Because:
#1 Effective results
The better the sharpness on edges, the better
the results, even at every level of loss.
Better lenses minimize loss.
#2 Barrel & pincusion distortion
... are reduced or eliminated. The Tamron
70-300 LD IF lense may be extremely sharp,
but look through the finder while zooming it.
You can see the corners pull away from the center.
Trashy lens, imho.
#3 COST
A great zoom costs about the same as a good st
of primes. Compare a good 80-200/2.8 to 100/2.8 +
135/2.8 + 200/4.
#n They're probably more reasons to choose from.
Collin
>From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>If most films can resolve less than most lenses, and most scanners can
>resolve less than most films, why are prime lenses considered superior
>to good zooms? It would seem at first glance that the extra lens
>sharpness of a prime would not translate into extra image sharpness.
>
>I use several zooms for, of course, their convenience, but also have
>three primes that I use often.
>
>This isn't meant to start a flame war. I've seriously wondered about
>this for some time.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Joe
***************
"The accumulation of all powers legislative,
executive and judiciary in the same hands . . .
may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 47
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
