The Prime Lenses vs Zooms Debate: Which is the Superior Choice? 

Showing more of the "failed" ones and explaining why you feel they are "failed" is soo usefull. Thanks for your video's, very informative. It realy helps me on my quest for improving my own photography.

I've been following you for several years now and I've always thought that the way you communicate your composition thought process to be incredibly useful. A mixture of so-called fails and keepers is a great idea Adam.

Using primes can help at reinforcing composition techniques and slowing the photography process down in a positive way.

If I never hear another photographer say "zoom with your feet" I will be happy. It is not always possible to do this. 1) many times, the spot where you're standing is safe but getting closer is unsafe (i.e. on the edge of a cliff). 2) It is not always legal to leave the trail especially in ecologically sensitive areas. 3) with wildlife, getting closer can endanger the animal, and moving farther away can change the composition or the photographer's movement can flush the animal. When Brian said "zoom with your feet" it was like fingernails on a chalk board to me.

I think it is a benefit to see what you initially thought and why you changed the composition. Just to see your field process a little more. Thanks for what you do Adam!

I am into my seventh decade and mobility has become an issue which has led me to sell my primes and rely on the two zooms I have. Been very happy with the RF 100-500, recently combined with a 1.4 extender, and EF 24-70. Showing your "fails" always helps. Thanks for the vid always.

I like the challenge of manual focussing primes. It gives me a more enjoyable shooting experience and forces me to work more for my shot. I tend to check my composition and edges of the frame better. With my zoom I feel I get a bit lazy, don't actively look for better composition, and risk of just taking quick snapshots in AF mode. I feel more active using primes.

Adam, I really like the final decisions you made on the two waterfall images. The last one is quite stunning. I think your method of animating two shots into one to show the combination is great. It's a good depiction of what was kept and what was not. Great work! Cheers!

Yes please...more "fails". They are very educational, and they make me feel better!

I never really liked the look on pictures where there is to much motion blur on the water. But all the photographers seem to love it for some reason. But showing us what did not work and tell us why , is a good idea. Lets us learn from your mistakes.

I use primes, for the exact same reasons as Brian. I really enjoy the slow thought provoking creativity necessary to work with them, and I’d swear it helps me stop and think things through. I carry 3 or 4 of them. And with M4/3 they’re tiny! 😊👍🏻

Always interesting to dive into compositions 👍

I think it's a great teaching point to show both. Thank you. Another great video

Any insights you care to share are much welcomed Adam

What a great idea for a video! Excellent discussion. Thanks.

While searching for the next shot and a composition presents itself, I begin in that exact spot where I found what caught my eye in the first place. I can then zoom in or out to compose the scene. Job done. Using a single focal length means I have to either move forawrd or back to get the framing I want. This in turn can completely change the perspective and what caught my eye in the first place. When finished then move around. and look for more. Zooms for Landscpe photography are truly marvelous.

Nice idea showing your get around certain problems. Certainly open to learn from mistakes, lovely vlog too.

I like the way you pointed out the problems with the first image and how you corrected it in the second image. Very educational.

We always learn more from our failures than successes. Please show more like this. Also, it always helps psychologically to see the reality that even the pros have images that don't always work out! Keep up the great work, Adam!

It’s very important to show your thought process, I love the images. Thanks Adam.

Sir Adam Gibbs, at 14:45 I like the image on the right much better with the different textures and flow of the water. Thanks for the great video. 🌟

I love that last blended image. I actually like that zoomed in image you showed at timestamp 15:08.

What an excellent idea, Adam. You're right, seeing the less successful ideas would be very helpful but I understand the obvious reluctance to show them.

I loved your last photo. Beautiful!

Adam, yes, showing the failed shots may help me (us), specially with your commentaries. Thanks for every YT video, always inspiring.

Great video - Thanks. I think showing the bad, the nearly there and the good is an excellent idea; especially when accompanied with a discussion as to why and how to progress from poor to excellent with the same subject. Recently I’ve seen some videos on still-life where the lighting, and set are built piece by piece the results examined and then the photographer shows how to tackle unwanted items such as flare or hot spots.

