Do you use your zoom lens like a prime?

First, I think an incredibly valuable assignment for new photographers is to spend a week shooting with just a prime (but not a 50mm prime). Since generally speaking, a 50mm is human vision, I'd advocate a 35mm or maybe a 75-80mm prime. What this does is teach perspective. You learn how to look at a scene and see it differently. So even if you are using a zoom (or even before you decide something is "picture worthy") you see it differently than with typical human perspective.

Second, I get the points about tools for the right job etc. and don't disagree with that point in general. We talk about get it right "in camera" rather than edit in post production. I'd suggest what the OP is somewhat saying is to get it right in your head before the camera even comes up--surveying a scene and composing the shot mentally in your head (which therefore means deciding before the camera even comes up what you're trying to do, the type of picture you want to take). And that, is a good thing.

That said, you can also be too rigid. I generally prepare my ass off before a shoot. I've been known to scout an area a week before to check out light and shadow before I go there to set and and shoot. That said, I totally embrace the possibility of the spontaneous accident. Case in point: I was just shooting a dragon boat race on the Potomac last week. Generally happy with my shots. But I think my best work was of Arena Stage (the architecture of the building) which I didn't realize was there until I was figuring out before I left where I'd need to park to get near the dragon boat venue. And my favorite shot from the entire experience is a group of construction cranes next to the seafood sales area (Maine Avenue) taken from the 14th Street Bridge. So determining "this is a shot for 75-80mm on my zoom" and then refusing to experiment and try out other possibilities is a shame. I even sometimes just figure I'll waste some pixels and discover to my delight when I get it up on my computer screen that I didn't see something interesting in the photo worth going for...a shadow pattern, a squirrel with it's head caught in a yogurt cup, a couple in the background kissing (and behind her back he's looking at texts on his phone).

So my advice would be: evaluate and plan the shot. And then experiment.
 
First, I think an incredibly valuable assignment for new photographers is to spend a week shooting with just a prime (but not a 50mm prime). Since generally speaking, a 50mm is human vision,...

Since when? Says who? Show me the math.

What this does is teach perspective.

How so?

Joe
 
When someone says "I think" it means it's personal opinion.......and I agree with it in this case.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to the first sentence that contains "I think."

Joe
 
Although I also come from a Pentax background, (and indeed still have & use a Pentax DSLR) I would never dream of using a zoom like that.
I may set it to its widest or tightest before looking through the viewfinder, but it framing the image means adjusting the zoom of course I'd do that. The actual focal length it ends up on is irrelevant IMO.
Where the subject allows I will also move forward/backwards to get the perspective as I want it zooming appropriately if required.

My Pentax bag normally contains 3 zooms & 3 primes, the zooms get used most of the time. I use a wide variety of focal lengths & carrying primes to cover them all is impractical both from weight & cost. My 3 zooms give me near complete coverage from 10mm (180° diagonal) to 300mm - whilst the primes only really get used for macro & when I need the faster glass.
 
First, I think an incredibly valuable assignment for new photographers is to spend a week shooting with just a prime (but not a 50mm prime). Since generally speaking, a 50mm is human vision,...

Since when? Says who? Show me the math.

What this does is teach perspective.

How so?

Joe

You seem just a little combative today. You may disagree (and some certainly do with the statement I provided) but whether it's right not, it's been repeated a lot on the photography world and you're acting like you've never heard it before.

Does a 50mm Equivalent Lens Really See the Same as a Human? - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light

The Camera Versus the Human Eye

As to the point about perspective, if you have a prime lens (let's say...35mm or 85mm) then instead of looking at a scene and going "oh, what a wonderful picture, I think I'll take it!" and then downloading your shots and discovering it was lost in clutter (b/c you were too far away) or only got part of the composition (b/c you were too close). You start to learn how to "see" using the focal length of the lens and adjust your setup accordingly. For instance, you're taking a portrait of someone with a 35mm lens, he sits down in front of you and having spent a week using that 35mm, you know that's not going to be a flattering pose...he's going to have thunder thighs a the wide angle distorts the objects closest to the camera.

