Primes vs. Zooms — The Battle Rages On
I Sing a Paean of Praise for Variable Focal Length Lenses
(AKA “Zoom” Lenses, as opposed to “Prime” fixed-focal-length lenses.)
To begin with, I am old. Eighty-two going on eighty-three. You thought Uncle Joe was frail? (OK, let’s not go there.)
…Where was I?
I am an Zoom Man.*
*(Beyond the Fringe, anyone? Brit? Predated the Pythons by nine years? Maybe ya hadda be there.)
Right, getting serious…
Prime Man Dirk Dittmer published the above story a while ago. He, being an Prime Guy, sometimes schleps only three prime lenses: a 24mm wide, a 50mm normal, and a 90mm telephoto, not necessarily all at once. As a matter of artistic discipline, he will use only one at a time, later returning to the same place but with a different objective, light, weather, and possibly different subject matter, observing, learning, and advancing his art.
That takes strong self-restraint I ain’t got. I struggle to get from here to anywhere once, using a big-wheeled articulated gas-shock-absorber “off-road” rollator named Bob (Walker) (see above). I shoot mostly sitting down and take full advantage of my cameras' nifty-swifty bells and whistles, like autofocus (eyesight’s shot too). When I go out, I have to get the picture and go home.
Dirk’s spread of prime focal lengths is modest (24mm wide, 50mm normal, 90mm tele), only 3.75X.
I have a beloved little Sony/ZEISS Vario-Tessar 16–70mm f/4.0 — (24–105 equivalent). This 4X zoom weighs eleven ounces and maintains a constant f/4.0 throughout its range. It replaced the came-with “kit” 16–50mm f/3.5–5.6 “pancake,” a classic slow-and-slower piece of mostly plastic that worked okay-ish. It weighed only 3.2 ounces, which tells you how plastic it was.
That one little Zeiss covers all the focal lengths of Dirk’s three primes plus everything in between — a bagful of primes in one eleven-ounce package.
That’s my argument. Why schlep three separate primes when one zoom will cover?
(In fairness, Dirk has a motive and a method. He works only one prime at a time while returning to his subject on different days, each with a different prime, completely distinct from what I do.)
You have heard that primes are sharper than zooms, faster (larger apertures), lighter weight, et cetera.
I honestly don’t see it. Literally, I can’t see the difference. I know that any lens has a sweet spot, a particular aperture (f/stop) that is the sharpest it can get, which is also true of zooms but varies with the focal length. I find my captures more than adequately sharp, especially after applying some sharpening and noise reduction in post.
Maybe I am kidding myself. Maybe my age and less-than-optimum eyesight fool me. I have a matched pair of 24-inch 4K monitors on my editing computer, so if it ain’t sharp, I will see it. When I do, I take steps using AI denoisers and sharpeners. I’ve always been adept at making cameras perform well above their pay grade in post.
Today, I shoot only RAW. I process all keepers through Adobe CC—Lightroom Classic and Photoshop 2024. If noise appears, I have multiple ways to mitigate it, including the liberal use of Topaz Labs Photo AI, a miracle drug.
I wonder sometimes if all that is cheating. I don’t believe so. I consider it no less than the best use of the best tools to achieve the best result.
Variable Focal Length Lenses, aka “zoom” lenses, incorporate a range of focal lengths within the lens by shifting the lens elements.
- They are heavier than primes because they have more glass and moving parts.
- (But that begs the question: how many primes does one zoom replace, and what do they collectively weigh?)
- Zooms are considered “slow,” and rarely found faster than f/4.0. Many have variable apertures that make them “slow and slower.”
- There is a faster Sony 70–200mm f/2.8 G SSM II Telephoto Zoom Lens that can be yours for the low, low price of three grand U.S. Couple one of these to your tiny under-a-pound half-frame body. It masses a mere 3.31 pounds (1.5 kg) and can even be handheld (oof).
- A “Full Frame” (36 mm by 24mm) is called that because it is the same as a frame of 35mm film, dating back to the legendary Oskar Barnack, who built the first Leica in 1913. Full-frame sensors have almost twice the area of APS-C sensors.
- I am committed to “half-frame” APS-C sensors in my Sony Alpha 6000 series, with a diagonal of 28.4mm. For my cameras, “normal” is ~30mm, a wide angle on a full frame. I apply a “crop factor” of 1.5 to all my focal lengths, a multiplier that gives the equivalent of a full-frame lens.
You young whippersnappers are proud of your ability to set settings and focus manually, et cetera, but age caught up and passed me years ago. I have had two eye surgeries, port and starboard. I see wavy lines in both eyes now. My vision is generally imperfect, yet I can not even contemplate giving up photography: it is all I have left. I bless automation because it lets me do my photography. I’m not sure I could do it without automation.
I began honing my craft over fifty years ago. We shot film with all-manual cameras. We learned all sorts of tricks to semi-automate them. I shot many weddings, learning zone focusing, guesstimating range-to-target with critical accuracy, flashing nearly everything, and rising to challenges on the fly.
But — I was in my thirties.
I could not do it now, not with the technology we had then.
But if I had the stamina, I could do it now with my current “prosumer” (not professional) grade kit.
My Sony A6XXX cameras lack full-frame sensors and dual card slots. However, I take three bodies on every assignment, precisely the number I used in the eighties. Wedding and event photographers know that anything you have only one of WILL break, including your ~$3300 body. If you don’t have backups, you will, sooner or later, be forced to commit seppuku all over the bride’s train. Icky, yes, but it makes your point. Once. (You will never shoot for that family again hyuk hyuk.)
I usually have three bodies on assignment: a matched pair of Sony A6400s and an A6300. I feel fortunate to be able to afford them, as I never have to change a lens; I just start shooting and switching bodies.
- One A6400 has my favorite working lens, 6X Sony E PZ 18–105mm f/4.0 G OSS (27–158 equivalent). The 6X range and relatively lightweight (under a pound) yield superb flexibility. On most typical jobs, the 18–105 shoulders the greatest share of the work, holding a constant f/4.0 throughout its range.
- The second A6400 body will have one of two zoom telephotos. The most used is my Sony E 55–210mm f/4.5–6.3 OSS, (83–315mm equivalent) — 17.6 oz (1.1 lbs). It beautifully overlaps the 18–105. It is light, something us old goats appreciate, and despite being “slow and slower” (f/4.5–6.3), I work indoors under if-fy lighting, often at ISOs around 6400 or higher, and never have the slightest trouble with its performance.
- The third body, a slightly older A6300, weighs 14.2 ounces and is coupled with a 15.2-ounce Sony 10–18mm f/4.0 Wide-Angle Zoom Lens (15–27mm equivalent).
- My other tele-zoom is massive—the longest lens I own — my Sony FE 70–300mm f/4.5–5.6 G OSS Lens (105–450 equivalent). The A6400 body weighs less than a pound with its battery, and the 70–300 weighs just under two pounds—two pounds of lens on a one-pound body. Crazy, non?
Sample photos made with My Massive Monster:
I visited the Omaha Strategic Air Command (S.A.C.) museum, which is crammed full of aircraft, almost all warbirds from WW2 and later. I made good use of the 10–18, mostly at 10mm (15mm equivalent). The lens does show some barrel distortion, but Lightroom easily neutralizes it with a click.
This is not the first story I’ve written extolling zooms over primes, but it will always be a personal preference. At my age, though, keeping things relatively light and flexible is paramount. I never was much for primes; now I have a reasonable excuse. Anyway, I sincerely believe zooms are superior, but that’s me.
📸As always, gratitude for looking in. I sincerely appreciate it! Questions in the comments will be answered promptly, so please ask.😊👍