Great video again Adam and good discussion. I used to have a couple of primes but found i wasn't using them as much as the zooms prefer the flexibility. Moving with feet good point and definitely something i am quite conscious of nowadays. Like the idea of seeing a mix of what worked and what didn't as i think it helps on the thought process.

Your "fails" are still pretty awesome. As is your humility. But I definitely have learned a heap of useful information as usual! Thanks for your incredible content, Adam!!!

Great video again Adam. Showing the failed compositions is good I feel. Oh yeah, for me I prefer zoom lenses, though I get Brian’s point about making you try harder.

I agree, Adam. Showing your fails with an explanation would also be very helpful.

I’ve got one prime for Astro, but prefer zooms for everything else. Brian did have a good point about primes forcing you to move about more, which can help find angles you might otherwise overlook. I struggled to find a great angle at Christie Falls last year and never tried to get to that lower location you went to. It looks so much better from there. Great video, as always, Adam!

Hi Adam. I use both. However, if I have a lot of time, I only use Primes. Your waterfall shots are impressive ❤. Greetings to Brian! Regards - Gerd

great video as usual and I say as many others have already said that it is good that we viewers get to see the mistakes too. because we all make mistakes, whether amateur or professional. And precisely showing one's mistakes makes us amateurs gain better self-confidence as we see that even the professionals make mistakes. But above all, it makes us learn to see and think about these small but important details, such as in your pictures where branches move in the wind, a detail that is easy to miss. And as for lenses, I've tried just using primes but I'm a bit too lazy so I use my Zoom lens. But for someone who is going to start photographing landscapes, I would say buy a 24-105 or 24-120 depending on which camera you use. it provides the most flexibility.

Last combo image... Well done.

I really enjoyed this video, especially the thought process and the changing thought process. I wouldn't call it a fail as a learning process especially for us less experienced photographers. It makes me think about compositions, different angles, light, shooting for editing with movement and shutter speeds. Brian Branham also makes great points about being forced to keep an open mind on positions and angles with prime lenses. I like the idea of being forced to use one prime lens and testing your creativity, as ive seen in other videos. Perhaps an idea in the future.

Really nice photos as ever Adam! Waterfalls are just so nice to photograph. I got two zooms to start with since switching to Fujifilm. The Fuji 70-300 (w/ 1.4 teleconverter) and the Tamron 17-70 2.8 are my current combo for my X-T4 because I felt they were sensible options to cover such a big focal range for different genres of photography and videography and I'm really happy with them both. I would like a couple of primes to complete the set, but I wouldn't want anymore lenses after that. One would be for portraits, travel and filming in a low light or controlled environment and the other a telephoto prime for sport and wildlife in combo with the 70-300.

Totally agree with that mindset bud, hopefully more togs show their struggles. Some nice shot bud!

What a beautiful area. Having not been to Vancouver Island I'm obviously not familiar with it, but it's surprisingly green for being the end of February (at 50-odd degrees north). Nice.

Hallo Adam, thank you ever so much for this new video! I would like to hear you talk your „failures“. You learn a lot by analyzing these and there are many options to make things „better“, that is to become more flexible. For me that would be inspiring and a helpful addition. (Don’t get me wrong: That doesn’t mean that your work needs approvement 🙏)

A good zoom can be a joy, but I agree shifting your tripod with a prime can stop you being lazy and help see things you’ve possibly missed by not moving a few yards.

Even your fails look good to me. I do pets and portraits so my first lenses are 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8. I find those good for landscape too but they can be on the heavy side. Love the images you got. Thanks for sharing!

"Us - Learning from your mistakes" A good video? I would love to see such as it shows your struggles with composition and then how you solved it.

As a budget conscience, old-schooler old guy I still prefer my primes. But then my digital cameras (Nikon D610, D750, and Df) are all 10+ years old and, by today's standards, low valued MP. Thus, I am using Nikon 'D' lenses: 24, 28, 35, and 50mm, along with an outlier, the 85mm f/1.8 G I used back when working weddings. The D lenses lack today's modern coatings as well as image stabilization, along with the cameras lacking internal stabilization. But being small, they easily fit in the cargo pockets of my pants and when I'm out afield I mount the 85 and put the 24 in one pocket and the 50 in the other and I'm covered. The 35 is great for around camp or town, and the 28 for when I just feel like it. Small, light, fast. Not everyone's cup of tea, but it works for me.

