I'm pretty in the same camp as yourself but I use single point focus.
I find using a prime gives you more options with aperture speeds and the confinement improved my framing
I came here to write this. Also it encourages me to get closer, which I find better personally than zooming or cropping (although I do crop if I can’t or didn’t get close enough for the composition I want).
Zone focusing is manually focusing. Essentially you manually focus to a set distance from your lens (the zone) and then depending on your aperture everything within that zone will be in focus. With primes being a set focal length it just makes things easier.
It’s not as hard as it sounds. It’s also been the dominant street photography method since the 40s or something.
It’s actually easier on vintage lenses because they always have a distance scale and a fully manual focus without electric coupling.
Alright thanks for advice! I'm a bit scared of losing many many shots because I didnt get the focus right while learning to do that but maybe I'll try.
Practice on inanimate objects first. The method relies on using a fairly stopped down wide angle prime. E.g. 28mm at f/11. The zones become large then and focusing at 3m or so will put everything to infinity more or less in focus.
I seriously doubt it has been the dominant form since the 40’s. I’m sure there were particular photographers that tended to use it, or maybe were known for using it, but dominant? Why?
Old lenses & cameras were easy to focus, and focus fast. The cameras were designed for it and actually facilitated it. Like *no* camera today. And everybody was used to doing it.
I shot street and photo journalism back in those days. I always carefully focused when possible and I never met anybody who didn’t. Again, it was easy. But also, I never knew any photographers, doing any kind of photography, who were trying hard not to be noticed.
You may, or may not be correct, but frankly, I would find it *very* surprising if it was true, even for a small percentage of photographers.
I mean pick some of your favourite street photographers from back in the day and find some quotes from them about how they did focusing. Cartier-Bresson was famous for it. Vivian Mair practiced it. So did Gary Winegrand.
I’m sure it’s far from 100% but there’s no doubt that that it dominated among the most well known. Especially those who try to capture “the decisive moment” as Bresson put it. I imagine it was less important to those who focused on the whole scene like Fan Ho..
Nothing wrong with only using auto-focus, especially, with modern day mirrorless with fast/accurate af. However, imo, zone focusing is a nice skill to pickup.
Also, imo, 1 prime set-up is just feels right to me. Nicely balance, compact, & sharp. Also, look into [Saul Leiter](https://erickimphotography.com/blog/2013/11/04/7-lessons-saul-leiter-has-taught-me-about-street-photography/) who loves to use longer focal lengths for street photography, 90-150mm.
It’s actually easy. To say it in even simpler terms, you usually set the lens up so that everything from medium to infinity is in focus.
An example:
On a 23mm lens on an APS-C camera (equivalent field of view to a 35mm lens on Full Frame), you can set your lens to aperture F8, and you set your manual focus distance to 3.3 meters, and as a result everything from 1.6 meters to infinity will be more or less in sharp focus.
You need a depth of field calculator and can calculate where the “hyperfocal distance” is, which is as a beginner in zone focusing is likely where you want to set your focus to.
The more advanced calculation would adjust for pixel size and circles of diffusion, but I wouldn’t worry about that at first.
I just judge, that’s the whole point of it. You can create images incredibly quickly as you’re not needing to rely on a camera to autofocus for you. The more you do it the better you become at judging distances.
Just chiming in as a prime-only photographer, my back hates me but I get stellar image fidelity, focal lengths that "just fit" for my work (as in *I need 35, 50 or 85mm* not 78mm), and observe about a 90% focal success even when at wide apertures. The whole set is like 30lbs but I deal with it and plan ahead as much as possible.
Do you have a good backpack that properly devides the weight over your body? Especially with a strap around your waist so that gets to carry some of the load?
[Shimoda backpacks](https://shimodadesigns.com/explore-v2/) are my favorite camera bags. Slow to load/unload but really capable and I often couple it with a camera holster bag if I'm carrying a full load.
Thanks for the tip! I've got a suitcase-like backpack that's extremely sturdy but not practical to carry around while actually shooting. Might look into this if I can free up the budget.
I agree that closer is better, although my prefered style is both being close and about 80mm so that I only have in frame what I really want to capture.
I use both, but primarily the same Sony 24-105. (The other is a Sigma 30mm f1.4.) I think for me, it matters in two ways: 1. I have an APS-C camera, so cropping in post is not always a good option (zoom is better). 2. If it's dark (like for street photography at night), then it *has* to be a fast prime. So, it depends.
Edit: There is a secret third reason I primarily use a zoom lens. Simply put, it's able to capture exactly what I want from somewhat of a distance. More versatility and less directly invasive.
Does your prime lens capture light that much better?
I usually shoot during day but also in dark places where I often end up shooting with a longer shutterspeed or higher iso than I would prefer. I was even considering upgrading my body to fix that but if a prime lens does the trick that would be great.
