[matthew]

Packing away my camera gear this afternoon, I was thinking about just how rarely I actually use my zoom lenses at anything other than their extremes. Instead of a zoom, it's like using a two-setting prime. Even more pronounced, I usually use a wide lens at its widest, and a long lens at its longest -- there's just no middle ground.

Does anyone else do this, or is it just me...?

Probably the one exception to this is my wide-to-normal zoom, which I'll use at all lengths, but I still prefer its extremes. No wonder a 50mm prime is one of my favourite lenses!

[Keith Alan]

I'm a zoomaholic.

Especially to get rid of barrel distortion at the wide end and pincushion at the telephoto end, I try to work in the mid-range of my lens whenever possible.

[EnglishBob]

I have a utility that graphs the Focal Length of exif data and it shows that about 36% of my pictures fall at either 300, 500 or 70 mm, all the full zoom on my 3 favorite lenses. That aside the rest are scattered all over the focal lengths of my lenses.

[smarti77]

I tend to over use my longest zoom 100-300 at 300 because I love closeups of portraits, animals, insects etc. My widest zoom is 18-50 and all of my favourite landscape are taken as wide as possible. If fact I often wish I could go wider...

I mainly use 'inbetween' widest and longest when taking children candid portraits. They often move faster than I can - so its easier to get the frame right by playing with the zoom.

[Wedding Shooter]

From my perspective at a wedding I am constantly using different focal lengths in my zoom lenses.

But I love my 50 1.4 prime on a FF camera - it is wonderful for unique bridal portraits.

[Don Schaeffer]

I do zoom, if I can, to compose my photo in the camera. Often I have to complete the composition afterwards but I try.

[digitalzen]

I try to use my zooms -- especially on the superzoom compact -- for framing images. That way I get maximum resolution for the basic image, and lose less in cropping later. Goes back to shooting and printing a lot of 35 mm over the years -- you can always subtract, never add, resolution.

One great advance in lenses over the last decade or so has been laser cutting, which has permitted the construction of zooms with aspherical lenses that were incredibly expensive (or impossible) to manufacture previously. This has allowed construction of lighter lenses with fewer interfaces and greater resolving power and less distortion, which made zooms practical for just about any purpose, used with caution. Back in the olden days, you used them for convenience, but always tried to use a fixed lens for precision.

[NT73]

I mainly use the zoom if I can't get close enough on foot. Which means I could probably do with a 12- 2000mm
with a weight of less than 1kg.

[wulinka]

I like that idea, NT

I also zoom, 24-70 mm, haven't done any stats, but it feels like I am using the whole range. I think I am often around 50, equivalent to 75mm.

When I am with my 100mm macro, which is about half the time, I never miss the zoom. I haven't once grabbed the lense barrel and then realized there is no wind, it just seems natural that when what I see through the viewfinder is the view through a 100mm lense, there is no zoom. You know how you learn to estimate where to stand, too, to frame what you have in mind, how you can predict which length will create what picture.

uli

uli

[matthew]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, it's good to see that I'm not alone, and that there's also a healthy variety in how people use their lenses.

I've been trying to think about why I use my lenses at their extremes, and have come up with two possibilities. One is that the lens simply isn't long/wide enough. That is, I've picked the wrong lens for the job, or am using the lens in the wrong way and wishing it was something that it's not. My standard zoom is typical for this -- while it has a great range, I frequently want it to be wider than 28 or longer than 108, and am not happy with the pictures that I take. That might be why I hardly ever use this lens any more.

The other reason why I hit the extremes may be that I'm looking for a specific effect. My longest and widest lenses are typical for this. If I'm using my ultrawide, it's because I want to get an entire skyscraper in the frame from twenty feet away. If I'm at my longest telephoto, it's for the short DOF and isolating field of view.

The two lenses that I make the fullest use of are my 11-22mm and 50mm. The fifty is a prime (100mm equivalent), and like Uli, I never miss the zoom. It just happens to be the right length for my ideal short telephoto, so it spends a lot of time on my camera. (So why am I not happy with the 108mm-e of my standard zoom...?) The 11-22 is a nice wide angle through to a true 'normal' lens (44mm). While I do use it mostly at its ends, it's not as pronounced as the rest of my collection.

NT, I like your idea too, and I'm working on it. With three lenses I can go from 14-400mm-equivalents seamlessly... but I still shoot at the extremes.

[Keith Alan]

I think that questions like this are another reason that I'm glad I have only the one lens permanently fixed on my camera.

Because distance from the subject affects perspective regardless of focal length, I always try to 'see' the intended photo and then find my best shooting location first. I do this before ever looking through the viewfinder.
Only then will I fine-tune the composition with zoom.
This is the best reason to use zoom lenses throughout their range, in my opinion.

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Sure, i use the zoom. But i also tend to go the far end of the scales.

I usally have 2 bodies with me, one with a prime and one with a zoom attached.

/Paul L.

[NT73]

Two bodies! I thought at first you meant assistants. Oh you professionals.

My first time with a 200mm zoom was on a beach in corsica, and I loved the way it compressed the waterline along the beach. Bringing the distance up close without losing the foreground.
I think thats how I really want to use it, but I tend to use it for birdies etc.
My 50 mm prime, even though it is cheap, I like because of the sharpness.

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Well i dont have that luxury as of yet,but surely a pair of extra hands can be very valueable at times.

/Paul L.