> > > Chip Louie wrote: > > > As you may have noted I posted that I shoot mostly on > transparency films so > > I LOVE zooms for their ease of composition when compared to primes. > > I fail to follow the reasoning of this remark. What is it about > zooms that make > them especially useful for reversal films compared to negs? I use > both types of > film and both types of lenses I have not seen this alleged advantage. If > anything, I prefer the generally superior optical performance of > fixed-focal-length lenses when shooting transparencies since usually more > visible information is available from a slide under typical > viewing conditions > compared to prints under typical production and viewing conditions. > > fcc
Hi fcc, I mean this comment only for trannies that are projected. It's hard to crop them for projection use. 8^) This comment is also true if you like to actively compose in the finder like I do. Zooms are much faster than primes in this regard assuming that you have an appropriate focal length range lens mounted. For projected trannies it's obvious that you don't get to crop unless you want to make very expensive dupes. For prints or scanned output, I compose the elements I'm shooting as tightly as possible within the frame to maximize the image area on film that's retained. I do this because I always try to keep as much image quality as possible through out the imaging process for prints or digital output. Any unprinted area of a 35mm frame is killing image quality whether for digital output or direct from film print. To address your comment about primes being generally superior optically to zooms I'd also say this is generally true but only if you are using Canon's consumer zooms to their own primes. Canon's consumer zooms are generally good when used stopped down but are no match for Canon's own primes. If you are comparing Canon's standard bearers, the "L" class zoom triplets (EF 16/17-35 2.8L, EF 28-70 2.8L and EF 70-200 2.8L/IS/4L), to Canon's own primes there is NO practical advantage to the primes except for lens speed and only a few same focal length primes are faster! Canon's other "L" class zoom lens' optical performances are not as good as these three from what I have seen in use and print but they tend to be extreme zooms and have focal length ranges, lens speed and features that are unmatched in the consumer zoom ranges and offer unique capabilities unavailable anywhere else. Looking at my comments you can see that I own and rent a lot of Canon primes and "L" primes. It has been even MY nit-picky, quality fanatical experience that there is not much difference in terms of optical performance between "L" and non-"L" primes, lens speed yes, optical performance no. I can say there is effectively no difference optically except that the shorter "L" primes are generally less sharp when used at their fastest apertures than the non-"L"s. The reasons I see to buy "L" primes are that you must have the absolutely most flexible EOS mount lens for a given focal length, focal length availability (Canon has no non-"L" primes beyond 200mm, of course these long lenses are also some of the best lenses ever made), lens speed (virtually all of the "L" class primes are faster than their non-"L" counterparts and "L" class zooms), and construction quality and reliability in the field (bomb proof). As to trannies, I LOVE THEM! I like transparency film characteristics, punchy, high impact, sharp first generation images where technique and first rate equipment have a huge impact on image quality! I also like them as a reference for scanned output color ease of sorting and the fact that negs look funny when projected! 8^) Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