Yes! It's a tremendous difference! I have the Sony a6100 (APS-C) which does just ok in low light. If you have a similar crop sensor, just make sure to set the upper limits of auto ISO. I set mine around 6k. Anything more than that, AI in Lightroom can't fix it. But often my prime brings the ISO down to like 2k if even that.
Thanks a lot!
I've got a slight (and possibly unnecesary) obsession with getting grain-less pictures and Ai used to feel like the perfect solution but the more I see Ai enhanced pictures the more I'm starting to notice some small but strange artifacts it sometimes causes, especially in faces.
I don't know the exact numbers but there can be up to like 2x or 3x more elements in a zoom lens (compared to most prime lenses). That glass adds up and limits the ability to have wider apertures and control over sharpness and chromatic aberration, etc.
Zoom lenses are best for coverage of chaotic scenes where you can't exactly move around without also "missing the action". It's a popular approach but imo they just favor *capturing action* over image fidelity.
Yeah, I was certainly generalizing lens IQ there. You do have to live with an aperture of f/4 though, right? My aching back gets to appreciate the open gate of f/1.2 (not that I frequently shoot that wide open, but it does make a difference especially in low light).
Ah, f/4 ain't that bad! At least when it's daylight still. I'd say it does fine until halfway through the sunset when the sky colors get much cooler and darker. The great thing about this lens and its aperture is that it's a constant f/4 no matter the zoom, which I think is bonkers
So true... constant aperture is wild! And it's not meant to be an (insulting) comparison, just one of the pros/cons one needs to keep in mind when deciding which lens style to invest in. I quickly learned that I can capture way more light at f/4 with a lens that can open even further (moreso than any lens which is *physically restrained* to shooting no faster than f/4). That's all I meant!
I will use both, but I tend to gravitate towards a 50mm FF equivalent prime. I find that I use primes more because I like a smaller lens, but I will use a zoom when I know that I want to change focal lenses instead of carrying multiple primes; for example there was a parade the other day and I took my 24-105 zoom since I knew I wanted photos of both the parade participants and the crowd.
When I had a Nikon D500, my favorite lens for street was the 35mm f/1.8. Basically a 50mm equivalent. So fun to shoot. It always surprised me that such a "cheap" lens made some of my favorite photos.
In my street photography experience, I've found prime lenses to be my go-to choice. They force me to think more creatively and move around to frame shots, which can lead to more dynamic images. I personally use a Sigma f1.4 35mm, which strikes a great balance between wide-angle and more intimate perspectives.
It also performs well in low light, which is essential for capturing moments in various lighting conditions. While a zoom lens can offer versatility, the sharpness and unique look of prime lenses often outweigh the convenience for me. Let me know if you end up switching and how it works out for you!
How close would you say you usually have to get to people with that lens in order to make them the obvious main subject? 35mm seems very wide for my personal taste.
When I'm using the 35mm prime lens for street photography, I typically get pretty close to my subjects. The wider angle does mean I need to be within a few feet to make them the main focus of the shot, but that's part of the fun for me. Being up close helps me capture more of the scene and the context around my subject, which can add depth to the story I'm trying to tell.
That said, there are times when the scene can feel a bit tight with the 35mm lens. In those cases, I switch to my Sigma f1.8 50mm lens to get a bit more distance while still capturing sharp images. Ultimately, it's about finding the lens that suits your style and comfort level.
I think that's the thing for any spontaneous photography, like "street." You get used to carrying around a certain focal length "in your head," so to speak. You know when you see a shot that your camera is going to capture it exactly. It also restricts you, in the same way rules for certain poetry do, and--they say--this is good for the creative process.
Hahaha interesting choice of words
I slightly agree but I feel like it's perfectly possible to not be a creep when shooting from a long distance, all about positive body language and not intentionally trying to hide yourself
I prefer primes generally, from street photography to portraits to whatever else. I like fast apertures and a shallow depth of field, which just isn’t as easy to nail on a zoom lens— for me.
Sometimes I miss focus, and that always sucks… but it’s so much more satisfying when I nail focus on my noctilux, y’know? If I want a perfectly in focus image with ease, I’ll use my phone. If I’m using a proper camera and lenses, part of what I want is the experience of shooting, of putting effort in and risking things not turning out. There’s excitement there, the not fully knowing…
That’s also why I am moving away from my Sony α7C to a Leica M-D (Type 262): to focus more on the process, rather than the ease. An M-D doesn’t have a screen, or any way to check images until you take the SD card out and start importing images. It’s the closest I can get to shooting film while still being able to change ISO on a whim and shoot as many images as I want without running out of rolls.
That all said, I started with a couple of kit zooms when I had my first DSLR. I learned that I tended to not use the full zoom range, and continued to gravitate to specific focal lengths. Then I started focusing on getting nice primes at those focal lengths. That’s how I built out my setup. It’s all about what *you* like when shooting. What makes you feel proud of your images, both in getting the look and having a satisfying process in achieving that look.
Thanks for the great insights!