I'm not arguing you should always shoot with a prime. But as a lesson in perspective, it's useful to spend a week wondering with a prime lens on your camera.
 
First, I think an incredibly valuable assignment for new photographers is to spend a week shooting with just a prime (but not a 50mm prime). Since generally speaking, a 50mm is human vision,...

Since when? Says who? Show me the math.

What this does is teach perspective.

How so?

Joe

You seem just a little combative today. You may disagree (and some certainly do with the statement I provided) but whether it's right not, it's been repeated a lot on the photography world and you're acting like you've never heard it before.

Does a 50mm Equivalent Lens Really See the Same as a Human? - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light

The Camera Versus the Human Eye

As to the point about perspective, if you have a prime lens (let's say...35mm or 85mm) then instead of looking at a scene and going "oh, what a wonderful picture, I think I'll take it!" and then downloading your shots and discovering it was lost in clutter (b/c you were too far away) or only got part of the composition (b/c you were too close). You start to learn how to "see" using the focal length of the lens and adjust your setup accordingly. For instance, you're taking a portrait of someone with a 35mm lens, he sits down in front of you and having spent a week using that 35mm, you know that's not going to be a flattering pose...he's going to have thunder thighs a the wide angle distorts the objects closest to the camera.

I'm not arguing you should always shoot with a prime. But as a lesson in perspective, it's useful to spend a week wondering with a prime lens on your camera.

Sorry about the combative tone. You're right the, 50mm is equivalent to human vision thing, get's repeated a lot and has been repeated a lot for as long as I've been involved in photo and even since before that. The two articles you linked both say that's bunk if you read them.

The connection between a "lesson in perspective" and a prime or fixed focal length lens I have concerns about because it seems to suggest that perspective is a function of lens focal length -- also something that get's repeated a lot.

Joe
 
It's really difficult for me to get it into my head that almost every new shooter starts with a zoom lens, or two zoom lenses, and that many younger shooters have never used a single prime lens! It's...just..a...whole...new...world. I really cannot think from the point of view of somebody who does not know what the various standard focal length lenses "do" when they are pointed at a scene, but it's very common for people to make statements about how a lens is, "So close in focal length to another."

A great example is the recent review of the brand-new Sigma, which Lensrentals.com allowed a newb to write...LensRentals.com - Review of the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art Series

This kid wrote this laugable crap: "That said, when I’m using a zoom lens, I’m expecting some severe changes from one zoom end to the other. 24mm and 35mm offer very limited differences in focal length, which is the big suffering point for the lens. It honestly felt more like a simple prime lens for me, and I often had it set to 35mm and left there. While the zoom might be important to some, I just can't find the purpose of having a zoom only cover 11mms"

Idiot. Cannot even SEE the differences between a 24, 28, and 35mm lens renderings. Just. Cannot. SEE. Has no idea of what lenswork is. Obviously has never learned photography using prime lenses to any great degree. Clearly has no clue, when he traded his 24mm Canon prime to a friend of his in exchange for a Canon 35mm prime lens, as if one were a dollar and the other was four quarters, and he was as happy as a fly dipped in s*** because he still had a dollar, by golly! 24mm? 35mm? No diff!

So, given the above "review" of an f/2 full-frame capable zoom that runs from 24mm to 35mm...yeah...maybe there are a lot of people who need to actually LEARN to see using a prime lens...or three...

He took an incredibly new and innovate ultra-high speed zoom...and left it set at 35mm...as if it were a prime lens! Do'ah! Darwin Awards Committee is getting his name sent in by me.
 
First, I think an incredibly valuable assignment for new photographers is to spend a week shooting with just a prime (but not a 50mm prime). Since generally speaking, a 50mm is human vision,...