lovely shots! Great picture in 11:15. As you say, I would also shift the frame a little higher. So less foreground and a little more meat on the top…

Adam, the last image was great. I agree with the 24-120. That is a versatile starter lense. I probably did a very high percentage of shots with my 24-120. Even past the beginner day's. Adam, seriously you can add your failures if you want but it really isn't necessary. None of us are perfect and I think most intelligent photographer's know that. You could show what it took too get to the final image, that might be interesting. Honestly we all know what it takes to get to a final image. I think your video's are excellent in themselves. And thank you for that. Peace my friend.

Thanks for the video. Interesting topic Prime vs Zoom. I struggle mightily to make sharp images with my zooms. Yesterday I went out with my 35mm prime and took a shot handheld. I could not believe how sharp it came out, I had the aperture wide open trying to blur the background. Waterfalls are a challenge. It would be interesting to see which photos you feel work vs ones that don't. I like your approach to breaking down photos.

Adam, YES! Seeing what didn’t work, and why would be a real plus to your channel. And I’d have that be in two ways. First is the compositions that didn’t work, and why. Second, would be technical things that didn’t work out either because you just can’t cheat the laws of physics, or because you just messed it up in some way. Also, it would be great if you showed a step by step in how you would go about “painting in” foliage that isn’t moving, into your longer exposure frame. Thanks!

Yes, please. More This-work-and-this-doesn't-videos. I like them so much more than Oh-these conditions-are-amaaaazing-videos.

As always I love your subtle processing Adam Regarding lenses, a decent mid-range zoom, telly-Zoom and a wide angle prime The wide angle Zooms are too expensive for the use I would give them, so at a much cheaper price, the prime works for me I hate changing lenses of course 📷👍

Adam I like first off how you talk us through the scene and let us know what you are trying to accomplish with the shot. It helps to hear what you are seeing. I would like to see some more of your shots that don’t work and hear why you think they don’t work and perhaps what you changed to get a better outcome.

For landscapes using a zoom, the 24-120 is my most used focal length. For a prime with landscapes, I prefer 20mm and 50mm, although if I had a 40mm prime it might take the place of the 50mm. I once owned the Voigtlander 40mm F2 for my Nikon dlsr and loved that lens. I use the Voigtlander 50mm APO now but will admit that I use the 24-120 F4 more often despite the Voigtlander 50mm F2 APO being the superior lens. I agree with Brian and many others that primes make you work and think more about your composition. It's not a bad thing.

Firstly, the question of showing your ‘failures’ - I tend to think that you learn more from failures in life than you do for successes. So that’s a ‘yes’ from me, share the failures as well as the successes. Secondly, the landscape lens choice question. There’s no right or wrong answer, and a lot of it comes down to personal preference. I do favour 24mm myself, and I used a 17-35mm for quite a few years, aswell as 24mm primes. Around 24mm feels like a sweet spot to me. Its not so much about how wide it is & how much you can get in the frame, it’s about the perspective it gives you. What I mean by this is the ‘balance’ between the relative size of objects in the fore, mid & distance. the 17mm obviously had a wider view and you could get more into the frame, however, anything in the distance was so small relative to the foreground that the shots often became all about the fore & mid ground and the distance was lost. At 28-35mm I always felt they lacked the dramatic look of an image taken with the 24mm. 28mm May only be 4mm difference in focal length, but in terms of horizontal angle it’s 84 vs 75 degrees and that made a significant difference to me to the dramatic perspective. Having said that, a 24-120 ish zoom would be very versatile. I would pair a 24mm up with something around 50mm & then a longer focal length, probably a zoom. If that zoom happened to be a 70-200, then I probably would not bother with the 50mm Around 2000, I did an 86 day around the world back packing trip, shot 58 rolls of 36 exposure, and only had a 17-35 & 70-200 lenses. There was one time where I really wanted something ideally between the two, but I made do with what I had. It was a great combo. I’m now shoot on a GFX (only the lowly 50R - but it’s great!), and after a hiking trip a year ago, I’ve been looking to lighten the load. I’ve ended up adapting a Nikon 28mm PC lens (which after the 0.78 crop effect of the GFX sensor, it ends up around 22mm). This represented a significant weight save vs my Canon 24TSEii that I had been adapting to my GFX. I’ve also adapted an old Olympus 100mm f2 lens to the GFX, which gave great results and was small and light, BUT, I couldn’t find anything in the 200-300 range to pair with the 100, that still gave me a weight advantage vs the GF100-200….so I got that, BUT, I’ve subsequently tried a Pentax 645 150-300, so I’ve adapted this to GFX and I’ve dropped the OM 100/2. My test images from the 150-300 look very promising vs the GF100-200, and it’s less weight and longer focal length/range. I will probably still take the GF50, which is relatively light and bridges the gap.

