Just read an article by Mike J about his affection for 40mm lenses.
Nothing wrong with that article, it just got me thinking. I don’t get that affection some people have for that one prime lens. Well, that’s not entirely true, I do get that affection, what I don’t get is how people who don’t really share that affection, but wish they were, are arguing for it. I’m not saying Mike J is one of them, again, his article just spurred my thought. It usually takes the form of; “My hero uses that lens (or that film format, or whatever…), so that must be good. I don’t really know why he/she think that’s good, so I come up with something myself. “
Back to the heading of this post, and my second thought of the day on this topic.
I have had my fair share of primes, and I still own a 50mm and a 100mm macro that I only use for special purposes. The 50mm when I want something small, and the 100mm for, well you know, macro. The thing is, I’m not that fond of the primes. It is always a limiting factor when it comes to the crop I want. A prime advocate would then just say, you just step back (or forward), and then you get both a zoom and exercise. Can’t argue against the exercise part, but the zoom part I strongly disagree with. I love my zoom. With them I can first pick my viewing point, and thus select the right perspective. Then I zoom in and out until I get the right crop. If I had to move back or fore, the perspective would change, and I would have made a different image. With a prime, I would have to select. Either settle with the crop I happen to get, selecting the perspective, or select the crop and settle with whatever perspective I happen to get.
This is my take at walking vs. zooming.
- Your feet: A perspective changing device. Excellent for changing the relationship between objects in front of you.
- Zoom. A cropping device.


