I’m not native English speaker and I subscribed your channel because you are the only one reviewer out there who actually make subtitles for your videos instead of letting youtube auto-generates it. Thank you. Your videos are always full of information.

After forcing myself to only use primes over the years and becoming comfortable with those particular focal lengths, using a zoom is a much better experience than when I first started in photography, with that being said, I still prefer to shoot with primes. I love picking a prime and going somewhere to shoot knowing that I only have this one focal length to get pictures with, it's a great challenge and lot of my best work come from that. Zooms are great for when I need the versatility but they always leaves me questioning my compositions sometimes, i.e, should I zoom in more? Should I zoom out? Should I get closer and zoom in more or should I get closer and zoom out? With a prime lens I know exactly what I want, it makes photography more enjoyable to me and fun. I've taken a few portfolio shots with zooms, nothing wrong with using zooms whatsoever. But I don't find them fun to me. I like being restricted and I think a lot photographers think that way as well.

I'd say that weather sealing is probably also superior with a prime. Fewer moving parts, fewer entry points for dust and water.

That intro audio meter effect was excellent! I love that idea and recognize the effort that went into those 5 seconds. Well done!

I finally bought my first camera. I got the Fuji XT20. And I’m so happy with it and the 18-55 kit Lens is amazing! I’m so satisfied with it. For now, I don’t see any reason to buy a prime lens yet.:)

The fallacy of "zoom with your feet" and the companion "zooms make you lazy" is one of the most pernicious lies in photography. People gobble it up without thinking about the background assumptions. What they most of the time do not realize is that the feasibility and benefits of using primes instead of zooms are very dependent on the focal length, and the relationship is not linear. The zooms are pretty much indispensable at the ultrawide end of things. No single prime lens can give you what an 8-16 zoom can (I tried). You will find it very hard to move in a way that will enable you to do everything that zoom would allow you to. Period. Similar, but much more forgiving, situation occurs at the long end. The 50-230 mm zoom can give you selective magnification and compressing ability you can duplicate with the 56 mm or 90 mm primes only with great difficulty as it will require to move a long distance or to a location that it might not be feasible. Primes can most effectively replace zooms only in the middle range, like 16-55. Besides feet zooming, there is also cropping, something that the modern optimized lenses and high megapixel cameras favor, but it comes at the expense of deeper DOF and some image quality. This works very well on the long end, wildlife and sports photographers use it all the time. So, if you have a 10-24 lens and a 50-230 lens, 35 f/1.4 instead of 18-55 may be a good idea. 16 f/1.4 instead of 10-24 - much less so. Mind you, "feet zooming" only works for static subjects and scenes where you actually have the time to analyze the scene, then do the feet movement. Many of the most exciting photo opportunities are dynamic and allow you no such luxury. And that's not even beginning to talk about the hassles and dangers of frequent lens changes.

Great explanation Andrew!! I use red badge zooms to get the shot that i would have missed if i wouldn't have been able to move with my feet,primes i use for subject seperation and low light, red badge zooms are sharper at the smaller focal length than most primes.. i use my trio of fujicrons for travel.

Great explanation! I enjoy your videos. Greetings from Germany!

This comes out as the very excellent 16-80 zoom comes out from Fuji. It could be an all purpose travel lens. Sometimes when on side of road or in a vehicle there is no option to move closer and a zoom can help create interesting frames.

To those who ask me, I recommend a zoom to 'documentaeians' like vacation goers and parents but primes to people who want to dive further into photography. Convenience vs. Greater creative options. Sidenote: I do disagree with image quality distances between the two to some extent. Zoom lenses do usually have more distortion and at the same apertures, a prime will usually vignette less and have less CA. At least when comparing lenses in a band's similar price range. Though this shouldn't meaningfully affect most photographers. Content > optical perfection

Great review, mate! 👍

Good stuff. I wish I had those tips a few years ago.

Well said - clear and rational.

Interesting video. I enjoy using the small fuji primes but I find one significant advantage to using a good zoom as a walk around lens, especially if the walk around area is a sandy, windy beach. When does a water proof camera become a not waterproof camera? When you take the lens off. Not having to change lenses in the field lessons the chances of getting dirt, sand, water, etc. on you sensor, especially if you are an uncoordinated klutz like me. Sand and sensors do not mix.In this regard I am very eagerly looking forward to getting there Fuji 16-80 if one ever become available. If you can get a hold of one, Andrew, I would be interested in your thoughts about it.