What's up Adam? Great video as always. You know something Adam? Sometime what you may think's a failure could be a great shot to someone ells. All of these shots you have here are really OK. As far as lens are concern, I agree with Bri. Primes are better all the way around. Peace my friend!

I think as a beginner you should have a prime for sure, I started out with a canon a-1 with a 50mm and a 28mm prime. They really do make you think and help you get rid of the paradox of choice. I do have both types of lenses in my setup now though. I think a good challenge is to set the zoom at a specific number and use it as a prime for one shoot. Great video as always and yes to showing more of the fails and your thoughts on them.

Personally I agree with both points of view for lenses. I used only primes years ago when I had the energy to zoom with my feet. I did find with primes that I did discover more compositions to consider as I was moving about. But low and behold, age and physical restrictions have caught up with me, and zooming with my feet is not always practical. I still have both, but use what suits the situation. Thanks for another great video.

The Christmas log is beautiful.

I have a 20mm prime. 16-35 , 24-70, 70-200, 100-400, 200-500., That said my 24-70 f2.8 is my most used lens when I do landscape photography. Yes others come into play but it's my main lens. I shoot with a dslr. I think with new folks using mirroless a 24- 120 would be a thought. Nice video and your less than great shots and why they didn't work is nice to see from time to time.

I would really like to see your fails and why, I am learning or trying to learn this subject and have plenty of fails myself so any help you give is very well received, and your image is superb, I'm envious

I started out with the Nikon D5000 and an 18-200 (27-300 FFE). That was a great beginner setup because I could shoot everything from flowers to sports to some wildlife at a quality good enough for local photo contests. I’ve added lots of lenses since, and a Z7ii, as I’ve gained knowledge and want to push my limits more and more.

When I started shooting in the 80’s, zooms were good but clearly not up to the level of primes. They have come a long way since then. Primes probably still have a slight edge but the difference is negligible now. That said, I still prefer primes and current don’t even own any zooms. I like the faster aperture available with most primes and I like the “extra” work involved in using them. I guess it gives me a bit more satisfaction with the end result. But beyond that, what you shoot probably plays into the decision more than anything. I do landscapes and a lot of portraits. If I did mostly sports or wildlife I’d probably use zooms.

Photo with log and waterfall was interesting

Zooms... a perfect example is the waterfall where you said you zoomed in with your lens... if I had to change lenses there you risk moisture from the falls entering the lens. or dust in other regions... less lens removal = less foreign materials entering the body... and as you said in the opening comments.. zoom lenses have come a loooong wat since the early days of Vivitar and Tamron 🙂 I think including ones you do not keep is a valuable learning piece... 🙂 I find it interesting that the motion blur in water is preferred, but motion in the leaves is a problem... 🙃 Beautiful final image.... the log separates the soft silky upper falls with defined streams of water below... and here the sharp cedar was very important feature 🙂 My go to Fuji X-T lenses are the 16-80 f4.0 (24-120 equivalent) and the 50-140 f2.8 (75-210 equivalent)... I used to have the 16-55 f2.8 but too heavy and a little short 🙂 and the 10-24 but did not use it enough for my style.... 🙂

My recommendation for first purchase of a prime lenses is 50mm. It´s extremely good and extremely cheap. By this lense to get familiar with prime lenses. I personally use zooms a lot but have prime lenses too (15, 20, 28, 50, 85, 135 and 300). My absolute favorite lens is the 150mm prime lens by Sigma for macros! From my point of view it´s interesting to see, how the professionals struggle with composition and try to find a solution (that´s why i like your youtube channel). It gives me more than professionals who alway shoot great shots. So please show us your fails too.