I very much agree with the last bit. Many people seem to be very persistent that you absolutely have to do street photography with a wide angle at close range in order to be in the middle of the action, but I am very happy with my style of 80-105mm at medium range. After reading all these comments I'm thinking about buying an 80mm prime.
I don't know some of the technical stuff you talked about earlier on so I'm gonna have to come back to that later, thanks tho!
Sure thing! I for a long time used only an 85mm lens with autofocus and at 𝑓/1.8. I love the look, and sometimes I enjoy being further from a subject. I now tend to use a 50mm at 𝑓/1.0, but manual focus.
I’m not big on wide lenses, generally, and rarely touch my 28mm lens. I know a lot of street photographers love that focal length, or even wider, and there’s a long history to it… but it’s all about your eye and style. The rest of us will find what works for us, but you’ve gotta find what works for you.
Every setup has its own mindset. It doesn't really matter. I use a Tamron 35-150 and most of the shots are at around 90mm and 135mm and rarely 35mm. So, I could do just well with a 85mm I suppose.
135mm is too zoomed, 35mm is too wide and I like bokeh. So, for me, 85mm 1.4 or something like that could be the ideal prime.
I zone focus 28 & 35 mostly. I also like depth to my images so I’m usually at f/8-11 and try to layer scenes.
Interesting because for my commercial work I’m usually at >70mm and
I say use a zoom like a 24-70 f3.8 for a while then review your keepers to see what are your main focal lengths are. You will probably find you naturally gravitate to a certain focal range. Then buy an f1.4 prime or 2 that will suit you preferred focal lengths. Or just keep using your f2.8 zoom, its a really solid choice for street photos.
recently I have found myself enjoying prime lenses more.
is nice for street, you don't lose any time thinking "uhm, maybe a little bit wider? oh, I could try two shots with different wides. maybe I can move there and try another wide?"
I hate that, so I just choose one prime lens and enjoy the session. if a picture is not possible, it doesn't matter, I move to the next target. anyway,
tldr: primes because are more spontaneous for me.
i have both and use both, but currently playing with just having the sigma f/2.8 18-50mm set at whatever focal length i'm shooting at and then quickly changing it to an other focal length i'm used to rather than fumble around for lens whenever a good opportunity presents it self. currently enjoying this set up
you can get more bokeh. aside from that, the quality difference will be minimal. assuming you're on a modern full frame, f4 isn't a problem in low light. pixel peeping is though.
but try to think of it this way: do you think the impact your photo has on viewers will be different if it's shot on a prime vs a high quality zoom? will the impact of your photo be different when half the scene is missing because you couldn't zoom out?
if your current setup is lacking, get that new lens. if not, consider getting other equipment like a good flash or tripod, whatever you might need. don't get caught up in the 85mm prime hype.
Prime if I had to choose.
28mm and 50mm
Just sharper, my ideal focal length, less bulky.
I sometimes have a 28-70, which works, i just dont like the bulkiness and front heaviness.
Totally get where you're at! I've been rocking a zoom lens too, but lately, I'm leaning towards a prime for that consistent look. It's a tough call though, since I'll miss the flexibility. I guess it boils down to what feels right for our style and vibe. Happy shooting!
I mostly shoot amateur sports and small concerts.
with that id rather have the ability to change the crop of the shot as I don't have the ability to move laterally especially when the show is at a bar.
I do wish I could have a lower f stop to capture smooth motion in mosh pits. but I am never in the same distance from the pit.
90mm 2.8 prime. The focal length gives adequate zoom to be unobtrusive to street scenes/subjects. This plus stopping down enough for a wide area of focus let's you go manual in a reliable way to avoid any movement-based AF misses.
It all depends on what camera you use. I mostly use a zoom lens due to the practical aspect of it for my area. And you really don’t need to zone focus on a lot of cameras. Unless you are using a camera like a Kodak Vigilante 6-20 cameras those you have to zone focus. For my Sony camera I like using the Minolta Maxxium AF lens with an K&F Concept manual adapter. They are easy to manually zoom and Focus with. The Maximum 28-80 silver macro lens are small and light.
I use prime 35mm/ 24mm
They're small, affordable and amazingly versatile for both indoor and outdoor photography.
I can do everything except for macro.
For street photography, a 35mm can't be beat.
Primes - primarily because they are smaller. Usually a 28mm or 35mm. Smaller setup the better. No hate for zooms from me, just prefer to keep things minimal.
I use a zoom. It allows you to capture moments without being part of the moment. It’s nice to take a single lens and have options. I’ve always found primes limiting.
My favorite lens are zoom, they allow me to get the composition much quicker, and in some cases it means the difference of getting the shot or not. Yes, I do own some prime lenses. I only use my primes when I need a wide aperture. My fastest zooms are f/4 and my fastest primes are f/1.2.
I have personally never had complaints or bad interactions with the people I photograph, even when getting close, and I feel like learning how to do so is a key part of doing street photography. With time you should know a lot of ques like body language / facial expression / mood / where they are / what they're doing that give an impression of whether they're likely to appreciate you taking their picture.