Digging the new frames!

Great as always. Thanks! Now please consider doing another one on vintage primes on a Fuji.

That new keylight is awesom!

Solid advice and video. I'm over here #teamprimes over everything but maybe I'll try to get at least the zoom you recommend.

Very good, thank you.

clicked because I was interested in your point. Well explained, thanks.

Something i really love about primes is that you start to think and see the world around you in focal lenght, while with a zoom lens you just .. dont. but something that worked for me quite nicely back then when i was using a zoom here and there was.. forcing me to use the zoom lens like a prime, or as if i had multiple primes. lets say i had a 18-55mm, i would refuse to use whole spectrum but stick to lets say 18mm 30mm and 50mm and only ever use the zoom to change between those 3, while anything in between was non existent. That way it felt more like a convenient 3 prime lenses without swapping and made using it much more fun and consistent.

Very helpful.

I own NOTHING but primes, and so far I couldn’t be happier. But zooms will always be superior when it comes to composition, and the reason I say this is because “zooming with your feet” shifts the articles in your image around (for street photography and such) and may potentially affect the initial photo you were intending to capture. With a zoom lens, you can study your scene, line up a composition with your eyes, then adjust your camera to frame that photo. With a prime, you may have lined everything up perfectly, only to realize your lens is too wide.. then you switch from a 23mm to a 35mm and realize it’s too tele. So then you have to either move physically and change the perspective and alignment of your subject, or shoot the 23mm and crop it. With a zoom, you can adjust your field of view to the perfect amount without shifting your perspective by “zooming with your feet”. I am very happy with my 3 F2 primes because I love the tiny size and balanced ergonomics with my X-T4, shooting with small lenses feels like that’s how the X-t4 was intended to shoot, not only for the size of the lenses, but the overall feel of shooting primes. But, I do sacrifice the efficiency of zooming, for that, consciously.

Required viewing, thanks for posting this. I would add that prime-centric shooters have a need for a zoom on the long end, like the Fuji 50-140mm... fixed primes in that range (like the 90mm) are difficult walk around/travel/landscape lenses compared to wider primes. Plus, the 50-140 has plenty of compression, shallow DOF, speed, and lovely bokeh for most needs.... not to mention stabilization, which is almost necessary at these lengths.

Now I have ( for 3.5 yrs ) a Lumix Fz2500 fixed zoom lens bridge camera - f 2.8 ~ 4.5, 24 ~ 480mm. Soon, I plan on acquiring a Panny G9 & 2 lenses. I have a harness that can take both cameras which I'll take on the Camera -Totin - Days ( the photography group I'm in ) outings. The Fz I'll use for more distant wildlife shots & the G9 ( bigger sensor & newer features ) closer in subjects. Thanks for doing this topic.

I love using primes not simply because of them being smaller, but the photographic approach. By not having a zoom, you are having a less distractions and you can focus better on framing and composition. I simply know what will be in frame and what will not, even before looking through the viewfinder.

I've been using 2 lens for the last 6years in my line of work NIKON 10-24mm and NIKKOR105 af-d DC. I use 24-70 2.8 for leisure shoot. My grand father told me when i was starting in photography to get one zoom lens first, work around that lens try all the different types of photography in just one lens then you decide what kind of photography you want to pursue. I ended up in a real estate/architecture business photography, hence the lens choice i made. Now i'm saving for Nikkor shift lens which is kinda expensive but essential to my line of work.

I'm not partial to either - but there are times for one over the other. Usually when I travel or take a long trip where I don't want to carry many things, I take a zoom. Btw kudos for tackling the zoom vs prime sharpness thing. Was true back in the vintage days, not so much anymore : )

"Welcome to Golf Chat™️ with Andrew." 😎

While I love Fuji's f/2 line, it is a bit soft when shot wide open, especially close up, compared to the 18-55. You take the good with the bad though. For all the positives I gain with the 35/2 prime (lighter, smaller, faster AF, weather resistant, silent, and wider aperture) the small shortcoming of being soft wide open is a more than fair trade-off. That being said, zooms certainly have its rightful place in my collection. The 18-55 kit is my run-and-gun lens. I take it hiking because it covers a broad focal range so I don't have to fuss with constantly changing lenses. Right tool for the right job. I will also say Fuji's lens quality is far superior than many other manufacturers. They're in a league of its own. Take the kit 18-55 for example. Metal construction, superb image quality, solid feel in the hands, and the OIS is one of the best I've used. Got down to 1/4 second with pin sharp images. Probably the best kit lens on the market. To get any of that out of Canon, I'd have to spend at least a grand, which is why I defected to Fuji

I need the primes for my concertphotography, but next week I gonna try the Sigma 18-35 1.8 on my Fuji X-T3.

