200mm prime and I definitely would too, if I only shot Portraits. Save that weight!
@@Ava-wu4qp I think canon will put out some nice camera's in 2020 and 2021. I know a 5D mark 5 is coming. Oh and that 135mm you have... I've been looking at that one too ha.
@@MrCochise71 heh.... That 135 is actually a Monolta Rokkor-PF version ii. Vintage lenses can be fun.
It's small, has a focus throw that's a dream, $40, and while it's not the sharpest lens ever, it out-resolves my modern 85 1.4 (at f1.4 on the 85, wide open on the 135), skin textures are amazing, and manual focus is a treat on mirrorless.
Of course it can't substitute for an AF lens when you need to work really fast but that's what my 70-200 is for. Anyways... I don't advertise myself as a 'vintage' photographer at all but I still use this lens from ~1973 professionally and sold about $300 in prints from this lens last week.
As just a casual photographer, I guess I never thought in terms of "primes vs zooms" in absolute terms but rather in the context of what I will be doing with the camera and where. When travelling I think a zoom with a wide focal range (e.g. 18mm - 105 or 18-200mm) is great for an all in one outdoor use in daylight (APS-C) . For inside museums and art galleries a reasonably fast wide lens like a 23 mm F 1.8 lens gives good results. For churches and palaces a moderately fast lens like a 16-50 f2.8 is practical. I could keep going but I guess I just pick the lens I will use based on lighting conditions, subject, photos or video, likely focal length requirements and shooting conditions (which determine suitable weight, need for weather sealing and practicality of frequent lens changes during the session/outing ). Primes can be fun and remind me of the simple days when I was a kid shooting with my Kodak Brownie and Instamatic. Zooms are also fun because of the ability to frame distant objects/people. It's all good :-)
I'm not partial to either - but there are times for one over the other. Usually when I travel or take a long trip where I don't want to carry many things, I take a zoom. Btw kudos for tackling the zoom vs prime sharpness thing. Was true back in the vintage days, not so much anymore : )
Thanks. Yeah exactly
The myth Primes are sharper than a zoom probably comes from old photographers who started in film photogràphy when it was true. At least for the most part. The first sharp zoom I owned was a Sigma 24-70 EX DG I bought for my Canon 10D back in 2003 or 04. I have a Sigma Art zoom that blows me away.
This is true; until computer aided design started to really improve zooms, they were fairly awful, especially the wider zooms. Adding more elements decreases sharpness unless you have the technology to calculate and produce specifically shaped lens elements that are aspherical. These days, high end zooms have been good to superb for a few years now.
Great video. I think you explained it well. I use both. Usually a 12-60mm 2.8 and then three or four primes( maybe a 28mm..50.. 135mm). Camera lenses are just tools. Subject matter and composition is what so many photographers seem to miss. Expensive gear will just take really nice bad photos.
I think both is the answer, right tool for the job. Sometimes you can't move your feet. Because of a zoom I discovered I was shooting around 135mm, now there's a small, compact 135 3.5 in my bag.
Now I have ( for 3.5 yrs ) a Lumix Fz2500 fixed zoom lens bridge camera - f 2.8 ~ 4.5, 24 ~ 480mm. Soon, I plan on acquiring a Panny G9 & 2 lenses. I have a harness that can take both cameras which I'll take on the Camera -Totin - Days ( the photography group I'm in ) outings. The Fz I'll use for more distant wildlife shots & the G9 ( bigger sensor & newer features ) closer in subjects. Thanks for doing this topic.
Prime lenses are cheaper though if you want to shoot at smaller aperture. Let say, on Fuji system, if you want to shoot at 35mm at F2.8, you can achieve that by paying $399 on the 35F2 prime or $1,199 on the 16-55F2.8. This is true on telephoto end too. If you want to shoot at 90mm at F2.8, your only options are the $849 90mmF2 (love this lens
Everyone should have primes and zooms. Zooms for flexibility and primes for quality, low light, bokeh, and sometimes, portability. The trick is choosing the right primes for you... What do you shoot most? and would the situation allow you to "get by" with a prime (i.e. you would not have to switch lenses all the time)? Focus your primes on those situations. Creativity is inspired by the constraints that you have (or impose on yourself). Primes are quite a good way of doing that. If you know what focal length you want they definitely give you higher quality, with wider apertures for the same cost as an equivalent zoom. (I know you said that zooms give just as good results - but that one is just not true.... all you have to do is look at DXO mark to see that primes are above zooms when it comes to sharpness - and any zooms that high - are super expensive).
