The Case for Prime Lenses

 

Art Model, Alba ©2021 Terrell Neasley 
Shot on Sony a6500, 55mm, 1/30th, f/1.8, ISO 640

It may not be a well-known fact about me, but I like to shoot with prime lenses more than I do zoom lenses. Yep, it's the truth! And this is a preference for me that has developed from years of experience with both types of lenses. Over time, my palate has been refined to a different taste and zooms lenses have become baloney to my "prime" steaks.

I began photography shooting zooms. Before I even understood zooms, I figured a small number that goes to a big number was the shit. So a 55mm that zoomed to 250mm was big stuff. Then I came to realize my ignorance and switched to the trifecta of lenses, the 16-35mm, 24-70mm, and the 70-200mm... all f/2.8! I ran with this for a long time and eventually added my first prime, the 85mm 1.2! That's correct. My first prime was a $2500 lens and not the $100 nifty-fifty 1.8. 

Art Model, Alba ©2021 Terrell Neasley 
Shot on Sony a6500, 24mm, 1/10th, f/5.6, ISO 3200

The 85 1.2 is where it started and where I first learned real speed in a lens. F/2.8 USED to be fast glass. F/1.2?? Now that's speed! But what good was this speed? How often would I need this speed? Yes, I like fast glass, but honestly, it's a bit over-rated. I shoot in the dark a lot, so it comes in handy, but rarely do I find myself needing 1.2 shallowness as a travel photographer. Two-Eight is still really good and so is One-Eight. That being said... don't kid yourself. F 1.4 is the standard. 

But the more true reason I'm all primes now is the quality of my work and that's all that should matter. And I'm not talking just sharpness, but that's high on the list of considerations when you're shooting a high-resolution camera system. What I DON'T get from a Prime lens is also important. I don't get chromatic aberrations. I don't get a lot of vignette. Distortion is also minimized. And when I do get a little barreling when shooting my Sony 24 1.4 G-Master, it's pretty much auto-corrected when I begin editing using lens profiles. I also don't get any gravitational lensing in my work. Shit... sorry. Mixing astrophysics into my photography. I do that sometimes.

Art Model, Alba ©2021 Terrell Neasley 
Shot on Sony a6500, 24mm, 1/50th, f/2.8, ISO 100

Anytime you consider the pros and advantages of something, it's fair to do cons and disadvantages. However here's the thing... with prime lens, the Number 1 disadvantage is a PRO for me!

Yep, I said that right and that's what you read. Ask anyone. The biggest disadvantage for primes is the fixed focal length. It only has one. It's such an disadvantage that they made it the name of the alternative to prime lenses... Zoom Lenses. Having a fixed or singular focal length means you CANNOT zoom to a greater or lesser focal length.

What's a focal length? That's the first number you use to describe a lens. You refer to it in millimeters, such as a 24mm lens. A 200 millimeter lens. Twenty-Four to Seventy Millimeter lens. Like that... see?

Art Model, Alba ©2021 Terrell Neasley 
Shot on Sony a7r2, 24mm Macro, 1/80th, f/2.8, ISO 400

If there is one number, it's a prime. Prime, meaning one. If there are two numbers, it's a zoom. You can zoom from one focal length to another. Sometimes that zoom range will be short and sometimes long. A 16-35mm lens is short focal range, but typical for a wide-angle lens. A 28-300mm lens is considered to be an all-in-one lens with a long zoom range. 

A point of fact to understand is that focal length has nothing to do with the Angle of View for a lens. Wide-angle vs Telephoto isn't defined by millimeters. It's defined by degrees. Focal length is an actual distance defined by the distance between the point of convergence and the sensor (or film plane). Click on the highlighted text for illustrations of this. 

Art Model, Alba ©2021 Terrell Neasley 
Shot on Sony a7r2, 55mm, 1/40th, f/1.8, ISO 640

So back to my point. How is the main disadvantage of a prime lens a PRO for me? In a nutshell, it helps me develop as a photographer. A prime lens makes turns ME into the Zoom function. If I need a closer perspective (Zoom in) I move my feet! If I need to zoom out, I move my feet! In either case, I am choosing my composition and interacting with my subject. It makes me more involved to make these choices and since it is not something as unconscious as spinning a zoom ring on a lens, I become more purposeful and more focused on what my selections are. I think about my composition more. I do not do it as an afterthought while operating the camera. I become more resolved and the reasons for making those specific choices are much more conscious and deliberate. I am better for it, because I took the control away from my tool and did it myself. 

Light has to travel through more glass and air inside the barrel of a zoom lens. This makes it more prone to light loss and diffraction as it bounces around the inside of the lens. It's manipulated through more glass of various concave and convex shapes on its way to the point of convergence before it hits your sensor. This can vary the degree of sharpness from one photo to the next as well as introduce chromatic aberrations and vignettes.

Art Model, Alba ©2021 Terrell Neasley 
Shot on Sony a7r2, 55mm, 1/60th, f/3.5, ISO 100

I enjoy shooting with prime lenses, even when I am forced to change lenses from my 24mm to my 55mm lens. I shoot wide to standard. Rarely do I shoot telephoto anymore. It's not my genre and hardly ever has it been so. I noticed this 10 years ago while doing a lens profile on my photos and less than 10% of my images where shot on anything longer than 90 or 100 millimeters. 