After shooting for a very long time, going from shooting the typical girls to corporation events and studio I'd say that each type of lens has its place. If a zoom makes you lazy that's because you haven't been long enough in the photography world, I'd never shoot an event not matter which type without a zoom lens. It's versatility is undeniable and the ability to have many different compositions is priceless. Try shooting with a prime on a tight space and your client asks you for crowd ambient shots...yeah ain't gonna happen if you have a 50mm prime. Primes are more of an artist lens, good for studio, good for those bokeh shots everyone on social media wants but the money shot is with zoom lenses nowadays, fast, sharp, reliable. Sure I use primes, love them but very niche. I always tell the young ones, if you want to start earning money, get a good zoom and then yes get a good prime.

This video is cool and useful and stuff but also your glasses are pretty dope.

Congratulations for this interesting topic! As a long time photographer (and videographer) which have many primes and many zooms, I would say these 4 statementnts are not totally myths! From my experience I learned that you must match the lens to your need, preferences, mood, and actual situation in the field. Yes, as you said, some zooms are even sharper than some primes (and not only legacy primes at their maximum aperture), and they not make you lazy... In some events it's more convenient to use a zoom to compose your shot from the other corner of the room / hall than sit in front of other viewers or cameras, so, even if a normal zoom is slower, it will make your life (and others') easier! And very fast zooms like Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 are sharper than many 35 mm primes (shame on Sony's), and enables you to compose very beautiful shots with 3D appearence easily (with the expense of that dreadful weight and size) BUT the primes are smaller and sometimes less obtrusive (Sigma 30 mm f/1.4). So, ideally, you have to rely on 2-3 Zooms in your bag WITH at least too fast primes. (and sometimes two bodies) That's what I do at events (exposition openings, corporate events etc, even weddings). A fast prime and a decent zoom (in a normally lit room/hall) with a modern camera prevents you from using the flash, and a small continous light (Lume Cube is awesome) makes people think you are only make video, so they are less rigid.

Great video. I think you explained it well. I use both. Usually a 12-60mm 2.8 and then three or four primes( maybe a 28mm..50.. 135mm). Camera lenses are just tools. Subject matter and composition is what so many photographers seem to miss. Expensive gear will just take really nice bad photos.

"The zoom allows you to take full control over the focal length". You could also argue that the zoom FORCES you to take control over the focal length, which naturally is one reason they're not recommended for beginners-it's one less variable to juggle. Even now, having been shooting for coming up on 20 years, I still often prefer to go out with a prime if I want to relax while shooting, just because it's less of a mental load.

For me I dont really care whether prime or zoom. The 3 main factors for me are price, weight, and what can the lens do for my photography. A good example is I finally had enough to afford a used fuji 27mm and I got it somewhat specifically for my grandmoms 90th birthday. Due to size of the lens it shouldnt scare anyone off and I get nice enough dof with it. I also got it for $160 which is all I had when I got it. I grew up in the years with film point and shoots where there was no zoom feature so im fine with primes or without it isnt an issue. However the question of weight is a big one for me. Id rather choose lighter and be able to shoot longer than get tired too soon. Long ago I had a nikon d300s and a great 80-200 because people kept saying a long zoom was a must have. It cost $1000+ at the time and the lens was so heavy I hated it. I never even took it out of the house because I didnt want to carry that weight around and just sold it later on. These days ill shoot with either prime or zoom but the lens I buy has to give me something some angle, advantage, or purpose the others dont while meeting my needs. Im doing good so far perhaps soon able to buy another lens when I can probably only having maybe 4 lenses max and 2 camera bodies and thats all I need. Well sorry for the long winded comment im just trying to explain why primes vs zooms isnt even relevant for me anymore and hopefully this helps someone else struggling with the same dilemma.