I tried to be clear, but maybe you missed it. I'm talking about Fuji primes vs Zooms (which DxO mark doesn't provide data on so I've had to rely on MTF data manufacturer provides and anecdotal evidence). I can't speak to other brands.
@@AndrewGoodCamera That's not what your video title says, and honestly, it's not the impression I got from the entire video. You start showing all the videos from other people, you talk about the points like its generic advice, the Fuji talk sounds like examples (because that's what you shoot), and you entirely base one of your points / myths being busted on the Canon RF 28-70 F2. If your intent was to create a video focused on why Primes vs Zooms is different for Fujifilm, it fails to come across in the video (honestly I just feel you latched onto something to be right rather than accept some criticism - even though most my comment agrees with a lot you are saying). Also, do you even know if Fujifilm MTF charts come from actually testing lenses? Most MTF charts are theoretical (although I do know Zeiss does actually test their lenses to produce them). Basing a zooms vs primes advice video on theoretical performance does not seem wise....
I appreciate you sharing your opinions Dean. I'm not out to deceive anyone. I honestly feel this way about the zoom lenses and the prime lenses in Fuji land. I don't just go off of MTF data of course. I have been shooting with Fuji primes and zooms for 3 years now and have reviewed many of them. Right now I'm sitting with every single Fuji zoom lens creating a buying guide. I feel like I know what I'm talking about. But feel free to disregard if you don't trust me. That's totally fine. Cheers
In the end is a matter of what suits your work better. I used to shoot with zooms for years and I love the photos I took with them but the transformative moment for my photography came when I bought my first Zeiss prime (for Canon). No zoom, whatever the manufacturer or the price point can match a Zeiss prime lens (except the Leica primes) in terms of sharpness, build quality, aperture and character (the last one is the reason I pay so much money for a prime). Sure, you can have impressive sharpness (if you know how to focus correctly) on any lens today but sharpness 1) isn’t everything in photography and 2) in zooms and some cheaper primes aren’t even across the frame.
In photography the sad truth is that you always getting what you’re paying for, and I’ve learned that the hard way! Skills and experience can only take you to a certain level. If you want the best image quality you have to pay for this…
I have and like both primes and zooms. One area you did not touch upon was camera balance in the hand. I currently use a Sony A7iii as my main full frame camera. I have three native lenses for it and about six adapted Minolta AF lenses. My latest lens purchase for the Sony was the 35mm 2.8 Zeiss. 4.4 oz. This lens just transforms using this body and having it balance in my hand. With this lens on the Sony body it is a really small light kit. I also have the Sony 24-105 f4 zoom. 23 oz on the front of a 23 oz body. This lens makes the Sony unbalanced for me. I usually add the extra battery /grip to it for better balance. But now we have a 50oz + camera. Same thing with my Nikon D750 a year ago. 24-120mm f4 on the 750 and there was a lot of weight on the front. When I put a Nikon 50mm f1.4 on the 750 it was much better in the hand.
Newer model camera zooms are stupid heavy and expensive for full frame. I have a Minolta 70-210 from the 1990's that is a 3.5-4.5 and weighs about 10oz. It works quite well on my Minolta 600si film body or Sony A7iii digital body without completely unbalancing either camera. I have carefully tested it and for the most part it is as sharp as the modern Sony 24-105 zoom. I also have a Minolta 100-400 zoom that weighs about 16oz compared with 49oz for the new Sony 100-400.
I like the fact that when you are using a prime all day you learn what the size of the shot is going to be and how far back you have to stand by instinct.
My favorite camera body of all time is the Olympus OM2n. I have a zoom for it that I almost never use. 95% of the shots I take are with the 50mm f1.8 or the 28mm f2.8. This is a super light and comfortable camera to use. Too bad Oly never made a digital one like this.
If you never intent to buy primes, you need to purposefully restrict yourself when learning composition. If you learn with primes, you are forced to take time with each new lens and learn to utilize that focal lenght and aperture.