I have the GF32-64mm and the 45-100mm. I’ve had the 32-64 for quite a while. I bought it with the original GFX 50s. I’ve since moved up to the 100s and added the 45-100 somewhere along the way. Both are good as far as image quality goes. The 32-64 doesn’t have optical stabilization but that’s not an issue with the 100s with IBIS. It comes down to where you want the gap in coverage. I typically carry the 20-35, 45-100, and the 100-200 with the 1.4x TC. Fujifilm’s 1.4x TC is expensive but works incredibly well with the 100-200, even wide open, but at that price it should! I think the TC cost something like $829USD. The only primes I have for the GFX system are the 110/2 and the 23/4. The 23 never gets used now that they finally came out with the 20-35. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Thanks! Including failures would be nice, especially with explanation as to why a failure and what you would have done differently. My first three lenses were zoom. Nikon D850 with 14-24 f2.8; 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. On a spending spree 6 years ago.

I really enjoyed this because it dealt with the problems and issues associated with movement and shutter speed. Personally, I am a LR guy. I would like you to show more of how you "paint things in" in Photoshop to help me get my brain around the process. With regard to prime lenses, it's a tradeoff. At this point, I don't believe that prime lenses are worth it given the advances in zooms. Also, having a lot of primes is quite a bit more expensive. When I purchased the GFX 100s this past summer (resulting from your recommendation to Alister and his recommendation to me), it is the first time in my life that I was able to purchase a complete system (i.e. body, wide angle zoom, normal zoom and long zoom). It essentially replaced my full frame system. It just made life easier. I tell people starting to go with your cellphone first by shooting raw and learning to edit in LR mobile. If you decide to stay engaged, purchase a full frame and a wide angle to short telephoto like the 24-105. All the best.

During my GAS period, I bought mostly primes to go with my 24-120 zoom, for my D700 and D800 cameras. Still have them, but now I usually go out with a Z5 and the 24-200 that came with it. Surprisingly good results for a lens that I thought I'd seldom use when I bought it.

Clever photographer always combines both, depending on the conditions around and creativity. So nothing to argue about.

The Nikon 24-120 f.4 is my go to lens. I also bought the 14-24 f.2.8. Between the two lenses I have 14mm-120.

the original long exposure with the horizontal tree is so much better than the "final" version 😲

I like the misses with explanation. Personally my problem is subject lock and miss parts of the rest.

Nice video Adam. I think it’s a budget thing. I use a Nikon d7200. To buy a set of zooms sharp enough to get the most from the censor or would cost too much. The older zooms don’t cut it with 24mp apsc. I use a Nikon 35mm 1.8 and a 50mm 1.8 fantastic resolution especially when stopped down. Next purchase 24mm prime then 150mm.

Just starting out the budget looms large for most folks so I think it's easier to get good affordable primes than good affordable zooms (this is changing it seems - for the better). Once committed to the hobby, and more willing to budget more for a good lens; Zoom all the way. Brian makes some good points but in edge cases, you can crop with your zoom when you simply can not move with your feet or if you do, things get in the way. Besides, it can be a real faff swapping out lenses, remembering to carry certain ones - then there is the risk of getting crud on the sensor. But hey. We have a choice so we can use what suits us. A big yes on failures. Would be very useful for folks.

Even your "fails" look "FABULOUS!"

I really like the image with the sunstar. I don't remember the last image with one of those in it. I like the 24-120 range. I was thinking how hard it would be to freeze that tree on top of the log. Happy trails!

Hi my favorite lens is my sigma 50-500 so versatile but heavy and my second is my sigma 18_35 art series lens that is an absolute beauty.

landscape photography is a puzzle. really stuck with the image after the cut waterfall, many times the vegetation and sky become disturbing above waterfalls. But here you got a nice image, fun to see pictures that don't turn out 100% good.

Hey Adam, great video! What is that camera bag on your shoulders? Something new from shimoda?