When I went on safari I was glad for the zoom lenses, I didn't fancy walking right up to the lions etc

As just a casual photographer, I guess I never thought in terms of "primes vs zooms" in absolute terms but rather in the context of what I will be doing with the camera and where. When travelling I think a zoom with a wide focal range (e.g. 18mm - 105 or 18-200mm) is great for an all in one outdoor use in daylight (APS-C) . For inside museums and art galleries a reasonably fast wide lens like a 23 mm F 1.8 lens gives good results. For churches and palaces a moderately fast lens like a 16-50 f2.8 is practical. I could keep going but I guess I just pick the lens I will use based on lighting conditions, subject, photos or video, likely focal length requirements and shooting conditions (which determine suitable weight, need for weather sealing and practicality of frequent lens changes during the session/outing ). Primes can be fun and remind me of the simple days when I was a kid shooting with my Kodak Brownie and Instamatic. Zooms are also fun because of the ability to frame distant objects/people. It's all good :-)

My own solution, and the solution I suggest to fellow enthusiasts/starters facing similar choices, is a smaller advanced zoom compact (preferably a fast one) for coverage and emergencies, paired with primes lenses on larger DSLR/mirrorless body. The best from each world really. The advanced zoom compacts are largely meant for backups of larger bodies in the first place. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus all have or had their products that would fall into this category. I probably would even encourage some starters to start with a zoom compact, just to figure out if they really do need a higher end camera at their current stage, and many of them really do not.

I got the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 and Sigma 50-100mm 1.8 :) , both are really sharp and constant aperture thru the zoom range.

I have and like both primes and zooms. One area you did not touch upon was camera balance in the hand. I currently use a Sony A7iii as my main full frame camera. I have three native lenses for it and about six adapted Minolta AF lenses. My latest lens purchase for the Sony was the 35mm 2.8 Zeiss. 4.4 oz. This lens just transforms using this body and having it balance in my hand. With this lens on the Sony body it is a really small light kit. I also have the Sony 24-105 f4 zoom. 23 oz on the front of a 23 oz body. This lens makes the Sony unbalanced for me. I usually add the extra battery /grip to it for better balance. But now we have a 50oz + camera. Same thing with my Nikon D750 a year ago. 24-120mm f4 on the 750 and there was a lot of weight on the front. When I put a Nikon 50mm f1.4 on the 750 it was much better in the hand. Newer model camera zooms are stupid heavy and expensive for full frame. I have a Minolta 70-210 from the 1990's that is a 3.5-4.5 and weighs about 10oz. It works quite well on my Minolta 600si film body or Sony A7iii digital body without completely unbalancing either camera. I have carefully tested it and for the most part it is as sharp as the modern Sony 24-105 zoom. I also have a Minolta 100-400 zoom that weighs about 16oz compared with 49oz for the new Sony 100-400. I like the fact that when you are using a prime all day you learn what the size of the shot is going to be and how far back you have to stand by instinct. My favorite camera body of all time is the Olympus OM2n. I have a zoom for it that I almost never use. 95% of the shots I take are with the 50mm f1.8 or the 28mm f2.8. This is a super light and comfortable camera to use. Too bad Oly never made a digital one like this.

i shot many years with a prime lens on my film camera, i used the 50mm a lot, then the 24mm and the 200 sometimes in nature. When i switched to fuji (for their experience with film cameras), it was a big question. Prime lenses or zooms? I mean, if i was rich, i probably would to buy the entire range of fuji's lenses, but i was on budget. So i bought the 16-55 2.8. And it's a joy !!! I mean, if you have experienced prime lenses before and know what you will see with a specific focal in front of you, that is not a problem. I often set my zoom on 16mm or 35mm or another focal, and stay with it all day long, then i can switch to another! i don't "zoom", but i like to consider that i have a 16, 23, 35 and more with just one lense!!! I think when you first experienced prime lenses before having a zoom, you can think about what focal to use in the scene you see, and set your focal range on your lense, before even take a look in your viewfinder! I mean, zoom are greats for that, and fuji made outstanding quality zooms with 2.8 constant aperture...

It still generally true that you need an expensive zoom to match the sharpness of a cheap prime. Anyway, I'm all about size and aperture. Whatever is small and enables low-light shooting is what I'm going with.