So you could either buy a really expensive zoom, tape it to same focal lenght for few days or weeks, then change that over time. Or you could naturally collect prime lenses over time, for same or probably larger amount of money.
Once you have done that, and when given a zoomlense think in terms of focal lenght instead of aimlessly framing with the zoom effect, it doesn't matter which you use. You can learn new things with any kind of lense (that is capable of doing what you want to learn).
If there were really cheap lenses with fixed focus distance, we would probably tell beginners to use them. And some professionals would prefer them in certain cituations. The main reason for prime lenses is their role in history of photography as an art and as a medium of communication, as well as their limitation as said medium and in said art. Any limitation would be fine - lack of colour, fixed, super big aperture or a pinhole lense, would be fine, and is often given as an exersise for students. Primes just happen to have a history and are widely available and good for use outside of learning, which makes them a sensible suggestion for new photographers.
Also cheap bokeh is a prime reason to buy a prime. Zooms with good subject separation at around 75-100mm usually cost a lot more than 2.8 prime
Congratulations for this interesting topic! As a long time photographer (and videographer) which have many primes and many zooms, I would say these 4 statementnts are not totally myths! From my experience I learned that you must match the lens to your need, preferences, mood, and actual situation in the field. Yes, as you said, some zooms are even sharper than some primes (and not only legacy primes at their maximum aperture), and they not make you lazy... In some events it's more convenient to use a zoom to compose your shot from the other corner of the room / hall than sit in front of other viewers or cameras, so, even if a normal zoom is slower, it will make your life (and others') easier! And very fast zooms like Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 are sharper than many 35 mm primes (shame on Sony's), and enables you to compose very beautiful shots with 3D appearence easily (with the expense of that dreadful weight and size) BUT the primes are smaller and sometimes less obtrusive (Sigma 30 mm f/1.4). So, ideally, you have to rely on 2-3 Zooms in your bag WITH at least too fast primes. (and sometimes two bodies) That's what I do at events (exposition openings, corporate events etc, even weddings). A fast prime and a decent zoom (in a normally lit room/hall) with a modern camera prevents you from using the flash, and a small continous light (Lume Cube is awesome) makes people think you are only make video, so they are less rigid.
i shot many years with a prime lens on my film camera, i used the 50mm a lot, then the 24mm and the 200 sometimes in nature. When i switched to fuji (for their experience with film cameras), it was a big question. Prime lenses or zooms? I mean, if i was rich, i probably would to buy the entire range of fuji's lenses, but i was on budget. So i bought the 16-55 2.8. And it's a joy !!! I mean, if you have experienced prime lenses before and know what you will see with a specific focal in front of you, that is not a problem. I often set my zoom on 16mm or 35mm or another focal, and stay with it all day long, then i can switch to another! i don't "zoom", but i like to consider that i have a 16, 23, 35 and more with just one lense!!!
I think when you first experienced prime lenses before having a zoom, you can think about what focal to use in the scene you see, and set your focal range on your lense, before even take a look in your viewfinder!
I mean, zoom are greats for that, and fuji made outstanding quality zooms with 2.8 constant aperture...
clicked because I was interested in your point. Well explained, thanks.
Kindness before cameras :)
Another point regarding the use of zooms, is that as we get older, we are not as quick to move around to get the shot....further to this, a prime limits your ability to quickly react to action or even models moving in portraits where limbs are outside your field of vision....the zoom gives you the ability to react
wonderful video, makes me wonder so I ask you when you get your first camera which comes with kit lenses, what you buy or upgrade first? buy better lenses or buy good lights? what's more important or recommendable?
I have realized that photographers will always standardize everything in the end that is more expensive.
• Full frame? Standard format Vs. Crop and of course it’s more expensive.
• Prime lenses? Better than the "zooms" because in the end you will need 3 primes to have the necessary tools, and definitely 3 primes would be more expensive than a zoom with that focal range. • Profoto? Also the standard, you can do the same with another product but they are not so expensive and that is why they may not be what we all need.
I am quite tired with that situation, this seems more like a competency of elitism than an artistic profession. Just my two cents. Excellent video keep that feeling.
Agreed
I used to think that there was this major image quality difference between primes and zooms, including wide apertures. Then I shot the Sigma f1.8 zooms and there's not many primes on the market as sharp as the 50-100 at f1.8. The 18-35 is sharper than any of the Fuji primes I had in that range.
