If You Knew This About Zooms, You'd Only Shoot Primes

Great video. As a photo editor at a major newspaper in my country, I see this difference constantly when reviewing assignments from our photographers, all of them experienced, award-winning photojournalists.

The gap between prime and zoom shooters is striking, especially in portraiture. There’s a fundamental difference in how they think. A photographer who shoots with a 35mm doesn’t just use a focal length, they internalize a way of seeing and composing. They move, they commit, they build a visual language around that perspective.

With zoom shooters, you often see the opposite: the framing becomes a byproduct of convenience. A portrait shot at 27mm because “that’s where the zoom landed for the scene” looks and feels completely different from one deliberately composed at 35mm by someone who lives in that focal length.

To be fair, our best photographer shoots zooms, and his work is exceptional. But he’s the exception. The majority of our prime shooters consistently produce tighter, more intentional work than the rest of the zoom users.

I don’t think it’s about the glass itself. It’s about the discipline and the intentionality that shooting primes tends to force on you.

Я бы взял стекла 20мм, 40мм и 400мм.
24 и 85 итак уже есть в наличии =)

The actual dilemma of 5000$ is not having 5000$ 🗿

I wonder how often nature film guy change their lens, it gets really dirty in the wild.

Sigma 17-40 (crop body) f1.8 completely took over my 3 lens travel setup (28-80mm zoom plus 2 primes, 35mm, 85mm equivalents) and from the past 10 years. Yes I miss a bit of 85mm but the freedom of not changing lens is awesome!

I use the zoom when I need to move fast and get shots. When I can take the time, prime.

Great video!! Thank you

With Olympus 12-100mm (24-200mm) the flexibility becomes too great to not use.
But, you can add fast primes to counter low light issue, such as indoors you normally prefer wide angle, night time it depends but usually superwide or 40-60mm
Or portrait 75-150mm.
With this approach you can use primes for niche and excellent zoom for everything else, yes its MFT camera, but in my opinion the sensor do not matter, you should focus on the photography aspect instead. MFT today already in par with the best APS-C sensors except slightly worse noise if you zoom in.
Still, I never met client who complains about noise in images, in fact I hear more often they say the picture looks too plastic when we use medium format.

I know that I've missed at least 1,000 special moments while changing prime lenses at events.

I have a tight budget with my a6000, and my only lens is a 16-55mm zoom lens, but I've been shooting mostly at 33 mm for the past year, and I've found I can position myself so that I don't need to zoom in/out. Also, the reason why I keep shooting with the zoom is that it's the closest I can get to a 50mm full-frame equivalent. Prime lenses are usually 30 or 35mm. Viltrox and Sirui have some, but they are not as sharp, and autofocus lacks compared to my current zoom lens. Now, I know I am being nitpicky, but those mm do matter when I am trying to frame a scene. The only reason I would pick up a Sigma 30mm is that it's more low-profile.

Intention vs convenience, the same can be observed in many other - not only creative - fields.

28mm, 50mm and 135mm. Or a vintage 400mm

I decided to try an apsc 50mm as my first lens as a guide. Then I decided I prefer a 35mm as my main lens for most of my streetphoto.

Personally . I’d get both zoom and primes. It depends more on what you shooting. Weddings 100% zoom. Stills 100% portrait. If you broke like me get one great zoom lens. Then just stick to one focal length and practice “primes”

I use both now. Different tools for different tasks. Using the classic 3 primes is great but can get kinda boring when all the photos have a similar feel, especially 50mm. I would say a 35 and an 85 is a good starting combo. Also trying macro and supertele will help understand what happens to the image at different focal lengths. I found macro to be alot of fun and it teached me manual focus and how to use a flash as well.

For unpredictable subjects like wildlife I always take my zoom now despite primes being faster. With 300+mm the background will be blurry anyway and you cant predict how close the subject will be. I rather get any shot than none. For long travels I either take a standard zoom or a small f1.8 prime that is more convinient to carry. For portraits and family I take the fast primes.

It also depends if it is for documenting an event or locations a zoom is great. If its more about the image itself and getting the best photo possible the primes will do their job.

I also want to mention that strictly going for fast primes can be a downside as learning aperture is equally important. Learning when to capture a location rather than isolating a subject is a skill. I made the mistake of only shooting wide open at first because many said how good fast aperture primes are, which made parts of the image blurry that shouldnt be. Especially my dogs dont look good when their eyes are razor sharp but their noses are blurry.

I think there are some holes in the logic here. First, when it was stated $5K only for lenses, I thought a lens. Good lenses are expensive.  

He is right that fixed focal length does force one to move around. I do not think zoom automatically makes one as lazy as he stated. I agree that with my 70-200 I use it mostly at the limits (40% at 200mm, 25% at 70mm and 35% at some in-between). For the very reason that I am at the limits so often I am moving around. In fairness I did spend about 25 years with only a 50mm F2. I didn't have money and was happy with the results (and admittedly less creative) didn't explore lens option. So given the theory expressed, yeah I paid my dues with one focal length.

On the other hand, I really didn't understand what I was missing with different focal lengths and good lenses. I think it really makes sense to get one's hand on zooms, even if just temporarily, to get the feeling of what can be done with different focal lengths. And this should be done with good lenses not something cheap as the experience is very different.

The unexpected finding I had was that a fast 200mm is actually a very good focal length for event photography, even indoor events. The reason being I can get in close on someone, and capture those candid moments, from across the room. A distance where they don't realize I am looking their way.

My 70-200mm F2.8 is my go to lens. Even though I mostly shoot at the limits, 200mm for those close shots and 70mm when I am capturing a larger group, it saves me from having to have two cameras or spending time swapping lenses. And then those in-between focal lengths I tend to use when something quickly is happening that I want to capture and don't have time to move. Admittedly this is a very expensive lens, but I think it is worth it.

There are more reasons behind zoom lenses were not being used from start by the mentioned photographers. Optical quality used to be worse for zooms, not even to mention if such a lenses which we are using nowadays existed. They also really needed the wide aperture of prime lenses, which is not big deal with todays ISO performance. Since they went through the pain, it doesn't mean we have to also. Zooms and prime lenses are tools and you better choose the right tool for your work, that's all.

If you can only have ONE prime lens for any situation, you will realise how frustrating and limiting it is and be desperate for a zoom lens.

Primes for me. 16mm, 24mm, 35mm and 90mm (macro). F1.8 is enough for me.
But I start to add a very compact version of each focal length. That’s why my prime collection is growing 😂

Very well put

I've switched from start kit lens to first 50mm 1.8 then I'm using only the 35mm 1.8 I love those lens ! Occasionally I use my 100-400 for birds ❤