I don't say I'll never use zooms. I'm even thinking about the Tamron 35-150. I'm a travel photographer but not all my work needs to be artistic. Sometimes I just want to see further out and get that shot. And I don't knock zooms either. The 24-70 served me well! But as I said, I refined my tastes and prime lenses suit me better. They might even be more expensive in some cases. But I get my speed. They are often smaller and lighter weight. And as I've stated, the quality is unmatched. The 24 to 70 is badass. But I prefer a 24mm lens and a 55mm lens. And soon to have... a 105mm Macro!

Art Model, Alba ©2021 Terrell Neasley 
Shot on Sony a7r2, 55mm, 1/60th, f/1.8, ISO 100

Less is More... Stop Shooting So Damn Much!

 "Art is the elimination of the unnecessary."

 –Pablo Picasso

Absolutely nothing fast about 12 shots per roll, Hasselblad 501c film camera with prism viewfinder

There is this one scene in "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" between actors Sean Penn and Ben Stiller that epitomizes a concept that I think is often forgotten among photographers as well as people just taking pics. Not every memory needs to be captured by a camera. Not every moment needs to be immortalized on a "memory" stick. There are some instances when the camera does more harm than good. To paraphrase Sean Penn's character in the embedded video, "The camera can be a distraction." And that's what I want to talk about a little bit here.

I've had a few moments like this when I chose not to bring my camera on a trip. I actually got vilified mainly because, "I was wasting opportunities..." and "I may never get to return to this place..." and so forth. That's not the way I looked at it. There have been more than one occasion of these instances, but in this particular situation, I wanted to enjoy my time with a friend who wasn't a photographer and I didn't want to spend all my time "needing to get the shot". Otherwise, I would have ended up neglecting the companionship for which I traveled there for in the first place.

Simplicity, Copyright 2010 Terrell Neasley

Here's another reason you don't need to take a picture of everything. Petapixel.com once did a post on their popular blog an article by the British Psychological Society that they titled, "Simply Snapping a Photo Harms Your Memories of Things, Study Finds". Now their study requires a bit more research, I'm sure. They use a base their finding, per the article, based on a sample size of 50 undergraduate students. 5000 students would have been more convincing, but the findings are nonetheless comparable to my own experiences, albeit not as measurable scientifically.

Put the damn camera down! I've talked about this before. Look around yourself and just enjoy the moment for what it is. At the very least, slow down. Get a few shots and stop. Blasting on rapid fire mode trying to capture everything tends to make you lose the gift of the memory and here are three reasons why this makes sense:

One... Repetitively speaking, your mind won't feel the need to remember something you know is already recorded when you establish this as a habit. It takes the work away from the brain. No need to commit a visual to long term memory when you think you've captured every aspect of it with 312 shots of one scene.

TWO... Odds are, you're never gonna go back and look at those pics. They'll stay on your SD card or computer hard drive. And there's a stronger propensity that nobody else is going to want to look at those pics even if you did pull them out. Think about it. NOBODY CARES! Who wants to sit and mull through all 1,538 of your vacation photos. After a while, even you'll get tired of the 11th image of the same scene and start fast forwarding through to find the good ones. And if you look like you're bored, why should anybody else sit through them.

And Three... You create so much extra work for yourself. When you download all those filled-to-capacity SD cards, or whatever storage media you are using, a few things take place. You realize you have to go through all those photos! AND now you have clogged up your hard drive with a bunch of nonsense. A few months down the road, you'll be at your max capacity on your hard drive and then going through folders to see what shots you can eliminate. Save your brain the stress and your hard drive the unnecessary wear. 

Copyright 2012 Terrell Neasley

"It’s not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential."

 –Bruce Lee

Here is one more reason why you won't remember so well and why the camera can be a distraction. When the camera comes between you and a memory, think about why you actually see versus what the camera sees. When you take in a moment without the camera, you have almost a 180 hemisphere of sight in front of you. Not only that, but ALL of your senses can become engaged in that moment. You remember the aroma of the honeysuckle that has completely engulfed the fence that your kids are playing next to in a mud puddle. You can hear the low hum of all the bees and wonder if you should have the kids play elsewhere, but rationalize that you are being over-protective until the youngest one grabs a bee and is stung.

Copyright 2012 Terrell Neasley

All that makes for a story and engraves that memory in your brain. You are totally engrossed in that moment and are capturing information using all your senses. Now try to think of that same scene but now, close off all your senses except for your sight, because that's the only one you are paying attention to. Then take an empty paper towel roll and view that same scene looking through it. Can you visualize that? How much information is actually being recorded to your brain? Not much! You've limited yourself to tunnel vision and sounds and smells have no relevancy any more.

And show some respect, like my friend Marci in a museum. Do you really need to take pics of someone else's art? Put the camera down. Use your eyes. Record it to your brain. Its not your responsibility to have something to show the next guy. Let them come to the museum on their own and experience it in person. Your job isn't to record and share with the world for sake of posterity. If anything, come back with a story! Tell that! Motivate others to visit that museum!

Shoot less. Otherwise you cheat yourself.