I use both of the Sigmas on the Fuji XH1... no more primes for me.
I just wish Sigma built them natively for Fuji
A simple way (but not the only way) to look at it is:
Zooms for general use and flexibility.
Primes for specific use cases where there is a definite and demonstrable reason for using them.
If you can’t clearly articulate why you NEED a prime, then stick with a zoom. It will save you time and money over the long run. (ie. I have an old Nikon macro lens that I never been able to beat with any zoom lens.... and I really have tried a lot of zoom “macro” lenses.) There are soooo many other things to spend your money on that will improve your photography much more than a prime lens 90% of the time. (IMHO)
I think this explaination makes the most sense.
For me, the choice of prime or zoom depends on environment. I do a lot of walking and take two bodies with me, XT20 and XT3 and have a zoom on each. XF18-55 on one and XF55-200 on the other. When taking portraits I use one of three primes - 35mm f2, 50mm f2 or 90mm f2.
I think the "zoom lenses aren't as sharp" thing is mainly true for older lenses. Modern ones are usually very sharp, but the loss of an F stop or two is why I prefer primes. If I could have an F1.4 zoom that didn't weigh a metric ton, I would buy it immediately :-)
Exactly
Out of curiosity, I got 16-55 as my first zoom lens hoping that could replace my 16 18 23 35 56. I was wrong... For me zoom makes photography boring and less engaging. I actually find it harder to compose when using a zoom haha. You just need to experience both prime and zoom to understand your preference on shooting.
Primes are good. Zooms are good. Superzooms are... Ok I guess?
In regards to the "lazy" aspect, fast primes are as lazy-enabling as zooms are if the person allows it. Truth is, more and more fast prime lens user (me included) tend to focus on the bokeh more than the actual composition. So in a way, slower zooms allow you to work on your composition without depending too much on bokeh.
That new keylight is awesom!
Thanks
Hi Andrew, this is a good discussion. Personally I enjoy shooting primes. I find not having the choice of zooming in and out to make a composition choices, helps me to mentally focus - you come to know your field of view, and step into naturally. It's a preference. What I see out in the world is wedding photographers seem to all carry two bodies, one with 24-105mm and one 70-200mm. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But this seems right, given the task of covering a room or field, going from groups to portraits. My personal take on my Fujifilm 18-55 is the lack of an aperture ring really bothers me. I like looking down and seeing all my settings, using the analog dials...and I love collecting and shooting vintage primes. Either way, aren't we fortunate to have choices? Thanks for the good channel, I have learned a lot from you.
Thanks John. And I do agree, not having the aperture values on the 18-55 is always disconcerting to me.
Nice video and thanks for telling the truth. Prime lenses are always overrated and inflated in IQ and sharpness. In reality, Zooms can do almost everything Primes do. To be honest, most people might not be able to tell the differences from pictures. Zooms are always gonna be your better choice if the weights and sizes are not your concern.
Well, Only Primes Fanboys would say "versatility" makes you lazy. 😎
@@blackfly5050 When I used to say this, I was a Canon shooter. So....
曾憲涼 You forgot a very important point, price, not everyone can buy a 24-70 2.8 and for practically nothing you can get a 35 or 50 1.8 only expensive zooms are excellent and most primes are excellent for a fraction of the price.
I got the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 and Sigma 50-100mm 1.8 :) , both are really sharp and constant aperture thru the zoom range.
Well said - clear and rational.
Great explanation! I enjoy your videos.
Greetings from Germany!
For outdoor shooting I love my 18-55 lens on my xt-2. I started my photographic journey with film cameras and primes and I still "zoom" with my feet. Old habits die hard.
That's Denae too. She prefers primes. So whenever she has a zoom mounted she forgets :)
I've always leaned towards primes, and still do, but when I tried that Fujinon 16-55 f2.8, I couldn't bring myself to sell it, as was the plan (got it with a kit deal). It's soo good and fun to use. Color is great, focusing is good, and it just spits out sharp photos with the XH-1 at all times. Are you going to cover it, or afraid you'll have to keep it ;)?!
Oh I own it. But my copy had an element out of place and has been in for repair. I do need to review it though.
