Comments mixed in.
At 05:24 PM 3/5/01 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 3/5/2001 11:41:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
><< I agree - either cropping with a zoom or copping by proximity works for
me.
> >>
>
>Hi Tom!
>
>We often forget, when shooting primes, that composition has a handmaiden:
>perspective. I find it easier to walk around and gain both with zooms, even
>my 17-28, as opposed to the hassle of walking around with a 30-35 pound sack
>of lenses*-.
>*-Lenses that must be changed, restored to their cases before the
>photographer can compose and shoot, causing the grief of missed
opportunities
>as the Sun or Moon or flowers move, or the wind rises-or clouds appear, all
>the while the prime-only shooter has their heads down, fumbling with this or
>that accouterment.
>There are shots zooms afford us which simply are unavailable to primes
>(unless one has that rucksack full of the variable lengths). Compression is
>also a handmaiden of composition, again, as an attribute unavailable to
>primes.
I guess it depends on what you are shooting. A zoom is good for walking
around when you don't know what you are going to find, or things like
weddings or photojournalism. If you are doing portraits or most excellent
macro shots of insects, you would probably slap a good prime onto the
camera and leave it there for several rolls of film. I can see why a
photojournalist would like a zoom, but take a landscape photographer.
After setting up the tripod, flash, determining exposure, focusing, putting
on filters etc. etc. etc., do you think the landscape photographer is going
to be annoyed by taking an extra 30 seconds to change a lens?
I don't know about some people, but I would never walk around with a 30lb
sack of lenses either. (heck, I probably don't even own anything close to
that much, zooms included!). If I don't want to use a zoom, I may grab 2
or 3 primes, which can be considerably smaller and lighter than many zooms,
especially fast zooms.
>
>Those who tout primes, harken back to the days when primes were all there
>was. Actually, the only thing prime only shooters have is faster-maybe
>sharper. What other outstanding attributes do primes offer a "pro" zoom
>won't?
>What we don't ever factor into the discussion is this: what would HCB, Adams
>and the other "prime only" greats have produced had quality zooms, such as
>todays, been available to them?
>Zounds man, the imagination boggles!
Adams would literally spend hours taking a shot, setting up the tripod and
stuff, and then waiting for the perfect light to click the shutter. He
didn't walk around and just photograph those scenes like a tourist. I
don't think he would be bothered by a 30 sec lens change at all. Plus, how
many zooms are there for 8x10 view cameras? As for HCB it's hard to say.
I think he would like the idea of a zoom myself, but not the size and weight.
>Would we now think so highly of primes if the greats had produced some of
>their masterpieces with zooms? And why wouldn't they have?
There are lots of great photographers now using zooms. What are you
talking about?
>
>There are PENTAX zooms that rival PENTAX primes, though some would argue
>differently. There are some who would say the two are an oxmoron*. To them I
>say: disprove my assertion.
>*In their comparative analysis, no "consumer" zooms will be allowed, only
>"Pro" glass.
>**And let them with "pro" zooms and primes be the ones to make the analysis.
There are other differences with zooms and primes. One is that zooms are
larger lens, and heavier. If all I need is, say a 100mm lens for a
purpose, I'd rather not deal with the bulk of either of my zooms. Another
advantage is filters. Zoom lenses, especially those fast "Pro" zooms, use
large filters. Ever priced 67mm filters? 77mm filters for the FA 80-200mm
F2.8? Some are more expensive than a good prime lens! Then there is the
whole issue of rotating front elements, which makes using some filters such
as polarizers a royal pain.
Another is price. The Pentax 28-70mm F2.8 costs $1065. A FA 35mm 35mm F2,
FA 50mm F1.4, and a Limited 77mm F1.8 would set me back $1120. Sure, the
three primes is a tad more expensive, but which would you rather have? I
know I would take the primes, especially considering they are 1 stop or
more faster. Even if you don't need the speed I am sure all three of those
lenses would blow the zoom away stopped down to F2.8 Also, IIRC all three
of those lenses take 49mm filters. (These are B+H prices)
Another reason for primes is perspective, which you mentioned above. Many
zooms simply don't focus as close as many primes, usually the wider the
range the worse it is. In photo classes they always tell you to get
closer. I like to take a WA lens and get really close to subject for
interesting photographs* (*this doesn't work on people too well, but is
good for cars, and generally any subject with lots of straight lines).
It's no coincidence the two zooms I own are "Macro" zooms, which I am in
the macro range quite a bit everytime I use them.
>
>***The arena: brick wall at 10 feet, track or "hot" lights, lenses at the
>same settings: e.g.
>50mm prime Vs. f/2.8 28-70 "pro" lens at 50mm, both at f/8.
>The same for medium zooms: f.2.8 135mm prime Vs. f/2.8 "pro" 70-200 zoom at
>135mm.
>
>Let the testing begin!
I don't know if I have any lenses to test. Do you consider the A 35-105mm
F3.5 a "Pro" lens? It would end up going against the A 50mm F1.4, and
maybe a Sears 50mm F1.7 for kicks. Ditto about my other zoom, a Sears
80-200mm F4. It's a good lens, but no one calls it a "Pro" lens.
In general, despite the fact the 2nd half of my email has pretty much
bashed zooms, I think what kind of lens you use depends on how you shoot
and what you like to shoot. For some people, a zoom is a nessecessity, and
the short-comings of a zoom doesn't bother them. For others they need the
extreme sharpness and speed of a prime, and aren't bothered by the
shortcomings of a multiple prime lens. Then there is a huge gray area,
probably where I am sitting, where I could use either type, so it just
boils down to personal preference. I have both zooms ane primes, and I
tend to favor the primes, but the zooms see their fair share of use.
Do people take better photographs with zooms/primes/whatever? I don't
think so. It's more the photographer, than anything else. Of course
having the proper tools helps, but they are really only a small part of a
successful photograph. I've taken more properly exposed, tak-sharp, crap
than I'd like to admit :)
Todd
-
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 .