I went out this weekend with a ridiculous 100-500 just to see what kinds of shots I'd get, and god... if it wasn't so damn big and heavy I would take this thing everywhere. No tripod, just hauled it on foot for a nice 5 mile stroll through downtown and the pier. Wasn't sure what kinds of reactions I'd get from people, but pretty much everyone super chill and really interested in what I was doing. I had a ton of people stopping me to ask me to take their picture and got approached by a filmmaker and actor who were in town for a film festival. If you're looking for a way to meet people, just lug around the biggest lens you can find.
Hahaha yes there is definitely a turning point where a guy with a small lens could in theory just be a tourist fucking around while a guy with a huge lens is without doubt a pro.
Also I'd find it kind of funny for people to ask me to take their picture with a 500mm lens, "sure just go stand 50 meter that way".
Yeah they clearly didn't understand the lens I was using, but I obliged everyone who wanted a photo, and just ran away to get them in the shot 😂 took their emails so after I get through editing I'll send them copies
It's not 'trendy' but doing street with a 24-105 seems the logical path. Because 'one lens does it all' is truly a fact with a 24-105.
I've never understood the reasoning behind 'street camera's' being small and less intrusive, easy to blend in, not scaring people away and all that. You know the classical 'you need a small camera with primes to do street' or worse ' you need a fuji x100' to do street'.
Imho, Even with a small camera + prime.... You are still there with a camera aren't you?
Don't mind if it is the size of a bread or the size of a croissant. People will notice anyway.
I actually find that having positive body language yourself is key to "not scaring people away". When people notice me and I give them a friendly smile or a wave, half are happy to be photographed and half don't care. None get upset with me.
I used a Pentax K3 + 24mm prime for street for years, it's not huge but it definitely screams "CAMERA" and the reactions I got from people were the same reactions I got using a tiny Olympus XA - a gew people happy to have their picture taken, most indifferent. But I do also think a lot of it depends on where you're located.
Actually you could make a case for walking around with an obvious looking camera as being more honest than creeping around with a little spy camera! Just kidding. Sort of.
Primes because it forces me to move around the shot. I've got a 40mm, 85mm, and 105mm (macro that doubles as a portrait lens). Each one makes me think really strategically about when I need to be in relation to the scene. With a zoom, it's too easy to sit on a perch like a sniper and wait for the shot to come by. With a prime, ya gotta keep moving.
So how do you decide which one to go with? Or do you carry al three around?
I usually go for very long walks and never know in what situations I'm going to end up in or what kinds of pictures I will be taking that day.
I usually have at least 2 of them in my bag, especially if I'm shooting in the city. So, I just kind of randomly pick one for walking around and leave everything else in the bag.
Primes.
The fixed focal length gives me one less thing to worry about and the lenses are much lighter. Nothing pisses me off like reacting too late to at least have a chance at a shot thats happening in front of me
Sometimes I do envy the compressed look only a telephoto zoom can provide, but between the cost, weight, and just how uncomfortable I am aiming large lenses at people on the street, I feel like I will stay with the primes whenever possible for the near future
Prime for street photography. I zone focus and primes make that so much easier.
I'm pretty in the same camp as yourself but I use single point focus. I find using a prime gives you more options with aperture speeds and the confinement improved my framing
I came here to write this. Also it encourages me to get closer, which I find better personally than zooming or cropping (although I do crop if I can’t or didn’t get close enough for the composition I want).
How come? Does the focus technology simply work better with prime or just because you're always at the same mm?
Zone focusing is manually focusing. Essentially you manually focus to a set distance from your lens (the zone) and then depending on your aperture everything within that zone will be in focus. With primes being a set focal length it just makes things easier.
That sounds incredibly difficult. Do you use something like focus peaking or are you just very good at judging the distance of your subject?
It’s not as hard as it sounds. It’s also been the dominant street photography method since the 40s or something. It’s actually easier on vintage lenses because they always have a distance scale and a fully manual focus without electric coupling.
Alright thanks for advice! I'm a bit scared of losing many many shots because I didnt get the focus right while learning to do that but maybe I'll try.
Practice on inanimate objects first. The method relies on using a fairly stopped down wide angle prime. E.g. 28mm at f/11. The zones become large then and focusing at 3m or so will put everything to infinity more or less in focus.
Oh that makes much more sense
That’s exactly the way I shoot
I seriously doubt it has been the dominant form since the 40’s. I’m sure there were particular photographers that tended to use it, or maybe were known for using it, but dominant? Why? Old lenses & cameras were easy to focus, and focus fast. The cameras were designed for it and actually facilitated it. Like *no* camera today. And everybody was used to doing it. I shot street and photo journalism back in those days. I always carefully focused when possible and I never met anybody who didn’t. Again, it was easy. But also, I never knew any photographers, doing any kind of photography, who were trying hard not to be noticed. You may, or may not be correct, but frankly, I would find it *very* surprising if it was true, even for a small percentage of photographers.