A 3rd option not mentioned for newer photographers is to get the kit lens which will be a zoom in the neighborhood of 24/28 - 70/75 ( they're always cheaper that way ) and if you haven't got much left over, get a vintage prime and adapter for 1/10th the cost of a new prime...as a bonus you will also learn manual focusing ( Fuji's have built in aids for this ), and exposure theory which will only help your photography...and as a hidden bonus you will get lesson #1 in "lens character " - something that most modern lenses seem keen to avoid by everyone clamoring to be "the sharpest" and leaving it at that... as an example I got a Konica Hexanon 50mm 1.7 and adapter for about $60 and that lens is plenty sharp , has nicer bokeh than many modern examples and is quite compact and super solidly built....actually 50 years ago it WAS the "kit lens " with new Konica film bodies ( how times have changed! ) - coming from film it was just a pleasure to use with my X-T20 - which I bought with the much maligned XC 16-50 - actually a very good kit lens that adds only $100 to the body price ( or did when I got mine ) - if I just need snaps with AF it's perfectly fine but when I want to enjoy myself, I use the old stuff on the X-T20 - good times at an even better price....;-)

Well, both are good for sure. I am thinking about buying 18-135mm for traveling and long shoots of ppl when i dont want to invade their privacy etc. and 16mm 1.4 since its dark in scotland really fast and i like street photography and wide photos as well. Not sure what other lenses to buy but those two seems best for me. Great videos Andrewv ;)

wonderful video, makes me wonder so I ask you when you get your first camera which comes with kit lenses, what you buy or upgrade first? buy better lenses or buy good lights? what's more important or recommendable?

Everyone should have primes and zooms. Zooms for flexibility and primes for quality, low light, bokeh, and sometimes, portability. The trick is choosing the right primes for you... What do you shoot most? and would the situation allow you to "get by" with a prime (i.e. you would not have to switch lenses all the time)? Focus your primes on those situations. Creativity is inspired by the constraints that you have (or impose on yourself). Primes are quite a good way of doing that. If you know what focal length you want they definitely give you higher quality, with wider apertures for the same cost as an equivalent zoom. (I know you said that zooms give just as good results - but that one is just not true.... all you have to do is look at DXO mark to see that primes are above zooms when it comes to sharpness - and any zooms that high - are super expensive).

Hi Andrew, this is a good discussion. Personally I enjoy shooting primes. I find not having the choice of zooming in and out to make a composition choices, helps me to mentally focus - you come to know your field of view, and step into naturally. It's a preference. What I see out in the world is wedding photographers seem to all carry two bodies, one with 24-105mm and one 70-200mm. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But this seems right, given the task of covering a room or field, going from groups to portraits. My personal take on my Fujifilm 18-55 is the lack of an aperture ring really bothers me. I like looking down and seeing all my settings, using the analog dials...and I love collecting and shooting vintage primes. Either way, aren't we fortunate to have choices? Thanks for the good channel, I have learned a lot from you.

I think both is the answer, right tool for the job. Sometimes you can't move your feet. Because of a zoom I discovered I was shooting around 135mm, now there's a small, compact 135 3.5 in my bag.

Prime for Studio, Portrait, and Landscape Photography and Zooms for flexibility in choosing the multiple focal lengths with one lens for street photography and sports.

Kindness before cameras :)

I agree on all points of your great video (loved the intro with the lenses btw 😁👍) and would say that everyone who has the money to get a used fast prime like the 35mm f2, saved my butt photographing a kids birthday indoors recently. Because of its fast autofocus you still can shoot wide open, those kids are damn fast! 😁 I actually wanted to sell this lens but I’m glad I didn’t!! It’s just perfect for a family dinner or a walk :)

