No question. I agree fully with what you are saying. The information is certainly dated. But it's still interesting. And heck, a lot of us are using dated cameras. Vic
PS. I remember the thread primes vs zooms. The damn thing made me go out and buy more primes. Does it ever end? Vic In a message dated 10/18/02 6:46:05 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Interesting, and while I may agree with some of his conclusions, beware that many of his statistics are apparently 30 years old! Like the table showing what percentage of photo contest winners use 50mm lenses, from a 1973 book. I would guess that those figures have changed just a tad over the years, since it's now impossible to buy a 35mm slr with a "standard" 40mm to 50mm prime. I would also dispute his table on "cost per roll" with various focal lengths (he doesn't give credit for that one, so I don't know how old it is). Geez, I just bought a 19mm yesterday for less than 1/10th what he claims they're worth. Even new, you can go ultra-wide for not much over $150US if you're willing to go third party. His table was obviously taken from a time when lenses wider than 21mm were considered exotica, both in terms of rarity and price. That ain't the case today... About 6 months ago, someone posted an article here (with a similar title) that was ~really~ interesting. It was more about "why you should learn photography with a 'normal' focal lenth prime", not in terms of price per photo or anything like that, but in terms of sharpness (as compared to consumer grade zooms), and how working with a prime can help composition skills. I recall that stimulated a wonderful "zooms are bad; primes are good" debate. Haven't seen one of those for a while <g>. Anyone recall that article, and where it might be found? >>