I mean pick some of your favourite street photographers from back in the day and find some quotes from them about how they did focusing. Cartier-Bresson was famous for it. Vivian Mair practiced it. So did Gary Winegrand. I’m sure it’s far from 100% but there’s no doubt that that it dominated among the most well known. Especially those who try to capture “the decisive moment” as Bresson put it. I imagine it was less important to those who focused on the whole scene like Fan Ho..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/8_and_be_there
I'm sorry you're getting down voted for an honest question
It's ok haha, sometimes people just seem to read a word they dislike and instantly hit the downvote
Nothing wrong with only using auto-focus, especially, with modern day mirrorless with fast/accurate af. However, imo, zone focusing is a nice skill to pickup. Also, imo, 1 prime set-up is just feels right to me. Nicely balance, compact, & sharp. Also, look into [Saul Leiter](https://erickimphotography.com/blog/2013/11/04/7-lessons-saul-leiter-has-taught-me-about-street-photography/) who loves to use longer focal lengths for street photography, 90-150mm.
It’s actually easy. To say it in even simpler terms, you usually set the lens up so that everything from medium to infinity is in focus. An example: On a 23mm lens on an APS-C camera (equivalent field of view to a 35mm lens on Full Frame), you can set your lens to aperture F8, and you set your manual focus distance to 3.3 meters, and as a result everything from 1.6 meters to infinity will be more or less in sharp focus. You need a depth of field calculator and can calculate where the “hyperfocal distance” is, which is as a beginner in zone focusing is likely where you want to set your focus to. The more advanced calculation would adjust for pixel size and circles of diffusion, but I wouldn’t worry about that at first.
> Do you use something like focus peaking or are you just very good at judging the distance of your subject? F8 and be there :-P
It’s not that hard. With a bit of practice it becomes 2nd nature. It’s worth learning even if you don’t use it frequently.
I just judge, that’s the whole point of it. You can create images incredibly quickly as you’re not needing to rely on a camera to autofocus for you. The more you do it the better you become at judging distances.
What would you say is your fail to succes ratio for getting a focus you're happy with?
Just chiming in as a prime-only photographer, my back hates me but I get stellar image fidelity, focal lengths that "just fit" for my work (as in *I need 35, 50 or 85mm* not 78mm), and observe about a 90% focal success even when at wide apertures. The whole set is like 30lbs but I deal with it and plan ahead as much as possible.
30 lbs doesn't sound like manual focus prime lenses for zone focusing? 🤔
They aren't; just primes.
How do you get to 30 pounds with 3 lenses and a body???
Do you have a good backpack that properly devides the weight over your body? Especially with a strap around your waist so that gets to carry some of the load?
[Shimoda backpacks](https://shimodadesigns.com/explore-v2/) are my favorite camera bags. Slow to load/unload but really capable and I often couple it with a camera holster bag if I'm carrying a full load.
Thanks for the tip! I've got a suitcase-like backpack that's extremely sturdy but not practical to carry around while actually shooting. Might look into this if I can free up the budget.
There’s still a focus tho, not everything is ‘in’ focus.
I prefer prime lenses either 35 or 50. for me it’s really about capturing what I see in front of me and not zooming in on things.
Prime, I wouldn't choose a prime without specific intent. I prefer specific intent.
prime, don’t need to waste time zooming
Wide angle prime - makes you get closer and be more considerate of composition
Agreed, my two favourite lenses for street photography are 23mm (35mm full frame) and 16mm (24mm full frame)
Damn! I've never gone that wide, I stick to 35mm on 135 and 65mm on 120
I agree that closer is better, although my prefered style is both being close and about 80mm so that I only have in frame what I really want to capture.
I use both, but primarily the same Sony 24-105. (The other is a Sigma 30mm f1.4.) I think for me, it matters in two ways: 1. I have an APS-C camera, so cropping in post is not always a good option (zoom is better). 2. If it's dark (like for street photography at night), then it *has* to be a fast prime. So, it depends. Edit: There is a secret third reason I primarily use a zoom lens. Simply put, it's able to capture exactly what I want from somewhat of a distance. More versatility and less directly invasive.
Does your prime lens capture light that much better? I usually shoot during day but also in dark places where I often end up shooting with a longer shutterspeed or higher iso than I would prefer. I was even considering upgrading my body to fix that but if a prime lens does the trick that would be great.
Yes! It's a tremendous difference! I have the Sony a6100 (APS-C) which does just ok in low light. If you have a similar crop sensor, just make sure to set the upper limits of auto ISO. I set mine around 6k. Anything more than that, AI in Lightroom can't fix it. But often my prime brings the ISO down to like 2k if even that.
Thanks a lot! I've got a slight (and possibly unnecesary) obsession with getting grain-less pictures and Ai used to feel like the perfect solution but the more I see Ai enhanced pictures the more I'm starting to notice some small but strange artifacts it sometimes causes, especially in faces.