These myths has always been a pet-peeve for me. I inherited my first Nikon 35 mm camera (F-301) 29 years ago, and just like everyone else I was taught to "zoom with my feet". Heard it from family (we all love photography), teachers, friends, photo-club members... Yet! When stepping into Fuji-land five years ago, I took a look at all my favourite photos and realized that almost all of them (a few 50mm portraits excluded, because the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is amazing) was taken with a zoom lens. Most prime-lens photos needed cropping in some way, or was taken a slight to late, simply because I am more of a snapshot photographer. I take a drive with my camera safely in the passenger seat, and a lot of the time the photos are shot from the open window (have one of those windows mounts). A lot of my best photos are also taken on the way to or from a customer (I am a consultant, so I drive quite a lot). One could argue that I should get out of the car, but that would likely disturb the moment more, if possible at all, and with the zoom lenses I can remain "silent", and not miss the photo. In my current every-day (fuji) kit, I have the 18-55 mm XF, the 50-230 mm and sometimes a 28 mm vintage prime, for the softer landscapes. All in my laptop bag. The 18-55 is on when I am walking, the 50-230 when driving and the 28 mm when I have extra time. So, for me, zoom allows me to focus on framing rather than finding stable footing. I also know the 18-55 so well now, that I am generally zoomed in before looking through the viewfinder. Its almost instinctive. When I travel light, I have two lenses. The 18-55 and the 50-230. When I had my Nikon kit with mostly primes, I packed four lenses. So zooms is definitely more compact for me. Don't get me wrong now, primes are good in the right settings. They work very (VERY!) well in studio. They also impose a creative restraint, which can be really fun if you are up for it, but also extremely frustrating if it causes a missed shot. Ups and downs to both, which is why I tell friends to learn how to take good photos with the kit lens before deciding what to get next. Find what they feel are lacking. Thanks for the video and the open mind. :)

Prime lenses are cheaper though if you want to shoot at smaller aperture. Let say, on Fuji system, if you want to shoot at 35mm at F2.8, you can achieve that by paying $399 on the 35F2 prime or $1,199 on the 16-55F2.8. This is true on telephoto end too. If you want to shoot at 90mm at F2.8, your only options are the $849 90mmF2 (love this lens

my first lens for my gfx 50r was 32-64mm f4 equivalent to fx 24-50mm

I'm glad I went the route of primes with my Olympus instead of the pro wide angle zoom. The 17, 25 and 45mm are excellent lenses, beautiful bokeh, small, light and honestly it inspires me more. I won't be buying the Pro 12-40mm. I was thinking about getting the 75mm f/1.8 but I find even with the 45mm I stop down to f/2.8 and even f/4 because of the shallow depth of field is a bit too much at f/1.8 so I would rather put my money on the f/2.8 40-150mm.

For me, the choice of prime or zoom depends on environment. I do a lot of walking and take two bodies with me, XT20 and XT3 and have a zoom on each. XF18-55 on one and XF55-200 on the other. When taking portraits I use one of three primes - 35mm f2, 50mm f2 or 90mm f2.

I started out in photography with a prime lens and here I am 40 years later and I own one zoom lens and about a dozen prime lenses. The zoom is a jack of all trades, master of none, but it serves its purpose when I need it to. I don’t look down at people who use zooms, nor do I deify someone that uses primes. I look at their results and judge the photographer by what they capture and how they present their photo more than what equipment they use.

Primes can offer faster focusing and a better OVF experience when shooting in low-light. This can be helpful even if you are using strobes or speed-lights to shed more light on the subject.

I bought my Fuji 18-55 in a bundle with the XE-1for 400 CAD. Then I sold the XE-1 body for 200 CAD. It was a good day 😎.

Great video... I believe for landscape, wildlife and action, zoom lens is a must. Prime lenses good for macro and other type of photography . Zoom lenses are heavier, it has stabilizer and moving elements and more complicated design, on contrary some modern prime lenses has more glass inside and much more expensive than zoom lenses! Zeiss for example!

Another point regarding the use of zooms, is that as we get older, we are not as quick to move around to get the shot....further to this, a prime limits your ability to quickly react to action or even models moving in portraits where limbs are outside your field of vision....the zoom gives you the ability to react

The myth Primes are sharper than a zoom probably comes from old photographers who started in film photogràphy when it was true. At least for the most part. The first sharp zoom I owned was a Sigma 24-70 EX DG I bought for my Canon 10D back in 2003 or 04. I have a Sigma Art zoom that blows me away.

I used to think that there was this major image quality difference between primes and zooms, including wide apertures. Then I shot the Sigma f1.8 zooms and there's not many primes on the market as sharp as the 50-100 at f1.8. The 18-35 is sharper than any of the Fuji primes I had in that range. I use both of the Sigmas on the Fuji XH1... no more primes for me.

I always stop down to 5.6 or f8 for best results.

I'm a Canon prime shooter. 20 years now. I learned with them and loved them ever since. Zooms are great too though.

with my 24-105 i only use it at 24, 35, 50, 85, 105 on the dots cause I'm OCD like that. Plus random lengths just seem "off". a landscape at 31 just doesn't feel/look right.

