Does Using a Fixed/Limited Range Focal Lenght(s) Help or Hinder Creativity? VOTE NOW!

[mid_gen]

With a zoom it's easy to just stand there, point and zoom to get everything in frame, and take the shot.

I find with a prime that you are forced to think more about the composition before taking the picture. Look around and behind you to see if you have space to get a better angle, different field of view, or perspective.

Probably only of relevance to beginners, forcing them to do things that a more experienced photographer will do out of habit...so not a bad thing.

 

[Original Poster]

I voted option A.

Nothing wrong with zoom lenses however with a fixed lens it gets you trying different things from different angles.

IMO there is no right or wrong answer, it comes down to the person behind the viewfinder.

 

[desantnik]

I think you have to seperate the long from the short.

There are different issues around the selection of primes at the long end vs the short primes.

At the long end pretty much everyone wants as much as they can get. The lenses are big and heavy - even bigger and heavier if its a zoom. Having a 1m long 5kg monster thats also a zoom does tend to limit what you do with it even with the zoom (I had a Nikon 200-400). Once you get up close, you quickly want to swap it for something physically smaller and lighter.

At the short end its a different story - a 24-70 or 16-35 vs a 24mm, 35mm or 50mm. What are you doing with these lenses? Landscapes? Portraits? Are you someone who shoots as wide as possible then crops down or are you looking for quick results from fleeting targets.

Quick results from fleeting targets and little cropping probably means you are going to choose a zoom - or at the very least would probably get quicker results with one.

Of course the most common argument, other than that at the short end you can get things faster than f2.8 (not a small technical consideration for some applications), is that a prime represents the same old skool purity as manual mode, manual focus, manual white balance and shooting in raw. This basicness is trumpetted as the Holy Grail by photography forums...

Are you a photography fundamentalist?

 

[boyfalldown]

Of course the most common argument, other than that at the short end you can get things faster than f2.8 (not a small technical consideration for some applications), is that a prime represents the same old skool purity as manual mode, manual focus, manual white balance and shooting in raw. This basicness is trumpetted as the Holy Grail by photography forums...

Are you a photography fundamentalist?

nope - certainly not a fundamentalist, but I do like shooting primes - simply they are (at the shorter end) smaller, lighter and IMHO take a 'nicer' photo.

I'll shoot manual mode all of the time, but manual focus - I can never work out the need for that nowdays