During my March 2016 trip to Big Bend National Park in Texas, I came away not only with some wonderful images, but also with several ideas for future articles, including this particular piece regarding prime lenses. I can attest to the fact that a prime lens belongs in a national park just as much as a zoom lens and the images you see in this article were captured with the 14mm, 24mm and 100mm prime lenses I’d packed for this trip.
What Is A Prime Lens?
Unlike zoom lenses, which have more than one focal length, prime lenses have a single, fixed focal length. A 14mm lens only has that focal length of 14mm. Yes, I know, a prime lens doesn’t sound very versatile, does it? Why use something with a single focal length when you can get so much more out of a zoom lens, ranging anywhere from 11-24mm, 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm and beyond?
Prime Vs Zoom Lenses
This is a continuing argument among photographers, along the same line as Raw vs jpg, Apple vs Windows PC, Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sony. I have my own opinions on prime versus zoom but I also looked through a number of blogs and photo articles to see what the authors' opinions might be. Below are the most oft-cited comparisons.
- Prime lenses have always possessed the reputation of producing the sharpest images. This is because there are fewer moving elements than with zoom lenses, although zooms are improving in the sharpness department with each respective model upgrade. The difference between the clarity of my Canon 24-70mm versus my Canon 24mm is practically negligible, although I am still of the personal opinion that a prime is just an eensy bit sharper.
- Because prime lenses possess fewer moving parts, there are fewer mechanical concerns with which to deal. I’ve had problems with my zooms before, and those issues usually dealt with the zoom mechanism (push-pull or rotating ring) as well as the locking mechanism (used to keep a larger zoom lens locked in place so it doesn’t slide in or out during hiking or moving around). As Laura Hicks wrote in her Digital Camera ReviewTM article FPT: Prime Lenses Vs. Zoom Lenses: “The more moving parts there are in the lens, the more that can go wrong.” Amen to that.
- Prime lenses are believed to produce better bokeh. Bokeh is the term used for that pleasantly blurred background.
- Prime lenses tend to be “faster” (although there are quite a few zooms out there – newer versions – that are fast as well). By fast, I mean lenses possessing apertures that open up wider to allow in more light, so they are perfect for low-light imagery (like pre-sunrise and after-sunset shots), and great for night star photography. Anything from f1.2 to f2.8 makes a lens a fast lens. Of course, a lens with a wide aperture doesn’t necessarily equate to total sharpness when “opened up”, but, it still allows more light to get to the sensor than a lens aperture of, say, f4.5.
- Prime lenses tend to weigh less than zoom lenses (except for those super-telephoto primes, of course, which weigh a veritable ton). I compared the lenses I’d brought for my Big Bend Trip alongside analogous zooms. Below are the results.
14mm f2.8: 1.42 lbs
24mm f1.4: 1.4 lbs
100mm f2.8: 1.38 lbs
16-35mm f2.8: 1.4 lbs
11-24mm f4: 2.6 lbs
24-70mm f2.8: 1.8 lbs
100-400mm f4.5: 3.5 lbs
- Prime lenses make you think about your composition and how you want to frame it. Let’s face it. With a zoom lens, all you need to do is stand in one place and you can move that zoom element in and out to capture a variety of imagery without even thinking about it. You can’t do that with a prime lens as the field of view is limited. So, you need to concentrate more on visualizing your shot. You need to move around, move closer, move further away, do whatever you need to do in order to figure out what is going to give you and your viewer the most "wow" factor or the most emotional impact or the most thought-provoking scene from your camera and prime lens. Thinking is good and is something we may not always do when snapping away at a subject using a zoom lens. For the image immediately below, I had in mind the composition I wanted, but because it was a 100mm lens, I needed to back up quite a bit in order to get not only the ocotillo in the frame, but the background desert and mountains as well.
Ok, even after all of this talk about primes, if you have limited luggage space, then you really are probably better off packing a couple of zoom lenses. If you have a little bit of room, however, you could pack a zoom lens and several primes or two zoom lenses and one or two primes. Figure out what you think you’ll be photographing and then mix and match. For my spring 2016 Banff National Park trip, I packed my 14mm, 24mm, 24-70mm, and 100-400mm lenses. I utilized the 14mm, 24mm and the 24-70mm for landscape and interior lodge shots. I brought along my 100-400mm telephoto because I thought I might see some wildlife (which I really didn't), so I ended up using that same zoom for landscape images, just like I did while in Big Bend National Park.
The essence of this article is to urge you to get into a national park and play around with a fixed-focus lens. Don’t just use zooms. A prime lens will entice you into a little more creative thought and the resulting images will be as sharp or maybe a little bit sharper than photos captured with a zoom (in my opinion). Take your time and consider ways to compose and frame your subject. If you can’t get the entire scene into your camera frame, then concentrate on a part of the scene. Figure out what will create the most effect. You'll ultimately find yourself learning about your prime lens while you enjoy your prime time in the national parks.
Comments
gorgeous pics - and yes, the moving parts can be trouble bit is true for just about anything. I love the super closeup of the prickly pear. Nice work!
Primes can produce a blurrier background because you can open the aperture up more. The more that you can open up the aperture, the smaller the depth of field.
Yes, the prime lenses most people are apt to use weigh less than the zooms. However, when you would need more than one prime lens to have the same range that a zoom can have and more prime lenses mean more weight.
I used to carry two bodies and 4 prime lenses. I found that it never mattered which camera/lens I had in my hand at any given moment of photo opportunity, it was the wrong one! As a result, I have a great shot of a coyote's ear. I had the 500mm lens on and he walked right past me! Since then I have used a single high-quality 28-300 zoom for everything. I still occasionally miss a shot because the lens cap is on and the camera off, but I'm always able to catch that wildlife shot without running up to them with my 14mm prime, and the ability to change composition without moving is a real bonus.
Yes, everybody, all your reasons (Jerrye9, you made me laugh) for using zooms are totally valid. This particular article just advocates thinking a little more about using a prime sometimes - not all the time, and not if you have limited luggage space. If I was only able to take two lenses with me on a trip, they would be zoom lenses. But most of the travelling I have done of late has allowed me the luxury of taking more than just two lenses, which means I usually tote along at least one, if not two primes in addition to the zooms.
Your comment on the possible mal function of zooms made my rethink my 'kit" for Glacier Natl Park.I willl be taking some primes also.