I have a Mark ii - very solidly built and nice to use, especially for the size.
Not quite so enthusiastic about the image quality, not because there’s anything really wrong with it, but something about the rendering just doesn’t quite suit my style.
It may well be down to lenses more than anything else - I don’t have much MFT glass. The 14-150mm I got with it, very handy but compromised like all superzooms, a 17mm f2.8 (the really early one) which for a prime is ‘meh’, and I’ve also tried adapting my Nikon glass to it, with mixed results.
I’m almost sure that some decent glass designed for the small (er) sensor would make all the difference.
I still have no idea which is my favourite focal length. After leaving point and shoots behind, I was always a zoom lens guy and particularly liked telephoto landscape shots. My 70-300mm Fuji was getting the most use in recent years and producing my favourite shots. But then I started playing more with wide angle and got into my 12mm Rokinon/Samyang. Then I realized I was just going really wide or really long, and that I needed to try some “normal” focal lengths. I was also seduced by the idea of just using primes and not relying on zooms. So I started playing with my 27mm Fuji, 35mm TTArtisan and 50mm TTArtisan primes.
And now I’m just as unsure as ever about which focal length I prefer! Maybe I will always be an all-rounder or maybe I’ll one day find a genuine preference. But variety is one of the things I love the most about the hobby. There’s always something new to try.
The correct answer is whatever is right for the composition you see!
I’ve been using my 100-400mm a lot more lately, and I have been enjoying it a lot. Its opened up a lot more possibilities and for some reason I feel more comfortable with it than I ever did with the 70-200 (perhaps weight related).
However, there is usually a “correct” lens for the frame I’m trying to capture, especially since I have a 24mm, 50mm, and 100-400mm. And I hate changing lenses.
My son raced Tag and I raced in the over 40’s class with a J engine. Sometimes I would do double duties at a race meet and run in the seniors class to help build up the numbers. It was a lot of fun but then the powers to be brought in changes that made it more about the $$$ needed to win than the drivers talent. So I have my kart retired to my shed at the moment and don’t expect to return. The money I spent kart racing is now spent travelling. My next trip is Morocco in May. I hope to get some good photos.
Oh man, don’t get me started. We’ve seen guys buy 50 engines and cherry-pick parts from all of them to build unbeatable engines. We have rules limiting the number of tires used in a race weekend, because some guys would mount fresh tires for every on track session if they were allowed to. Even with the rules, it’s like buying a new prime lens every couple of weeks.
The father of one guy, who started at one of our home tracks and ultimately made it to Formula 1, was talking to the track owner about their plans to move on to Italian F3. The track owner said “Are you nuts? That’s going to cost you like $1.2 million.” The answer: “What do you think we spent karting this year?”
You are so right. In the Yamaha J class I raced in we had an engine with about 10-12 HP and we had really hard low grip tyres that you only needed to replace once or maybe twice a year. Everything was about ringing the neck from the kart, maintaining speed throughout the corners, exiting with maximum speed and not making a mistake. My son was consistently 1 second a lap quicker than me because of weight and driving technique. However, with Tag racing with grippy tyres that you used two sets per weekend and the difference was about a third of a second between us. This was because the tyres just gripped and forgave mistakes. It came down a lot to who had the $$$ in that type of racing.
I loved the rain because that made it about driving skills and less about the $$$. I use to go out on rainy days and practice with my son driving with slick tyres in the rain. Both of us punched above our normal level when it rained for a race because of that.
I used to roll like that as well. My favorite lens was a super-zoom, and even there I spent half the shots at the widest and longest end. But somehow, that changed. There was a phase where I’d usually go out with an 18mm Ricoh GR, and a 35mm Fuji (both APS-C). On the last few trips, I brought a zoom, and the GR, but actually only shot on a 23mm Fuji.
Can I talk about my longest ever lived photography related purchase. I bought a Canon G16 compact camera for when I didn’t want to carry a D-SLR. It is still going strong, takes great pictures and I just love it. It has a f1.8 six millimetre wide angle lens which gives it incredible depth of field for night time street photography when I travel.