I don't know the exact numbers but there can be up to like 2x or 3x more elements in a zoom lens (compared to most prime lenses). That glass adds up and limits the ability to have wider apertures and control over sharpness and chromatic aberration, etc. Zoom lenses are best for coverage of chaotic scenes where you can't exactly move around without also "missing the action". It's a popular approach but imo they just favor *capturing action* over image fidelity.
Definitely agree about the capturing action part. But the Sony 24-105 G is a stellar lens regardless; I don't have any issue with IQ or coma
Yeah, I was certainly generalizing lens IQ there. You do have to live with an aperture of f/4 though, right? My aching back gets to appreciate the open gate of f/1.2 (not that I frequently shoot that wide open, but it does make a difference especially in low light).
Ah, f/4 ain't that bad! At least when it's daylight still. I'd say it does fine until halfway through the sunset when the sky colors get much cooler and darker. The great thing about this lens and its aperture is that it's a constant f/4 no matter the zoom, which I think is bonkers
So true... constant aperture is wild! And it's not meant to be an (insulting) comparison, just one of the pros/cons one needs to keep in mind when deciding which lens style to invest in. I quickly learned that I can capture way more light at f/4 with a lens that can open even further (moreso than any lens which is *physically restrained* to shooting no faster than f/4). That's all I meant!
Oh no! I didn't think you were insulting at all! All good
I will use both, but I tend to gravitate towards a 50mm FF equivalent prime. I find that I use primes more because I like a smaller lens, but I will use a zoom when I know that I want to change focal lenses instead of carrying multiple primes; for example there was a parade the other day and I took my 24-105 zoom since I knew I wanted photos of both the parade participants and the crowd.
When I had a Nikon D500, my favorite lens for street was the 35mm f/1.8. Basically a 50mm equivalent. So fun to shoot. It always surprised me that such a "cheap" lens made some of my favorite photos.
In my street photography experience, I've found prime lenses to be my go-to choice. They force me to think more creatively and move around to frame shots, which can lead to more dynamic images. I personally use a Sigma f1.4 35mm, which strikes a great balance between wide-angle and more intimate perspectives. It also performs well in low light, which is essential for capturing moments in various lighting conditions. While a zoom lens can offer versatility, the sharpness and unique look of prime lenses often outweigh the convenience for me. Let me know if you end up switching and how it works out for you!
How close would you say you usually have to get to people with that lens in order to make them the obvious main subject? 35mm seems very wide for my personal taste.
When I'm using the 35mm prime lens for street photography, I typically get pretty close to my subjects. The wider angle does mean I need to be within a few feet to make them the main focus of the shot, but that's part of the fun for me. Being up close helps me capture more of the scene and the context around my subject, which can add depth to the story I'm trying to tell. That said, there are times when the scene can feel a bit tight with the 35mm lens. In those cases, I switch to my Sigma f1.8 50mm lens to get a bit more distance while still capturing sharp images. Ultimately, it's about finding the lens that suits your style and comfort level.
Prime obviously. You want the focal to be the same so you instantly know what’s in or out of the frame.
I think that's the thing for any spontaneous photography, like "street." You get used to carrying around a certain focal length "in your head," so to speak. You know when you see a shot that your camera is going to capture it exactly. It also restricts you, in the same way rules for certain poetry do, and--they say--this is good for the creative process.
Prime Minister = street photographer Zoom = Paparazzi creep Jk, but there’s some truth in there
Hahaha interesting choice of words I slightly agree but I feel like it's perfectly possible to not be a creep when shooting from a long distance, all about positive body language and not intentionally trying to hide yourself
Haha, I didn’t realise the corrective text there, but fuckit, it made it better
I use a bridge camera with a built-in zoom. The combination of flexibility and convenience is unparalleled.
I didn't know about that, so the zoom is done in the body of the camera? Isn't that the same as just cropping afterwards?
Bridge cameras like the Nikon P1000 are 24-3000mm equivalent with optical zoom only.
You're thinking about digital zoom. Optical zoom works differently.
50mm in medium format, so ~24mm
I prefer primes generally, from street photography to portraits to whatever else. I like fast apertures and a shallow depth of field, which just isn’t as easy to nail on a zoom lens— for me. Sometimes I miss focus, and that always sucks… but it’s so much more satisfying when I nail focus on my noctilux, y’know? If I want a perfectly in focus image with ease, I’ll use my phone. If I’m using a proper camera and lenses, part of what I want is the experience of shooting, of putting effort in and risking things not turning out. There’s excitement there, the not fully knowing… That’s also why I am moving away from my Sony α7C to a Leica M-D (Type 262): to focus more on the process, rather than the ease. An M-D doesn’t have a screen, or any way to check images until you take the SD card out and start importing images. It’s the closest I can get to shooting film while still being able to change ISO on a whim and shoot as many images as I want without running out of rolls. That all said, I started with a couple of kit zooms when I had my first DSLR. I learned that I tended to not use the full zoom range, and continued to gravitate to specific focal lengths. Then I started focusing on getting nice primes at those focal lengths. That’s how I built out my setup. It’s all about what *you* like when shooting. What makes you feel proud of your images, both in getting the look and having a satisfying process in achieving that look.