Is there an indicator on Fujifilm cameras to check what actual focal length you are using with the mounted zoom lens?

In the end is a matter of what suits your work better. I used to shoot with zooms for years and I love the photos I took with them but the transformative moment for my photography came when I bought my first Zeiss prime (for Canon). No zoom, whatever the manufacturer or the price point can match a Zeiss prime lens (except the Leica primes) in terms of sharpness, build quality, aperture and character (the last one is the reason I pay so much money for a prime). Sure, you can have impressive sharpness (if you know how to focus correctly) on any lens today but sharpness 1) isn’t everything in photography and 2) in zooms and some cheaper primes aren’t even across the frame. In photography the sad truth is that you always getting what you’re paying for, and I’ve learned that the hard way! Skills and experience can only take you to a certain level. If you want the best image quality you have to pay for this…

did you try the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 with an adapter, or is there too many loss on AF, image quality, etc.. ?

What's the lens hood on the 23mm 1.4 in the top-down shots?

Wish fuji had some OIS primes like the 35mm f2 canon or the newer tamrons. I'm aware of the xh1 but not my jam. 3 stops of usable ois would really be great. I've been at 12800 1.4 1/8 on my 23mm 1.4 and it's no dice.

10-24, kit 18-55, 50-140... 2 bodies...for versatility...and for certain cases a 27mm pancake, 90mm, and maybe 56mm for low light...??? This is gonna take a couple years...lol Hope to have a kit soon, and will then have to decide which lens will be second... one of the Zoom options, or the 90 is my guess... In the meantime, i have a DSLR with 18-55, 50-200, amd 50/1.8, so I can evaluate how I use that most, amd what things are important to me... Thankfully the Fuji 2.8-4 kit lens is much better than your typical 18-55 type kit lens... Are the focal lengths on these roughly the same views you get from APS-C cameras of the DSLR variety?

Great video, plz help, I want a Fujifilm and a lens, which pair should I buy, I want to take cyberpunk-like photos, a lot of neon, and smoke, great colors, and sharpness...

I've always leaned towards primes, and still do, but when I tried that Fujinon 16-55 f2.8, I couldn't bring myself to sell it, as was the plan (got it with a kit deal). It's soo good and fun to use. Color is great, focusing is good, and it just spits out sharp photos with the XH-1 at all times. Are you going to cover it, or afraid you'll have to keep it ;)?!

For outdoor shooting I love my 18-55 lens on my xt-2. I started my photographic journey with film cameras and primes and I still "zoom" with my feet. Old habits die hard.

I find that both types of lenses have their place. I haven't seen many zooms other than maybe a 70-200mm 2.8 being as sharp or sharper than a prime though. I'm not sure why anyone would consider zooms being as sharp as primes. There are some unique exceptions of course. Like using a $200 kit lens on a m43 camera that enables you to shoot in high res mode. The Olympus for example allows you to capture 64mp RAW files. Once you tweak those images in post, the sharpness and noise free images you get are crazy. Using a prime lens takes that even further. The isolation of subjects with larger apertures excentuates sharpness which is why images taken with primes seem to pop more, but its not just sharpness, primes just seem to render images much more beautifully and you can spot it from a mile away. The main drawback with primes of course is having to constantly change focal lengths and especially when travelling. On the other hand using a FF 2.8 zoom can get quite heavy throughout the day. All I know is that every time I look at images taken with the likes of Nikon 20mm 1.8G, Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art or a Rokinon 14mm 2.8, I'm blown away.

If you never intent to buy primes, you need to purposefully restrict yourself when learning composition. If you learn with primes, you are forced to take time with each new lens and learn to utilize that focal lenght and aperture. So you could either buy a really expensive zoom, tape it to same focal lenght for few days or weeks, then change that over time. Or you could naturally collect prime lenses over time, for same or probably larger amount of money. Once you have done that, and when given a zoomlense think in terms of focal lenght instead of aimlessly framing with the zoom effect, it doesn't matter which you use. You can learn new things with any kind of lense (that is capable of doing what you want to learn). If there were really cheap lenses with fixed focus distance, we would probably tell beginners to use them. And some professionals would prefer them in certain cituations. The main reason for prime lenses is their role in history of photography as an art and as a medium of communication, as well as their limitation as said medium and in said art. Any limitation would be fine - lack of colour, fixed, super big aperture or a pinhole lense, would be fine, and is often given as an exersise for students. Primes just happen to have a history and are widely available and good for use outside of learning, which makes them a sensible suggestion for new photographers. Also cheap bokeh is a prime reason to buy a prime. Zooms with good subject separation at around 75-100mm usually cost a lot more than 2.8 prime

I only use my fuji 18-55 for video, and I quite like it for that.