Since when? Says who? Show me the math.

What this does is teach perspective.

How so?

Joe

You seem just a little combative today. You may disagree (and some certainly do with the statement I provided) but whether it's right not, it's been repeated a lot on the photography world and you're acting like you've never heard it before.

Does a 50mm Equivalent Lens Really See the Same as a Human? - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light

The Camera Versus the Human Eye

As to the point about perspective, if you have a prime lens (let's say...35mm or 85mm) then instead of looking at a scene and going "oh, what a wonderful picture, I think I'll take it!" and then downloading your shots and discovering it was lost in clutter (b/c you were too far away) or only got part of the composition (b/c you were too close). You start to learn how to "see" using the focal length of the lens and adjust your setup accordingly. For instance, you're taking a portrait of someone with a 35mm lens, he sits down in front of you and having spent a week using that 35mm, you know that's not going to be a flattering pose...he's going to have thunder thighs a the wide angle distorts the objects closest to the camera.

I'm not arguing you should always shoot with a prime. But as a lesson in perspective, it's useful to spend a week wondering with a prime lens on your camera.

Sorry about the combative tone. You're right the, 50mm is equivalent to human vision thing, get's repeated a lot and has been repeated a lot for as long as I've been involved in photo and even since before that. The two articles you linked both say that's bunk if you read them.

The connection between a "lesson in perspective" and a prime or fixed focal length lens I have concerns about because it seems to suggest that perspective is a function of lens focal length -- also something that get's repeated a lot.

Joe

I deliberately chose two articles that admitted that 50mm isn't precise b/c human perspective varies a little bit. But here's the last line from the first article: "The correct answer falls somewhere around 50mm, but there is no exact answer." The second article goes on to make points about how it's not a question of what the eye sees but how the camera represents what it "sees" (or takes a picture of) and it reaches this position on the argument: "Studies have measured the cone of visual attention and found it to be about 55 degrees wide. On a 35mm full frame camera, a 43mm lens provides an angle of view of 55 degrees, so that focal length provides exactly the same angle of view that we humans have. Damn if that isn’t halfway between 35mm and 50mm. So the original argument is ended, the actual ‘normal’ lens on a 35mm SLR is neither 35mm nor 50mm, it’s halfway in between." Both articles tried to offer some complexity and a bit of fudge factor (by admitting individual differences as well as other factors) but basically say that a 50mm prime is going to produce a picture that comes pretty close to how human beings see that scene.

And I don't disagree with you that there are many things to perspective. One of the best pieces of advice I got when starting out was from an older photojournalist who always hauled around a cheap aluminum step ladder to things like sporting events, press conferences, public ceremonies. Yes, no doubt, perspective is a heckuva lot more than just focal length. Which is why (in addition to my assignment of try using a prime for one full week), you could have another perspective assignment that says...you may take no photos standing up...everything needs to be "higher" (on a ladder) or lower or even below the subject looking up. Or you must shoot everything with a DoF no bigger than f1.8. Or all shots this week must have a foreground and provides perspective. Using a prime for a week doesn't teach you everything you can know about perspective. But from my perspective (no pun intended), it teaches a useful lesson about how we view a setting and compose it. That doesn't render the other lessons irrelevant, I'm simply pointing out one (in my experience) very insightful experience for a new photographer. After that, zoom away.
 
A case can be made that the 28mm lens is the appropriate normal lens for the 135 format. A case can be made for the 35mm lens as the normal lens for the 135 format. A case can be made for the 45mm lens as the normal lens for the 135 format. A case can be made that the 50mm lens was the easiest to manufacture and most affordable lens made for the 135 format.

I'm not kidding about the 28,35mm or 45mm lenses. Seriously, NOT kidding. The way a 28,35, or 45mm focal length lens renders a scene can be construed to have human-eye-like rendering/feeling/vibe on different types of scenes, across different shooting distances.When one is making pictures in CLOSE confines, the 28mm lens give much,much more of a human-eye-like feeling than a 50mm lens does! At distances of 100 yards, the 28mm looks like a door peep-hole.
 