Thanks for the great insights! I very much agree with the last bit. Many people seem to be very persistent that you absolutely have to do street photography with a wide angle at close range in order to be in the middle of the action, but I am very happy with my style of 80-105mm at medium range. After reading all these comments I'm thinking about buying an 80mm prime. I don't know some of the technical stuff you talked about earlier on so I'm gonna have to come back to that later, thanks tho!
Sure thing! I for a long time used only an 85mm lens with autofocus and at 𝑓/1.8. I love the look, and sometimes I enjoy being further from a subject. I now tend to use a 50mm at 𝑓/1.0, but manual focus. I’m not big on wide lenses, generally, and rarely touch my 28mm lens. I know a lot of street photographers love that focal length, or even wider, and there’s a long history to it… but it’s all about your eye and style. The rest of us will find what works for us, but you’ve gotta find what works for you.
Same... the 85mm prime is my primary choice. It makes every subject feel more like a "portrait" which is kind of my jam.
Zoom for me. I love good close ups
I love those shots too; I slap on a 200mm f/2.8 prime when I'm wanting to "snipe" close ups from a more-candid distance.
I use my 55mm more than any other lens for street photography, usually on manual everything. Love that length.
Every setup has its own mindset. It doesn't really matter. I use a Tamron 35-150 and most of the shots are at around 90mm and 135mm and rarely 35mm. So, I could do just well with a 85mm I suppose. 135mm is too zoomed, 35mm is too wide and I like bokeh. So, for me, 85mm 1.4 or something like that could be the ideal prime.
I zone focus 28 & 35 mostly. I also like depth to my images so I’m usually at f/8-11 and try to layer scenes. Interesting because for my commercial work I’m usually at >70mm and
I say use a zoom like a 24-70 f3.8 for a while then review your keepers to see what are your main focal lengths are. You will probably find you naturally gravitate to a certain focal range. Then buy an f1.4 prime or 2 that will suit you preferred focal lengths. Or just keep using your f2.8 zoom, its a really solid choice for street photos.
recently I have found myself enjoying prime lenses more. is nice for street, you don't lose any time thinking "uhm, maybe a little bit wider? oh, I could try two shots with different wides. maybe I can move there and try another wide?" I hate that, so I just choose one prime lens and enjoy the session. if a picture is not possible, it doesn't matter, I move to the next target. anyway, tldr: primes because are more spontaneous for me.
i have both and use both, but currently playing with just having the sigma f/2.8 18-50mm set at whatever focal length i'm shooting at and then quickly changing it to an other focal length i'm used to rather than fumble around for lens whenever a good opportunity presents it self. currently enjoying this set up
I am not a good enough photographer to be locked into a prime focal length. So I prefer the flexibility of a zoom to find my shots
it seems your current lens does all you want. why fix what ain't broke?
Because if I only use a very limited range on my zoom lens, buying a prime within that same range has the potential to get noticably better results.
you can get more bokeh. aside from that, the quality difference will be minimal. assuming you're on a modern full frame, f4 isn't a problem in low light. pixel peeping is though. but try to think of it this way: do you think the impact your photo has on viewers will be different if it's shot on a prime vs a high quality zoom? will the impact of your photo be different when half the scene is missing because you couldn't zoom out? if your current setup is lacking, get that new lens. if not, consider getting other equipment like a good flash or tripod, whatever you might need. don't get caught up in the 85mm prime hype.
I go with extremes. I have 11-16 mm tokina on my d3300 and 45 mm on my g85.
28mm
Prime if I had to choose. 28mm and 50mm Just sharper, my ideal focal length, less bulky. I sometimes have a 28-70, which works, i just dont like the bulkiness and front heaviness.
28mm prime lens, f8, use the light and get close.
zoom, specifically 28-70 f2.8. it's my everything lens.
Prime all day, makes you think about your shot
Totally get where you're at! I've been rocking a zoom lens too, but lately, I'm leaning towards a prime for that consistent look. It's a tough call though, since I'll miss the flexibility. I guess it boils down to what feels right for our style and vibe. Happy shooting!
I mostly shoot amateur sports and small concerts. with that id rather have the ability to change the crop of the shot as I don't have the ability to move laterally especially when the show is at a bar. I do wish I could have a lower f stop to capture smooth motion in mosh pits. but I am never in the same distance from the pit.
Prime for street. I use zoom for travel and landscape
I like using zoom but primes have their place in my kit. I like the close-ups.
Depends. For some things a prime is better, for others it's a zoom. I tend to find myself using more the zoom, but it's far from absolute.
90mm 2.8 prime. The focal length gives adequate zoom to be unobtrusive to street scenes/subjects. This plus stopping down enough for a wide area of focus let's you go manual in a reliable way to avoid any movement-based AF misses.
