I don't like BBSB's implication that just because a photograph is taken quickly it's a 'snapshot' and therefore less worthy than one that's been agonised over. Photography to me is an art not a craft.
I've just tossed last year's Colin Prior calendar in the recycling, but I've got 'snapshots' of my kids all over the house. Of course we all have pics of our kids on the walls cos they're our kids, but my point is that the value of a picture is not related to how long it took to create.
Anyway, I was thinking about this picnic shot over lunch. It's not a brilliant shot, but it would have been impossible with a 50mm or equivalent. I stood up near the blanket and everyone else was sat around it. If I'd backed off I may have got the whole blanket in but because the angles would all have been different I'd have missed loads of faces.
quickly (and it does not take long) reshuffle the family to fill the frame in the space you've got
I can play this scenario out in my mind and it would almost certainly have resulted in a great shot, but I'm not bold enough with my picture taking yet to start organising people Most of my pics are candid, because as well as being normal family pics they are documenting our family life at the time.
molgrips - I really don't know why you've got such a bee in your bonnet about this.
Well, my language is perhaps a little more forceful than I intended it to be, and thanks to others for not getting angry. It's the categorical statement that a prime IS the best way to learn that I disagree with. Some people may benefit from the limitation, some may not.
It seems to me that taking pictures at say 50mm is a different activity to taking them at 300mm or 10mm. It's like comparing say, watercolour, and oil painting, or charcoal sketching vs pen.
If I spent a year with a 50mm I'd get better at taking 50mm shots, but be rubbish at wide angle pictures or long range wildlife pics. My 9-18mm is my most recent acquisition, and guess which kind of picture I suck the most at?