Am I supposed to own zoom lenses? Every what's in my bag

Zoom lenses are for 1) photojournalists and 2) dummies who think they haven't "made it" until they buy a $2500 2.8 zoom. It's a rite of passage for those wannabes.

Also I guess some wedding photographers need them, but those poor fools are photographers in the same sense that a house painter is a portraitist.

>>3107877
>Zoom lenses are for 1) photojournalists
>tfw no qt 35 mm lens on a range finder shooting at f8

>>3107877
This guy's girl left him for a wedding photographer.

>>3107879

I mean, have you seen 35mm lenses in 2017?

>>3107880

Left me at the altar no less. I didn't stand a chance against a gripped A7mk1 straining under the weight of a Chinese-adaptor-mounted Canon zoom, his gallon ziploc of spare batteries glinting in the sun.

I shoot with live music a lot. I'll typically use my zooms if I'm shooting on publication assignment which usually means I'm only allowed the first three songs. the time it takes to switch lenses is not worth it when there's so little time to get the shots I need.

when I'm shooting on tour or directly for a band in general, I'll try and use some primes more because I have the whole set to shoot instead.

but..... c'mon man the 70-200 2.8 is a killer. I got the canon IS mk1 for like $800 and it's always in my bag.

>>3107877
You forgot 3) versatility, which is beneficial to changing conditions and scenes whether you are pro or hobbyist. And please don't say "zoom with your feet " because that just fucks up the whole perspective.

I like to photograph birds.
There is no fucking way I would be able to do that with a prime.
I don't even think they make primes at such focal lengths.

>>3107890

Lmao what

>>3107877
I used to work as photojournalist with primes only. and one of the lens I most used was a 35mm1.8
zooms are way more practical, but I'm just an elitist faggot tho

>>3107890
w-whut

File: Canon-EF-400mm-f2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens.jpg (33KB, 650x280px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 650x280px

>>3107890
they do

they just cost a billion dollars each

>>3107892
you're the first person to admit this

>>3107886
>but..... c'mon man the 70-200 2.8 is a killer.
I shoot M43 though so Idk how good their zooms are. 90% of the time I just use the 40 mm f1.7 or the 17.5 mm f0.95 anyway

>>3107890
https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-exists/

>>3107879
I'm a photojourno and I actually use a 35mm.

>Not on a rangefinder tho

>>3107875
you're supposed to own lenses to take pictures with them

>>3107875
I have zooms and I want to get some primes because the zooms are too heavy.

>>3107875
Think about what you shoot and choose the lenses that seem most suitable for your needs. If you work mainly in the studio or in other controlled situations primes might be the way to go. If you are on the move, your circumstances are unpredictable and you may need to react fast a sack full of primes might not be the best option

Faggots like primes because it means they can brag about a whole drawer full of lenses they don't use instead of just three.

I have a 50 and a 24-85 and although I'd like to be able to zoom on occasion, I cant justify the money for how little I'd use it. I mainly do landscapes anyway.

>>3107875
>I own like 8 lenses
and that's what you're doing wrong, realistically you don't need more than 3 lenses

>>3108740
For 90% of us, I'd agree. The problem is, those 3 lenses varies so vastly that new guys get into the game and they are seeing one guy have a 12mm, 25mm, and a 35mm... then the next guy has a 35mm, a 24-70, and a 70-200. So in turn they are like "Well I must need 12 lenses to cover the range and fill the gaps".

Some people only need one lens, some very few might need 20. New shooters don't care to go shoot and see what they actually need and want to use, they just want new gear to post on the internet.