@@AndrewGoodCamera I don't know why I even doubted it. Will be looking out for that review. It's always curious how people's opinions differ.
I can't help but feel the need to call you out for a moment. Many people who are asking these questions are amateurs or novices, and they may be getting their feet wet without investing too much money. At the high end, there may be less of a difference between primes and zooms outside of price, but on the low end, these differences are more pronounced.
On both ends the differences are huge. I don't believe I tried to mitigate that there aren't large differences between them. But I do feel it is often fairly arbitrary what folks choose.
I find that both types of lenses have their place. I haven't seen many zooms other than maybe a 70-200mm 2.8 being as sharp or sharper than a prime though. I'm not sure why anyone would consider zooms being as sharp as primes. There are some unique exceptions of course. Like using a $200 kit lens on a m43 camera that enables you to shoot in high res mode. The Olympus for example allows you to capture 64mp RAW files. Once you tweak those images in post, the sharpness and noise free images you get are crazy. Using a prime lens takes that even further. The isolation of subjects with larger apertures excentuates sharpness which is why images taken with primes seem to pop more, but its not just sharpness, primes just seem to render images much more beautifully and you can spot it from a mile away. The main drawback with primes of course is having to constantly change focal lengths and especially when travelling. On the other hand using a FF 2.8 zoom can get quite heavy throughout the day. All I know is that every time I look at images taken with the likes of Nikon 20mm 1.8G, Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art or a Rokinon 14mm 2.8, I'm blown away.
I have studied photography, always have only shot with Primes, now after I have graduated and my business becoming more serious there is no way as a professional to not have at least one zoom lens!
10-24, kit 18-55, 50-140... 2 bodies...for versatility...and for certain cases a 27mm pancake, 90mm, and maybe 56mm for low light...??? This is gonna take a couple years...lol
Hope to have a kit soon, and will then have to decide which lens will be second... one of the Zoom options, or the 90 is my guess...
In the meantime, i have a DSLR with 18-55, 50-200, amd 50/1.8, so I can evaluate how I use that most, amd what things are important to me...
Thankfully the Fuji 2.8-4 kit lens is much better than your typical 18-55 type kit lens...
Are the focal lengths on these roughly the same views you get from APS-C cameras of the DSLR variety?
Primes can offer faster focusing and a better OVF experience when shooting in low-light. This can be helpful even if you are using strobes or speed-lights to shed more light on the subject.
Im new to photography... And i bought real camera esspecialy to have a possibility of zooming esspecially! It was one of main reason. Zoom in or out gives that perspective and change everything!
I'm glad I went the route of primes with my Olympus instead of the pro wide angle zoom. The 17, 25 and 45mm are excellent lenses, beautiful bokeh, small, light and honestly it inspires me more. I won't be buying the Pro 12-40mm. I was thinking about getting the 75mm f/1.8 but I find even with the 45mm I stop down to f/2.8 and even f/4 because of the shallow depth of field is a bit too much at f/1.8 so I would rather put my money on the f/2.8 40-150mm.
Thanks! Very good. I am your "Private Shooter", family. I just returned to real cameras. For me zooms are priceless. I don't have the time to fiddle about with primes for bokeh. My Leica zoom is good enough. I don't even have a prime. I used to have a prime, that was a Zuiko 50mm f1.4. I basically never used it. I am now on MFT.
Solid advice and video. I'm over here #teamprimes over everything but maybe I'll try to get at least the zoom you recommend.
I need the primes for my concertphotography, but next week I gonna try the Sigma 18-35 1.8 on my Fuji X-T3.
Great as always. Thanks! Now please consider doing another one on vintage primes on a Fuji.
I use a prime because they're less complicated and force me to commit to a specific vision and look. I like that they impose restrictions on you and reduce the number of potential variables, it makes me think more outside the box
I like to shoot primes for 2 reasons: 1st they are small and lighter 2nd I don't have to botter thinking the best focal distance for every shot...I have what I have and I only need to think about the best composition.
I only use primes, it makes me more creative, and zooms are not fast enough, and often to big and bulky.
@@law32O8 Yes zoom burst can be fun, but as I said, zoom lenses is not fast enough and usually too big and clumsy, and I have no interest in video at all.
