The Age Old Debate: Zooms vs Primes. Which Side Are You On?

I have long wavered between being a "bag 'o primes" shooter and a zoom lens shooter in my personal work. Sure, as a photojournalist and sports photographer, the choice was always easy: zooms. But for everything else, are zooms the best choice?

That's a question that Arkansas-based freelance photographer and YouTuber Walter Lyle posits as he, rightly, points out how zooms can often result in lazy composition and unimaginative shooting. Being forced to move with your feet gets your creative and compositional juices flowing a bit more, and he shows some examples of this.

Is there a correct answer here? I'm not so sure. As a photojournalist, I've long been a fan of the traditional photojournalist's kit: a 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens—it doesn't matter what brand. This pair of lenses can cover 95% of what photojournalists encounter on the job every day, and the major brands build these lenses to high optical standards. But when I'm shooting without a deadline, I've often found myself gravitating toward the more esoteric lenses—135mm prime lenses—or using smaller formats such as Micro Four Thirds, which has its own interesting set of lenses, such as the OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f/1.8 Lens. Other times, I'm out with the kids and pack something simple, like a 50mm f/1.8 lens, something that Lyle notes was the standard kit lens for a long time.

Where I think Lyle's criticism is spot-on is what replaced those prime kit lenses. Almost every new digital camera comes with some sort of focal length in about the 18-55mm range with a variable aperture. While it's possible to get decent results with what are usually optically mediocre lenses, it makes for a steeper learning curve. New photographers are zooming in and out, and the aperture is changing; the photos look like junk because the ISO has to kick up as so little light is being let in. No. Those 50mm f/1.8 primes forced more understanding of gear because the options were more limited.

It's something that I think turns off new photographers to actual photography with cameras rather than phones, as well. A kit lens with a short zoom range and variable aperture doesn't produce results all that different from a phone, whereas a prime lens as a kit lens would let in more light, get shallower depth of field, and allow for shooting at lower ISOs for a noticeable difference in image quality. It's something camera manufacturers should seriously consider if they want to hook new users: pack in a prime lens.

Lyle goes through a lot of the pros and cons of each type of lens and makes a case for each. What do you think is the better option, primes or zooms? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.