First, I think an incredibly valuable assignment for new photographers is to spend a week shooting with just a prime (but not a 50mm prime). Since generally speaking, a 50mm is human vision,...

Since when? Says who? Show me the math.

What this does is teach perspective.

How so?

Joe

You seem just a little combative today. You may disagree (and some certainly do with the statement I provided) but whether it's right not, it's been repeated a lot on the photography world and you're acting like you've never heard it before.

Does a 50mm Equivalent Lens Really See the Same as a Human? - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light

The Camera Versus the Human Eye

As to the point about perspective, if you have a prime lens (let's say...35mm or 85mm) then instead of looking at a scene and going "oh, what a wonderful picture, I think I'll take it!" and then downloading your shots and discovering it was lost in clutter (b/c you were too far away) or only got part of the composition (b/c you were too close). You start to learn how to "see" using the focal length of the lens and adjust your setup accordingly. For instance, you're taking a portrait of someone with a 35mm lens, he sits down in front of you and having spent a week using that 35mm, you know that's not going to be a flattering pose...he's going to have thunder thighs a the wide angle distorts the objects closest to the camera.

I'm not arguing you should always shoot with a prime. But as a lesson in perspective, it's useful to spend a week wondering with a prime lens on your camera.

Sorry about the combative tone. You're right the, 50mm is equivalent to human vision thing, get's repeated a lot and has been repeated a lot for as long as I've been involved in photo and even since before that. The two articles you linked both say that's bunk if you read them.

The connection between a "lesson in perspective" and a prime or fixed focal length lens I have concerns about because it seems to suggest that perspective is a function of lens focal length -- also something that get's repeated a lot.

Joe

I deliberately chose two articles that admitted that 50mm isn't precise b/c human perspective varies a little bit. But here's the last line from the first article: "The correct answer falls somewhere around 50mm, but there is no exact answer." The second article goes on to make points about how it's not a question of what the eye sees but how the camera represents what it "sees" (or takes a picture of) and it reaches this position on the argument: "Studies have measured the cone of visual attention and found it to be about 55 degrees wide.

Link doesn't work and I'm not buying that "cone of visual attention" stuff.

On a 35mm full frame camera, a 43mm lens provides an angle of view of 55 degrees, so that focal length provides exactly the same angle of view that we humans have. Damn if that isn’t halfway between 35mm and 50mm. So the original argument is ended, the actual ‘normal’ lens on a 35mm SLR is neither 35mm nor 50mm, it’s halfway in between."

Normal lens for any format is defined as the diagonal of the format. In practice that has often been rounded up or down. However it's not called "normal" because it has something to do with human vision and it is not derived from the angle of view of that lens.

Both articles tried to offer some complexity and a bit of fudge factor (by admitting individual differences as well as other factors) but basically say that a 50mm prime is going to produce a picture that comes pretty close to how human beings see that scene.

And I don't disagree with you that there are many things to perspective.

I didn't say there were many things to perspective. In fact when talking about a photograph and perspective there's only one causal factor.

One of the best pieces of advice I got when starting out was from an older photojournalist who always hauled around a cheap aluminum step ladder to things like sporting events, press conferences, public ceremonies. Yes, no doubt, perspective is a heckuva lot more than just focal length.

It's not at all focal length. That's what I had concerns about: The suggestion that perspective is a function of lens focal length. It is not, but it does get repeated a lot. There is a correlation but to suggest that correlation is causal is spurious. Perspective in a photo is solely a function of camera placement relative to the subject. Perspective is not a function of the lens focal length which is why when you suggested using a prime lens for a week would teach perspective I said, "How so?"