Great video... I believe for landscape, wildlife and action, zoom lens is a must. Prime lenses good for macro and other type of photography . Zoom lenses are heavier, it has stabilizer and moving elements and more complicated design, on contrary some modern prime lenses has more glass inside and much more expensive than zoom lenses! Zeiss for example!
The real reason for using a prime over a zoom is that there is much less glass involved... Less glass = more micro-contrast = "3D" images.
Micro-contrast is the ability of the lens to communicate the richness and vibrancy of the inter-tonal shifts between the brighter to darker parts of the very same color onto the sensor.
In this regard zooms render a "flatter" image.
If you process Black & White images and wonder why the best images that ever were taken are softer in sharpness yet so impactful, this is one of the reasons.
If you can't tell the difference then it doesn't matter. Happy snappy.
Great video, plz help, I want a Fujifilm and a lens, which pair should I buy, I want to take cyberpunk-like photos, a lot of neon, and smoke, great colors, and sharpness...
Old school logic: build your system around what you value, how you shoot: engage, do portraits, basic prime or 75 or 90 mm equiv. fast prime; landscapes, cityscapes, street photography if you sort of flow through your subjects, faster wide angle; stalk your subjects? Wildlife? Go long. Use your zooms to fill in your gaps or extend. At that point, it really falls into place much easier . My kit: 2 MFT bodies, 28 and 50 equiv mm primes; 24-120. 90-300 equiv mm zooms and instead of a 90 equiv prime, I ended up buying the 24-120 which really duplicates the 28-85 equiv kit lens. If I had to choose just two of the lens: the 28 mm prime and the 24-90 equivalent zoom which would cover me in about 85% of anything I wanted to go for. If I were going out to do just waterfowl, the 90-300 and 28-85 equiv lenses. Portraits: the 50 mm equiv prime. Another carry over from traditional photography: using two identical bodies. Bigger concerns than hassling endlessly about the perfect kit: make sure you have extra chips and charged batteries, and protect whatever you are using with UV or circular polarizers.
I like hassling endlessly about the perfect kit. :) I find that as enjoyable as shooting with it. But I'm also a nerd.
@@AndrewGoodCamera Well I subscribe to Wired, so I guess we share some of the same DNA
Good stuff. I wish I had those tips a few years ago.
Is there an indicator on Fujifilm cameras to check what actual focal length you are using with the mounted zoom lens?
Things I learned from this video:
1. Faux VU-meters made from Fuji lenses look cool.
2. Thinking about how long it takes to make a few seconds of faux VU-meter video reduces comprehension of the concepts that follow.
3. I'm an undeveloped photographer.
4. I'm actually not lazy when it comes to using zooms but I'm very lazy when it comes to changing lenses.
5. Andrew has new glasses. Or are they different glasses? Both frames look good.
:-)
😂 Deep thoughts, Timothy. Deep thoughts. But shh, don't tell anyone. They are non-perscription glasses. I got lasik, but am not brave enough to commit to the glassesless look on video yet. :)
@@AndrewGoodCamera Hahaha. Nothing wrong with eyeglasses as accessories but I think a glassesless look would work fine for you.
The story that primes are sharper isn’t a myth. I’ve never seen any zoom lense which is as sharp at 21mm as my zeiss distagon 21mm f2.8. It just doesn’t exist. I own quite a few lenses including many of the best including new and vintage lenses. Also there will never ever be a 24-70 f1.4 or or f1.2. It’s just physically not possible. So there is that.
I only use my fuji 18-55 for video, and I quite like it for that.
Don't need an enormous amount of sharpness for a 8mp/4k video. It does the job great with that in mind.
Harrison Bond I totally agree. For photos I’m not impressed with the 18-55mm. I’ve compared it against my 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 and there is no comparison. The “Fujicrons” walk all over the 18-55mm.
@@EDHBlvd In which way they do?
My 16-55 is my "bread and butter" lens. In my Nikon times it was the 24-70. Always on my camera, use it in at least 90%. ...if I could have only one lens, this would be it.
with my 24-105 i only use it at 24, 35, 50, 85, 105 on the dots cause I'm OCD like that. Plus random lengths just seem "off". a landscape at 31 just doesn't feel/look right.
I'm a lot like that, except I don't have OCD about it. Looking in my info I find I'm either full zoomed in or out. I have a 50mm 1.4 and if I ever have my 24-70mm 2.8 on camera and I need to shoot mid I just swap the the 50mm 1.4.
