I've been arguing for years in favor of primes, basically because I think people who use ONLY zooms or who ASSUME zooms are inherently better can often benefit from having their eyes opened. Shooting with a prime for a while is a great way for people to move the quality of their shooting up a notch or two.
The general advantage of primes is that they're smaller, lighter, faster, less fussy (fewer operations prior to shooting, generally), and have higher overall image quality (generally, these days, that means less flare, and not much else). These points are nearly moot with digital. My current digicam only weighs a few ounces, and it's got a lens that's considerably smaller and lighter than a Leica 50mm Summicron, for instance, and it's a 35-105mm f/1.8-2.6. (My other two cameras, the Pentaxes, both have 50mm lenses on them most of the time.) The real point that continues to get me about "zoom vs. prime" discussions (and I've been involved in a number of them) is: HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE PHOTOGRAPHING UNTIL YOU SEE IT? Most of these arguments presume that the "subject"--the organization and the field of view of the desired picture--are known in advance. That is, let's say you come across a small tree in a field. You wish to make a picture of the tree. So you either a) change your lens, b) change your zoom setting, c) change your vantage point, or d) some combination of the above until the framing is composed to your liking--presumably, with the tree filling the frame adequately but not cut off. But this isn't how most photographs are seen! That is, with many photographs, there may be nothing to zoom in to or out to. What if you're looking at a complex scene and you can: --Set the zoom to 35mm and compose interesting framing; --Set the zoom to 50mm and compose interesting framing; --Set the zoom to 85mm and compose interesting framing? In this situation the zoom is becoming a needless complication, a distraction. Now go one step further than that. I've always maintained that if you're out shooting with a prime lens, you learn to see like the lens sees. That is, you don't need to lift the camera up to your eye to know how the viewfinder is going to frame a view. You already "see" with that "cropping" in mind. And this enables you to SEE PICTURES that, without a set frame in mind, you wouldn't see. The point is not so much that zooms are poor tools, or of lesser quality, or bigger, or whatever. It's that they add confusion to the act of photographing, by introducing too many needless variables and preventing you from seeing acutely. As you're working a subject you'll see a THOUSAND potential framings--tens of thousands. How do you begin to winnow all the choices down to find twenty or thirty that work pretty well, which you'll further refine when you edit? I think it helps greatly when you and the lens are seeing similarly. But then again, maybe I'm wrong about this. I've certainly had good experiences shooting complicated subjects with zooms where the zoom didn't distract or confuse me, and where I was able to make adjustments quickly and intuitively. I guess where I come down on this is merely this: I've always preferred primes; and I believe (operative word--believe) that using primes helps photographers make better pictures; and it's my opinion that any student of the art who is looking to improve his or her shooting skills should pick a prime lens and use it for a year. That would help support my point, because if you pick a prime lens and shoot with it for a year, I guarantee that it will become one of your favorite focal lengths and will probably remain so for the rest of your life. <g> --Mike P.S. By the way, we've got to find something for Chris to do. <g> - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