I move between landscape and wildlife shooting roughly 50% of each type. I am just shy of 80 and trying to avoid issues with my knees. Not only do I mostly use zoom lenses, I tend to favor f/4 lenses because they are much lighter and I find the image quality to be very good. The one prime I use for astro shooting is a 14mm f1.8 but it only weighs 460g. One of the best wide angle lenses I have ever used is a 16-35mm f/4 lens which weighs 353g. I especially like this lens for getting down very low around water with a strong foreground element. I have been a photographer for over 40 years and the new lenses are much better than my earlier versions both in terms of quality lighter weight.

On my Sony A7R4 I almost always defaulted to my Sigma 24-70. Now on the GFX system I have 20-33, 35-70 and 100-200. Don’t miss fumbling with primes which I’ve done also 👍👍

Good idea with the idea of discussing the fails. I get a lot of comments on my long exposures, especially this one: "if it doesn't look right, don't get the camera out..." I fully disagree with this as I believe that everyone has his own idea about a photo and should take the shots. Yes, one can debate the compositions etc. and that's why I think you have a good point here to discuss why it failed and the reasoning behind it. That would help me at least.

Not every image is a banger and to show only the best ones isn't all that true to life. I'm sure many of us have images that are almost there but we can't quite put our finger on want is needed. Seeing and hearing what you think your images needed to be better is helpful. As for the great lens debate I'd have to say there are way more zooms out there than primes in camera bags. The zooms are so much better now than they were. All zooms are a compromise but the compromise is a much narrower band anymore. As for a beginner I'd recommend just two zooms. A 24-70 and a 70-200 and get the 24-70 first. Most folks will stick the 70-200 on there and just use the far end of the zoom. The 24-70 will make you move around more to find the image. Also no tripod at first anyway. Too many folks once the tripod is set up never move again. Also when the camera is on the tripod the tendency is to take the shot even if it is horrible. We all need to walk around looking for the image before setting up the tripod. Back to the primes or zoom. I have only 3 primes for my digital Canon EOS, a 20mm, 50mm and 85mm. I also have 3 zooms for my GFX 50SII, a 20-35, 35-70 and 100-200mm. For my Canon P rangefinder I have 24, 28, 35, 50, 80, 100 and 135mm.

Enjoyed the video, Adam. Zoom…prime…I doubt you’d ever notice the difference when printed. I think there is an overall over-obsession with lens sharpness.

Nature photographer here. I shoot with canon R5 100-500. It’s the only lens I own and it’s darn sharp! Zooms are just so versatile. I shoot macro-ish with great minimum focus and landscapes at 100 mm. There is no monster prime in my budget range,but I doubt that I’d enjoy the weight and limitation’s anyways. I do want to get better at landscape photography. Perhaps a video for those of us shooting at 100 mm?

For “starting out” I think you cannot go far wrong with the “kit” zoom. Something like 18-70mm on a DX body or 24-120mm on a full-frame body. Beyond that lens choice must surely be influenced mostly by what you wish to photograph. For landscapes the widest I’ve used is a 20mm prime (I don’t feel any need to go wider). The longest is a 70-200mm zoom.

I think I would start with my 24-70, that I have now, but might do the 24-120 f4 if I were to think about it more. But my next lens would be a longer zoom, 70-200 or 100-400. Also, I think it would be instructive to see the shots you consider fails and the reasoning behind it. I know I am often happy with shots in the field only to be meh about them on the computer. Thanks Adam!

I don't consider myself a photographer, but I use a 24mm and a 50mm on APSC. That is equivalent to 35 and 76mm. Then I have a 150-500mm. In occasion I feel I would need to go wider and most of these times I perform a pano with the 24mm. I don

I started out 30 years ago with primes. And didn’t look back. My choice is 24mm. 50mm and 200mm primes( canon). I love my primes.

Sometimes I find zooms better other times primes. 🤷‍♂️ You both take great images.

I take zooms for landscape work. There are too many places where you physically can't "zoom with your feet" or safely change lenses. But for street work, I use a 35mm and 85mm prime. I don't take a bag and carry the spare lens in my pocket. Also, for architecture, I take 18 and 35mm primes(I'd like a T&S but can't justify the cost!). And for a first landscape lens the classic 24-70 (but f4 not 2.8) takes some beating although 24-120 would be good too, but they are usually bigger and heavier.