Great video! Just my 2 cents though: statements #2 and #3 are myths when considered in isolation, but are actually true together. Primes and zooms in the same price range will have quite a difference in maximum aperture; while fast-aperture zoom lenses are (will be?) extremely expensive. Once again, engineering is about tradeoffs.
Well, both are good for sure. I am thinking about buying 18-135mm for traveling and long shoots of ppl when i dont want to invade their privacy etc. and 16mm 1.4 since its dark in scotland really fast and i like street photography and wide photos as well. Not sure what other lenses to buy but those two seems best for me. Great videos Andrewv ;)
I love my Fuji 16-55mm and think people are too quick to assume us 'zoomers' just stand still and use zoom. I still move with my feet to compose nicely, so don't think that something specific to primes. Really, the main reason I still need primes is because of the better f-stops in this gloomy British winter!
I am enjoying the excellent autofocus and sharpness on my 33mm f1.4 prime too. I avoided getting the 18mm prime or similar, as I think all that distortion would make me get gimmicky with my shot choices.
This video is cool and useful and stuff but also your glasses are pretty dope.
Thanks :)
Interesting but the background music was very disturbing to me !
Disturbingly awesome you mean
@@AndrewGoodCamera disturbingly generic maybe? Slick video - really nice work. But every slickly-produced photog vlog these days seems to be using pretty much the same cookie-cutter backing track. Where does this ubiquitous youtube vlogging musak actually come from? It's sounds like easy-listening jazzy hip-hop, but without the actual rapping. The volg itself then becomes an out-of-synch rap spoken over generic easy-listening rap musak. Why do we even need this repetitive incidental music in the background anyway?
My bad. Next time I'll check with you guys on how best to express myself creatively.
I agree, the music is just distracting and brings nothing to the video. I much prefer video with more emphasis on content rather than being forced to listen to an unnecessary Muzak elevator ride as it’s background.
Of course, you should be free to do as you want, but it's more of a mixing issue. As a mixing engineer, if the music is too loud when someone is speaking i can't concentrate anymore on what the person is saying. Trying to have a constructiv criticism !
Very good, thank you.
Two bodies. During the daytime. One zoom on each. During the nighttime and indoors. One prime on each. Bam.
You got it
When I shoot I try to pretend I'm using a fixed lens, but I very often carry a zoom lens. There's too many cool animals that I see on my hikes, and while I'd love that bird or that bug to stay where it is and let me get closer, it often won't. So I zoom in, get a shot, move closer, get a shot, and keep doing this until I notice it has noticed me, then that's the last shot I take.
Do you carry a travel zoom lens or a telephoto for hikes ? Thanks !
did you try the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 with an adapter, or is there too many loss on AF, image quality, etc.. ?
my first lens for my gfx 50r was 32-64mm f4 equivalent to fx 24-50mm
I agree on all points of your great video (loved the intro with the lenses btw 😁👍) and would say that everyone who has the money to get a used fast prime like the 35mm f2, saved my butt photographing a kids birthday indoors recently. Because of its fast autofocus you still can shoot wide open, those kids are damn fast! 😁
I actually wanted to sell this lens but I’m glad I didn’t!! It’s just perfect for a family dinner or a walk :)
Hey bro, what glasses are you wearing, nice! (Very sound advice, prime = low light situation vs zoom everything else ;-) )
They are $10 frames off Amazon. :)
I use zoom lenses when shooting scenes on the stage (i.e. of theater). You are quicker. Unfortunately the light is not always the best in a theater. When shooting within a party, like wedding, stand-up ore drink party etc. I go on and say to the guys and girls: "Hey, let's take a picture" - and then I have to be very very quick, because otherwise the smile would cool down. In all such situations you will fail when changing lenses or placements.
And: Why not shoot with a zoom lens when you have enough light i.e. whith strobes, although you have enough time to shoot and take a prime lens.
did you colour grade this video or directly got this done by any mode on fuji [i dont know much about these things i dont know whether i said right or not ] which lens did you use to shoot you talking i wabt switch to fuji so thats why this much doubts
It's just standard color profile out of the Panasonic s1h.
Thanks for this video! What are the two focal length used at 7:10?
16mm & 56mm