Out of curiosity, I got 16-55 as my first zoom lens hoping that could replace my 16 18 23 35 56. I was wrong... For me zoom makes photography boring and less engaging. I actually find it harder to compose when using a zoom haha. You just need to experience both prime and zoom to understand your preference on shooting.

Great video! Just my 2 cents though: statements #2 and #3 are myths when considered in isolation, but are actually true together. Primes and zooms in the same price range will have quite a difference in maximum aperture; while fast-aperture zoom lenses are (will be?) extremely expensive. Once again, engineering is about tradeoffs.

Hey bro, what glasses are you wearing, nice! (Very sound advice, prime = low light situation vs zoom everything else ;-) )

did you colour grade this video or directly got this done by any mode on fuji [i dont know much about these things i dont know whether i said right or not ] which lens did you use to shoot you talking i wabt switch to fuji so thats why this much doubts

Thanks for this video! What are the two focal length used at 7:10?

I have realized that photographers will always standardize everything in the end that is more expensive. • Full frame? Standard format Vs. Crop and of course it’s more expensive. • Prime lenses? Better than the "zooms" because in the end you will need 3 primes to have the necessary tools, and definitely 3 primes would be more expensive than a zoom with that focal range. • Profoto? Also the standard, you can do the same with another product but they are not so expensive and that is why they may not be what we all need. I am quite tired with that situation, this seems more like a competency of elitism than an artistic profession. Just my two cents. Excellent video keep that feeling.

Primes are good. Zooms are good. Superzooms are... Ok I guess? In regards to the "lazy" aspect, fast primes are as lazy-enabling as zooms are if the person allows it. Truth is, more and more fast prime lens user (me included) tend to focus on the bokeh more than the actual composition. So in a way, slower zooms allow you to work on your composition without depending too much on bokeh.

Nice video and thanks for telling the truth. Prime lenses are always overrated and inflated in IQ and sharpness. In reality, Zooms can do almost everything Primes do. To be honest, most people might not be able to tell the differences from pictures. Zooms are always gonna be your better choice if the weights and sizes are not your concern.

can you please sugest me a lens for video that has good blurry focal range similar to nathaniel drew s for photography i am surely going for the fifty to one forty with xt iii

Im new to photography... And i bought real camera esspecialy to have a possibility of zooming esspecially! It was one of main reason. Zoom in or out gives that perspective and change everything!

So where is the best fuji x used lens site?

I think the "zoom lenses aren't as sharp" thing is mainly true for older lenses. Modern ones are usually very sharp, but the loss of an F stop or two is why I prefer primes. If I could have an F1.4 zoom that didn't weigh a metric ton, I would buy it immediately :-)

I can't help but feel the need to call you out for a moment. Many people who are asking these questions are amateurs or novices, and they may be getting their feet wet without investing too much money. At the high end, there may be less of a difference between primes and zooms outside of price, but on the low end, these differences are more pronounced.

I like to shoot primes for 2 reasons: 1st they are small and lighter 2nd I don't have to botter thinking the best focal distance for every shot...I have what I have and I only need to think about the best composition.

I have studied photography, always have only shot with Primes, now after I have graduated and my business becoming more serious there is no way as a professional to not have at least one zoom lens!

I am a new photographer very inexperienced and will buy only prime lenses because like you sad it is pushing me to think about composition.

Interesting but the background music was very disturbing to me !

My 16-55 is my "bread and butter" lens. In my Nikon times it was the 24-70. Always on my camera, use it in at least 90%. ...if I could have only one lens, this would be it.

It's also if you actually need zoom lenses. If you have a preferred zoom range and don't see much need to zoom at all.... why would you need more expensive and actually more dulled down shot from zoom lenses?

Thanks! Very good. I am your "Private Shooter", family. I just returned to real cameras. For me zooms are priceless. I don't have the time to fiddle about with primes for bokeh. My Leica zoom is good enough. I don't even have a prime. I used to have a prime, that was a Zuiko 50mm f1.4. I basically never used it. I am now on MFT.