Mine is the Ricoh GR III. Other cameras have come and gone, but the GR has stayed. A brilliant lens, a quick startup, stellar image quality, sensor stabilization, and all of that in a tiny yet ergonomic package.
My brain works differently: if I have a 50mm equivalent lens on the camera, then my mind switches to “50mm mode” and I start noticing compositions that would suit it. I do not notice compositions that require a different angle unless they are really, really compelling. The same for 24mm, 90mm, etc.
Recently I got into the habit of just putting a prime lens on the camera for the whole day when I am hiking/travelling, and leaving everything else at home. This means that I don’t get to take some photos, but I make other ones. Then for the next day I switch. I think I actually like the limitation of a single focal length.
(Of course this comes from the luxury of not making a living from photography, eg if I was a wedding photographer and had a 90mm lens with me I am not sure that the couple would appreciate my photos of the bride’s left nostril).
I’ve started doing that after hearing from others how it gets your creative juices going. I’m still unsure if I like it because I definitely see all kinds of compositions when I’m out and about, and I hate it when I don’t have the right lens to capture a unique scene that I know will work well. On the other hand, being forced to find new compositions is a very worthwhile exercise, even if you end up capturing something very different from what you might have originally wanted.
I definitely think personality comes into all this. Do you like to work within constraints or do you prefer maximum freedom? Do you not get too upset by missed opportunities, or are you more prone to feelings of regret? Do you like to be prepared for any eventuality, or do you just get out there and deal with whatever happens? All this can affect how you set out for the day and what equipment you take.
(I don’t claim to be a psychologist as you can probably tell!)
I remember that feeling. A flexible zoom lens used to mean “freedom” to me. After all, how else would I capture a wide scene, then a small detail?
But for me, that perception changed over time. I think at some point I realized that there are always myriad ways to represent any scene. Do I zoom in on my kid as they’re running down the field? Or do I zoom out and show their smallness in the vast field? Do I move closer and go low to make them big in the frame and show the world from their perspective? Or stand up and present their wild energy as they move through the space? Do I obscure the foreground with some out-of-focus grass to imply being-there, or show the path in front of them?
At the end of the day, I found that positioning and perspective provided me with more than enough flexibility for most shots, and a zoom just served to distract. It introduces a variable that makes problem-solving more difficult, while taking away certain more interesting variables (close focus, out-of-focus, low light). I think that’s why I prefer a prime most of the time these days. Weirdly, a prime often feels more flexible than a zoom, for many sorts of pictures.
But all of that heavily depends on the type of image I’m taking. People pictures don’t need a zoom for me. So when I’m going on a family trip, I’ll mount the prime 90% or all of the time. On a hike, I’ll grab the zoom.
Possibly. But I also like the optical quality of my prime lenses It’s not that good zoom lenses with a large aperture do not exist, but they are expensive as heck.
Also, when I use a zoom lens, I try to compose by zooming in an out without leaving my original position, but when I start “zooming with my feet” with a prime lens, I also move in sideways. This is just a habit I could overcome though and use zoom lenses similarly.
Did you know? Wearing a zoom lens has no objective influence on pedestrian activity, nor on possible genuflections?
When it comes to photographic thinking and composition, it’s sometimes a different story…
Today’s zooms are technically competitive in terms of image quality (except for ultra-reduced depth-of-field, which is an effect you generally shouldn’t abuse too much), and they’re the quickest and most efficient way of changing lens focal lengths.
A good zoom lens often costs less and weighs less than 2 or 3 fixed focal lengths!
For what it’s worth, I use quite a bit of their stuff — mostly their lens adapters, which have served me faithfully every day for years without any issues whatsoever (in fact, I have quite a few of them).
Good to hear… now if they’ll actually just ship. They’ve been marked special order, in progress, etc., for a long time. Oh well, it’s overcast today anyway (plus it’s chilly enough to prompt me to stay inside and watch YT instead!).
It’s not that good zoom lenses with a large aperture do not exist, but they are expensive as heck.