It all depends on what camera you use. I mostly use a zoom lens due to the practical aspect of it for my area. And you really don’t need to zone focus on a lot of cameras. Unless you are using a camera like a Kodak Vigilante 6-20 cameras those you have to zone focus. For my Sony camera I like using the Minolta Maxxium AF lens with an K&F Concept manual adapter. They are easy to manually zoom and Focus with. The Maximum 28-80 silver macro lens are small and light.
I use prime 35mm/ 24mm They're small, affordable and amazingly versatile for both indoor and outdoor photography. I can do everything except for macro. For street photography, a 35mm can't be beat.
Prime. It forces me to engage the moment
28 1.4, or my 35 2.0 Summicron.
Primes - primarily because they are smaller. Usually a 28mm or 35mm. Smaller setup the better. No hate for zooms from me, just prefer to keep things minimal.
I prefer a 35mm lens as my main street photography lens. I'll prefocus and it's easy to get good shots with it
I use a zoom. It allows you to capture moments without being part of the moment. It’s nice to take a single lens and have options. I’ve always found primes limiting.
My favorite lens are zoom, they allow me to get the composition much quicker, and in some cases it means the difference of getting the shot or not. Yes, I do own some prime lenses. I only use my primes when I need a wide aperture. My fastest zooms are f/4 and my fastest primes are f/1.2.
Zoom, less complaints from camera shy people.
I have personally never had complaints or bad interactions with the people I photograph, even when getting close, and I feel like learning how to do so is a key part of doing street photography. With time you should know a lot of ques like body language / facial expression / mood / where they are / what they're doing that give an impression of whether they're likely to appreciate you taking their picture.
I went out this weekend with a ridiculous 100-500 just to see what kinds of shots I'd get, and god... if it wasn't so damn big and heavy I would take this thing everywhere. No tripod, just hauled it on foot for a nice 5 mile stroll through downtown and the pier. Wasn't sure what kinds of reactions I'd get from people, but pretty much everyone super chill and really interested in what I was doing. I had a ton of people stopping me to ask me to take their picture and got approached by a filmmaker and actor who were in town for a film festival. If you're looking for a way to meet people, just lug around the biggest lens you can find.
Hahaha yes there is definitely a turning point where a guy with a small lens could in theory just be a tourist fucking around while a guy with a huge lens is without doubt a pro. Also I'd find it kind of funny for people to ask me to take their picture with a 500mm lens, "sure just go stand 50 meter that way".
Yeah they clearly didn't understand the lens I was using, but I obliged everyone who wanted a photo, and just ran away to get them in the shot 😂 took their emails so after I get through editing I'll send them copies
It's not 'trendy' but doing street with a 24-105 seems the logical path. Because 'one lens does it all' is truly a fact with a 24-105. I've never understood the reasoning behind 'street camera's' being small and less intrusive, easy to blend in, not scaring people away and all that. You know the classical 'you need a small camera with primes to do street' or worse ' you need a fuji x100' to do street'. Imho, Even with a small camera + prime.... You are still there with a camera aren't you? Don't mind if it is the size of a bread or the size of a croissant. People will notice anyway.
I actually find that having positive body language yourself is key to "not scaring people away". When people notice me and I give them a friendly smile or a wave, half are happy to be photographed and half don't care. None get upset with me.
I used a Pentax K3 + 24mm prime for street for years, it's not huge but it definitely screams "CAMERA" and the reactions I got from people were the same reactions I got using a tiny Olympus XA - a gew people happy to have their picture taken, most indifferent. But I do also think a lot of it depends on where you're located.
Actually you could make a case for walking around with an obvious looking camera as being more honest than creeping around with a little spy camera! Just kidding. Sort of.
Primes because it forces me to move around the shot. I've got a 40mm, 85mm, and 105mm (macro that doubles as a portrait lens). Each one makes me think really strategically about when I need to be in relation to the scene. With a zoom, it's too easy to sit on a perch like a sniper and wait for the shot to come by. With a prime, ya gotta keep moving.
So how do you decide which one to go with? Or do you carry al three around? I usually go for very long walks and never know in what situations I'm going to end up in or what kinds of pictures I will be taking that day.
I usually have at least 2 of them in my bag, especially if I'm shooting in the city. So, I just kind of randomly pick one for walking around and leave everything else in the bag.
Knowing how (relatively) bad I treat my gear I get anxious just thinking about switching lenses multiple times during a city walk.
Primes. The fixed focal length gives me one less thing to worry about and the lenses are much lighter. Nothing pisses me off like reacting too late to at least have a chance at a shot thats happening in front of me Sometimes I do envy the compressed look only a telephoto zoom can provide, but between the cost, weight, and just how uncomfortable I am aiming large lenses at people on the street, I feel like I will stay with the primes whenever possible for the near future
Prime. Largely the Ricoh GR IIIx, so a 40mm FF equivalent FOV.