Zooming with a Fixed Length lens

[smackitsakic]

Greetings all,

I don't have the luxury of just heading down to a local store for lens shopping, and this is a very beginner question.

When a lens has a fixed length (ie: Canon Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Autofocus Lens), is your only option to zoom in/out by moving closer/further from your subject? I'm assuming this is the case, which seems extremely limiting, but any response to this basic question would be great.

I'm doing some lens shopping for a work project and came across this EF 135mm lens, however, am going to have to immediately disregard it and favour something like a EF 24-105mm f/4L for its zooming functionality.

Any help would be great. Thanks!

 

[o hey tyler]

Well, there isn't any "zooming" involved. It acts like your Sigma 50mm prime. You're just changing your perspective. Personally, I'd go for the 135 f/2 as I am a huge fan of prime lenses. I shoot with a 35mm, 50mm and 85mm mostly and I've never felt the need to have a zoom YET. However, I've been peeping the 70-200mm for quite some time... Wouldn't mind having that zoom lens.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Why shooting with just a 35mm lens WILL improve your photography | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

Read that before saying primes are too limiting and that you are going to have to disregard them, I used to say the same as you and 'OHHH myyy' what a newbie mistake it really was!

You should NOT under any circumstances just stand in one place and simply zoom your lens, you should move your feet anyway even if you are using a zoom. Do not become a lazy zoomer at any cost known to man, your photography and composition will suffer badly! Believe me I suffered from this disease for quite awhile and then would say to people 'Oh why are my photos so rubbish?'

 

[Felix0890]

Don't forget cropping. The 135mm is so sharp that you'd be able to get very sharp 100% crops. Heck, even my 70-200mm, which isn't as sharp as the 135mm is sharp enough to produce great 100% crops.

 

[fazz33]

Foot zoom is the best zoom.

 

[MLeeK]

Don't forget that foot zoom is not really zoom at all, but changing the whole image and perspective if you want to get really technical.
What are you using this lens for? That will really help with what you'll need.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Foot zoom is the best zoom.

...yet it is not always possible.

 

[Josh66]

I'm doing some lens shopping for a work project and came across this EF 135mm lens, however, am going to have to immediately disregard it and favour something like a EF 24-105mm f/4L for its zooming functionality.

The 135 is longer and two stops faster. Is "zoom" an absolute requirement for your work project?

Knowing more about what you're going to be using it for would help a lot. 135mm and 24-105mm are not exactly similar lenses...

 

[fazz33]

If it's not always possible, change the way you compose to match the situation. If that's not possible. Well, I'm out of ideas.

 

[bazooka]

Zoom lenses aren't always about convenience. Sure they aren't as sharp as primes of the same class (usually of any class). But simply walking closer or further from your subject (if even possible as BJ pointed out) isn't the same as using a different focal length. Not by a long shot.

If I were you and I didn't have a good range of lenses between the 24 and 105 focal lengths, I have no problem recommending that lens. It sure is easier to carry around and cheaper than buying a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a 100mm which you would HAVE to do to get *roughly* the same perspectives that the 24-105 offers.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

If it's not always possible, change the way you compose to match the situation. If that's not possible. Well, I'm out of ideas.

Use a zoom lens and aquire your vision as you see it.
Get what you want, instead of what you can.

Nice try though.

 

[Ysarex]

The point of perspective in a photo, which is determined by camera placement, is arguably one of the most critical decisions you make about a photo. Few other things as dramatically determine the character of the shot. Once you've made that critical perspective decision, a zoom lens lets you keep it without compromise.

Joe

 

[SCraig]

Foot zoom is the best zoom.

...yet it is not always possible.

Exactly. I cut my teeth on prime lenses. There was a time, many years ago, when they were all we had (in addition to cameras without ANYTHING automatic and that includes a light meter). We managed to get great photos then and people still do. That said, I have no interest in confining myself to the limitations of a prime lens these days. My last prime was purchased about 25 years ago.

Are they sharper? Slightly. Are they faster? Maybe. Are they more convenient? No way. Try getting a bird to stand still so you can get close enough to take a closeup with a 50mm lens. I like my 150-500 zoom (and my 70-300 zoom and my 17-70 zoom).

To each their own. I can understand the reasoning behind loving prime lenses, and I may get another some day, but right now I prefer zoom lenses.

 

[o hey tyler]

Foot zoom is the best zoom.

...yet it is not always possible.

Exactly. I cut my teeth on prime lenses. There was a time, many years ago, when they were all we had (in addition to cameras without ANYTHING automatic and that includes a light meter). We managed to get great photos then and people still do. That said, I have no interest in confining myself to the limitations of a prime lens these days. My last prime was purchased about 25 years ago.

Are they sharper? Slightly. Are they faster? Maybe. Are they more convenient? No way. Try getting a bird to stand still so you can get close enough to take a closeup with a 50mm lens. I like my 150-500 zoom (and my 70-300 zoom and my 17-70 zoom).

Anyone trying to get an up-close and personal shot of a bird with a 50mm prime lens is an idiot.

Prime lenses are more than "slightly" sharper than zooms of the same focal length, but I suppose that is somewhat subjective. They also usually give you a larger maximum aperture than zooms in the same range.

If you really wanted to get an up close and personal shot of a bird you'd use a 400mm f/5.6 or longer. The birds won't be afraid of you running up to them with a 50mm lens on your camera that way.

 

[usayit]

Try getting a bird to stand still so you can get close enough to take a closeup with a 50mm lens. I like my 150-500 zoom (and my 70-300 zoom and my 17-70 zoom).
.

You do realize that there exists primes in the 300mm and 500mm range?

The few wildlife photographers I've run into are usually renting very fast and long telephotos. Even at 400mm focal length, many say is too short. They all seem to say that a 500mm focal length @ f/6.3 is too slow and limits them to specific times of the day (bright sunlight). It gets worse when they start stacking teleconverters.



Prime vs Zoom... there is no universal right answer. Me... I prefer primes but I've spent a fair share on zooms as well.


Some further thoughts regarding previous posts:
* Just because we are talking primes, doesn't mean just a 35mm or 50mm
* Just because we are talking primes, doesn't mean that you are only carrying a single lens.
* Just because we are talking primes, doesn't mean that you must carry 4-5 lenses to fill in every possible focal length gap to equate a focal range of a zoom.
* Its not necessarily an This or That question. My smallest package for a walk around was 24-105L + 50mm f/1.4.
* Both have their usefulness.