I've really fallen in love with the 45-100 lens. With my Nikons I always seemed to gravitate towards the wider end, but no so much with the Fuji. Perhaps, it's because the format of the Fuji is much closer to the 4x5 that I used primarily for decades. Anyway, I appreciate seeing your area and perspective.

I am new to GFX. I bought an "old" used 50S. 50MP is enough for me but important is the hinged evf adapter which i like. The new 100II may be better, but not in my budget. It is a matter of budget for me that i bought the 45-100 GF lens as a first lens and a cheap 180 pentacon six Sonnar for the longer range. The primes are tempting but they accumulate a lot of cost purchasing them. I am saving for the 20-35mm Zoom. And may be a Mamiya 645 200mm that will replace my Sonnar which is a bit delicious because it is an old uncoated lens. For some Macro work i would like to have a MAMIYA A 120 mm F4 Makro. A lot of people calling for more fast primes around f 1.7 or 1.4. That might be interesting for the people shooter or these people that love to play with blurring. But to be honest in landscape or architecture or even product photography we mostly stop down to 8 or 11. Regarding zooming with your feet: I've got into the habit of composing with my smartphone and the Mark II Viewfinder app. For my 45-100 I have saved the 45mm, 70mm and 100mm and the Sonnar 180mm as focal lengths and after composing with the app i take the corresponding lens out of my rucksack.

My favourite and most used lense is my Canon 18-135mm then it would be the 70-300mm I do have prime lenses which I mainly use for portraits and night photography.

My favorite landscape lenses are the 12-40mm and the 40-150mm on the m43 cameras.

Adam I would be interested in seeing the fails with the successful ones.

I see advantages to working both ways, with primes and with zooms. For me, it would be a mistake to simply choose one or the other. I like primes when practical, and when they can create the results I want. But realistically, there are many geographic limitations that make it impossible to move around as much as necessary if using only prime lenses. You can't walk on water, or in the air, or through walls or trees. Out in nature, there are all sorts of physical impediments that restrict freedom of movement to get close or further from a subject, and zoom lenses can often help to overcome some of those limitations. The quality of zoom lenses is very good these days, so the trade-off for using them is minimal. I agree with Brian's philosophical argument that using a prime can force you to look harder, move around, and think more, but a practiced photographer can learn to do those things even when using a zoom, too, by developing that sort of mindset. My bag usually has a nice wide prime (14mm), a "normal" prime (50mm), an all-purpose wide-to-long zoom (18-300mm) and for birds & wildlife, a long zoom (200-500mm). If I'm going out with some very specific purpose in mind, I might carry a 35mm or 105mm prime, but most often I keep the kit smaller and the bag lighter. I don't think any way is strictly right or wrong; personal preferences are always so personal, and photography is not a competitive sport, so people should use whatever works for them.

You recommend the 24-120 at 17:15. A few years back I saw you used that so I got that for my Nikon and it’s been ideal along with a 70-300. Just got the new nikon Z24-120

1) I think seeing your failures, and explaining WHY they’re failures, matched with a similar shot that’s a success would be really helpful. 2) that 2nd waterfall shot, I’d love to see that little sapling featured with the rest of the waterfall falling out of focus a bit. Maybe. Not sure if that would work. But such a cute sapling! Beautiful shot though, with or without the sapling. 3) if I had to start over, now, I’d go with a 24-120, and add a 100-400 when money permits. Don’t think an ultra sharp prime is necessary for landscapes. Just my 2 cents worth. 😅

It is easy choice for me, as there is no such thing as zoom technical camera lens. So until ~138mm I prefer the Rodenstock lineup on the Phase One XT. Then I get into dilemma-land, because the 240mm Schneider-Kreuznach is a beautiful lens on for the XF DSLR camera, but it is not very versatile, and it is not really worth to carry a camera for that lens only, so for those longer shots I bring my wildlife camera with me with my stalker lens (Canon R5 with an EF 100-400 II). The Phase One XF has two zoom lens in their lineup, which could cover the ~24-100mm range in small format numbers, but they weight 1 metric ton each (which is 1800g in SI units at sea level) and need 95/105mm filters. I fully agree with Brian's reasoning by the way.

I find for landscapes my 24-70mm zoom is my most used lens on my Nikon D600 & D850.