Which is why (in addition to my assignment of try using a prime for one full week), you could have another perspective assignment that says...you may take no photos standing up...everything needs to be "higher" (on a ladder) or lower or even below the subject looking up. Or you must shoot everything with a DoF no bigger than f1.8. Or all shots this week must have a foreground and provides perspective. Using a prime for a week doesn't teach you everything you can know about perspective. But from my perspective (no pun intended), it teaches a useful lesson about how we view a setting and compose it. That doesn't render the other lessons irrelevant, I'm simply pointing out one (in my experience) very insightful experience for a new photographer. After that, zoom away.

Joe
 
A case can be made that the 28mm lens is the appropriate normal lens for the 135 format. A case can be made for the 35mm lens as the normal lens for the 135 format. A case can be made for the 45mm lens as the normal lens for the 135 format. A case can be made that the 50mm lens was the easiest to manufacture and most affordable lens made for the 135 format.

I'm not kidding about the 28,35mm or 45mm lenses. Seriously, NOT kidding. The way a 28,35, or 45mm focal length lens renders a scene can be construed to have human-eye-like rendering/feeling/vibe on different types of scenes, across different shooting distances.When one is making pictures in CLOSE confines, the 28mm lens give much,much more of a human-eye-like feeling than a 50mm lens does! At distances of 100 yards, the 28mm looks like a door peep-hole.

This has been kicked around since forever and will continue to be so. The best argument I ever heard for determining what lens focal length on a camera is the right match for human vision comes from Leslie Stroebel (you can find it in his View Camera Technique). Lots of "human vision" studies have been made and just like what Derrel says here, as soon as you move toward an edge the rules start to bend -- 28mm in a tight spot becomes "normal."

What Stroebel suggests, and again this only holds if we keep away from the extremes, is to bring the final image into the equation -- the print. Give a few thousand people a chance to look at prints on the wall from whatever distance they want and measure where they stand. Do this with different size prints. See if there's a distance stood to print-size average and see how strong the tendency is. The result: Most people will comfortably stand back from an image a distance very close to double the long side of the print. From there do the math to calculate what lens focal length on the camera would be needed to frame the exact same image from the camera position. In other words when the print viewing perspective and camera position perspective match what lens focal length frames the print content.

Joe

edit: Stroebel illustrated the topic with this photo.

man_w_frame.small.gif
 
Last edited:
Back to the idea of using a zoom lens like a prime... I have often read people say that they tend to use their zoom lens at both extremes, meaning fully zoomed out (at the short end) and fully zoomed in (at the lens's longest focal length). And I think that is often the case with some of the shorter-length lenses, which also tend to have the shortest zoom ratios, like 2 to 1 or 3 to 1, on lenses like the old 35mm-70mm zooms, and the old 75-150 type tele-zooms, as well as to an extent the 28-70 and 24-70mm zooms which came along and became popular after the 35-70mm zooms had sort of waned.

I shot the Nikon 35-70mm f/3.3~4.5 for a couple years in the early 2000's, and found that I shot mine a lot at 43mm on 1.5x Nikon. But I also shot it a good deal at the short end, and the long end. I don't have software that can log and tabulate EXIF information from folders' worth of images, but maybe there are some folks here who do and who could actually address this idea of using a zoom mostly at its extremes? It seems to me that using a zoom lens that way is, in some ways, like using two different primes, one short,the other longer.
 
I use my zooms sometimes like the OP suggests, and other times I will zoom back and forth as needed depending on situation. However having a Nikon D7000 allows me to use some of the nicest prime lenses every made, the wonderful Ai/Ai-s series lenses. If I know what I want for a perspective I will use my primes whenever I can. Not to mention zooms have so much glass in them that they can and sometimes do make a photo look "flat" and dull depending on the type of light. The old Nikkor primes have significantly less glass in them, and less glass means less change of light degradation which typically will make the pictures "pop" more.
 
primes have their place but I also use the much more flexible zooms for sports and events
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top