Modern photography has a few trends that are by nature more common than not, but what they have emerged from, the start of their path of evolution, still has relevance.

Zoom lenses in particular are an assumption when you start your photo or video journey, but their polar opposite, the prime or single focal length lens still has some strengths, may even be coming back into vogue again for all the right reasons, but I guess the question needs to be asked;

Can we do everything we need with just one or the other?

This is as much philosophical as practical, or maybe a mindset over a true need.

Personally I am a bit of a fish swimming up stream here.

I like zoom lenses when shooting landscapes, because when you have your spot for a tripod, often limited by geography or angle, the ability to zoom for precise and considered composition is a benefit.

In contradiction, I actually prefer prime lenses when shooting hand held, especially with wide angles.

There are sound reasons.

(I will use M43 terms here and remember this is my thinking for me, so you do you)

Working fast and close often requires making an early decision on composition, then allowing yourself time to quickly work angles. This does not require a large, imposing zoom, in fact, it is really not helped by bringing an extra variable to the table. Even if I am using a zoom, I tend to choose a focal length (pick a lane), often either end or a familiar one, then use it like a prime. I must admit to thinking of my zooms as a set or pair of primes.

Perspective, magnification and intimacy are all controlled by movements, even better than with zooms. You do not need to cover every micro focal length, just very wide, semi wide and close to normal, which is to say 8-10, 12-17mm, 20-30mm.

I find this much cleaner in thinking. You have chosen a lens, basically any lens and you work within the envelope it offers. You can do anything you need with it, truly. Obviously if you pick your widest lens and want eyeball intimacy, odd things can happen, but you know that going in, so pick better or change lenses (cameras) if needed.

Ok, when using longer lenses, this rule is less cemented.

With longer lenses a zoom can give you the equivalent of a lot of footwork, often footwork that is not possible, and because perspective is not as dynamic, basically always being more or less “flattened”, it really only comes down to magnification and background blur.

I personally could still work with just primes. For much of my sport for example, I usually only use one prime telephotos. The only exception is the 40-150 pair, often used for filler or close action in an otherwise large field sport and as often at one end or the other.

The reality is, with the latest cameras and lenses, for some forms of imaging at least, cropping is powerful enough for most uses. The 75mm Olympus for example could easily crop to the equivalent of a 200mm for print, making it effectively a 150-400 f1.8 in full frame terms.

The problem area for me tends to be the transition from semi wide to semi long. This is the standard zoom range, but then you have the zoom issue, the slow aperture problem. With very few exceptions, zoom lenses are slower in aperture, heavier, bigger and clumsier to use. carrying a few of them tends to preclude toting a clutch of primes as well.

What has my bag filling evolved into?

A true wide (9mm Leica), a semi wide (either 15mm Leica or 17mm), a standard (25 Oly which is closer to a 22mm) and a short portrait (45mm). For my longer options it tends to be a matter of lighting, selected from the 75 for f1.8, 40-150 f2.8 or 40-150 f4.

For street it is even easier. A semi wide for 90% of the time (17mm) and a short tele for compression, a little reach and bokeh (45mm). I can even run with just the wide.