Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Just back from a short break in Seville - took the 20-35mm, 28-70, 80-200 and the 43mm. Probably used the 43mm about 75% of the time. Why - I think it has to do with 'natural perspective'. Things just looked - and felt -right with the 43. Once I got into the rhythm it was no problem to step forward-back-left-right-squat-stretch, instead of standing still and zooming in and out. When I used the 20-35 it tended to be at around the 35-side rather than the 20. The 28-70 (on a second body for bw) was usually fixed at the widest, the longest or the center, ie 28, 50, 70. If the bank account could afford it, I would definetely opt for the 31mm and the 77mm to complement the 43. I would then lokk for a wider prime and telephoto. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I'm with the primers. I much prefer using the 85/1.8 to the FA80-320, and find it more useful generally because it's faster. However, a bit of self-discipline goes a long way, and it's perfectly easy to look at a subject, decide on a focal length, then apply that to a zoom lens, before walking around the subject for the optimum balance between foreground and background. It is easier with a good tight MF zoom like the 70-210/4, but it's not too difficult with the FA28-70/4, or the A24-50/4, using only the marked focal lengths. Regards Jim Brooks -- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 21:43:27 -0600 (CST) From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, William Robb wrote: Why the hell do the interesting threads start when I am working on getting the PUG together? I will probably have a book written on the subject on Friday. Har! It's definitely interesting... I'm playing the Devil's Advocate on this one. :) chris - - 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 . - 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 .
Was Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise, now Lecter
David Hatfield wrote, in part: Shel - I don't care what anybody says, I don't think you look anything like Hannibal Lecter. Damn straight, Dave. Shel does not look like Hannibal. Rather, it is Hannibal who looks like Shel. grin. -Lon - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Hi, I won't promise anithing like that... Here's my story: I started SLR photgraphy with some russian screwmount Zenits and later upgraded to Praktica. My lenses were also east-german and russian ones. What a simple situation, almost no zooms there... ;-) My first and only M42 zoom lens was the russian Granit11M 4.5/80-200, which, to my greatest surprise, was better at 200mm than my Pentacon 4/200. A great one! Then I moved to PK, bought a Chinon CE5 + 1.4/50. To cover the 28-200 mm focal lengths, the quickest and cheapest solution was to buy a pair of zooms. The Tokina ATX 3.5-4.5/28-85 wasn't a bad one, but I didn't like the close focus at 28mm above 1m, it was bulky compared to my old primes, and wasn't a true zoom, while the 4/80-200 (can't remember the brand) was a total disappointment. So I started to buy primes again... (BTW my first Pentax equipment was the M 1.7/50, so much better than the 1.4 Chinon...) I only used the Tokina on some events. Currently, my LX sees mostly primes. The only exception is a great telezoom again: the M 4/75-150. I have also a Tamron 3.8-4/70-210, which i keep for its 0.9m close focusing ability in the whole range, 1:2.9 macro. Meanwhile, I've built another set: SFXn with Tokina AF 3.5-4.5/ 28-105 and Tokina AF 4.5/70-210, plus a Metz 40. I use this for reporter style photography, while the LX set is for my pleasure. The great thing about Pentax is that the two above sets are compatible. Just in case... Gabor - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Chris Brogden wrote: snip I'm not condemning zooms... I'm just thinking about the style of shooting I tend toward when using them. Tom C. There is a practical money side to zoom vs. prime, particularly PENTAX. If you own any K-mount body except a few (ZX30 and 50?), you have a treasure trove of old primes available to you. Cheap, multi-coated, almost no dogs. You may be reduced to center-weighted and aperature priority (no big deal). For those of you, like me, still acquiring stuff, this lets you in on the cheap to some good prime lenses, one at a time, burning no more than about 50 to 100 dollars per lens. This has to be one of the strongest advantages to using Pentax. -Lon - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I've been arguing for years in favor of primes, basically because I think people who use ONLY zooms or who ASSUME zooms are inherently better can often benefit from having their eyes opened. Shooting with a prime for a while is a great way for people to move the quality of their shooting up a notch or two. The general advantage of primes is that they're smaller, lighter, faster, less fussy (fewer operations prior to shooting, generally), and have higher overall image quality (generally, these days, that means less flare, and not much else). These points are nearly moot with digital. My current digicam only weighs a few ounces, and it's got a lens that's considerably smaller and lighter than a Leica 50mm Summicron, for instance, and it's a 35-105mm f/1.8-2.6. (My other two cameras, the Pentaxes, both have 50mm lenses on them most of the time.) The real point that continues to get me about zoom vs. prime discussions (and I've been involved in a number of them) is: HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE PHOTOGRAPHING UNTIL YOU SEE IT? Most of these arguments presume that the subject--the organization and the field of view of the desired picture--are known in advance. That is, let's say you come across a small tree in a field. You wish to make a picture of the tree. So you either a) change your lens, b) change your zoom setting, c) change your vantage point, or d) some combination of the above until the framing is composed to your liking--presumably, with the tree filling the frame adequately but not cut off. But this isn't how most photographs are seen! That is, with many photographs, there may be nothing to zoom in to or out to. What if you're looking at a complex scene and you can: --Set the zoom to 35mm and compose interesting framing; --Set the zoom to 50mm and compose interesting framing; --Set the zoom to 85mm and compose interesting framing? In this situation the zoom is becoming a needless complication, a distraction. Now go one step further than that. I've always maintained that if you're out shooting with a prime lens, you learn to see like the lens sees. That is, you don't need to lift the camera up to your eye to know how the viewfinder is going to frame a view. You already see with that cropping in mind. And this enables you to SEE PICTURES that, without a set frame in mind, you wouldn't see. The point is not so much that zooms are poor tools, or of lesser quality, or bigger, or whatever. It's that they add confusion to the act of photographing, by introducing too many needless variables and preventing you from seeing acutely. As you're working a subject you'll see a THOUSAND potential framings--tens of thousands. How do you begin to winnow all the choices down to find twenty or thirty that work pretty well, which you'll further refine when you edit? I think it helps greatly when you and the lens are seeing similarly. But then again, maybe I'm wrong about this. I've certainly had good experiences shooting complicated subjects with zooms where the zoom didn't distract or confuse me, and where I was able to make adjustments quickly and intuitively. I guess where I come down on this is merely this: I've always preferred primes; and I believe (operative word--believe) that using primes helps photographers make better pictures; and it's my opinion that any student of the art who is looking to improve his or her shooting skills should pick a prime lens and use it for a year. That would help support my point, because if you pick a prime lens and shoot with it for a year, I guarantee that it will become one of your favorite focal lengths and will probably remain so for the rest of your life. g --Mike P.S. By the way, we've got to find something for Chris to do. g - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I don't believe this thread! Just by reading it, it has tipped me over the edge and I have finally bought that 50mm prime that I had been umming and arring about for the past week or so (50mm F1.7 SMC F ). It wasn't expensive ($49), but I was just having trouble deciding if I really wanted it considering I have a 35-70 zoom which I use most of the time. It seems I have been silently enabled... Regards, /\/\ick... ++ || __/) Mick Maguire | | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (_/) ICQ: 48609010 | \/ | \ /---+ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Johnston Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 7:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise I've been arguing for years in favor of primes, basically because I think people who use ONLY zooms or who ASSUME zooms are inherently better can often benefit from having their eyes opened. Shooting with a prime for a while is a great way for people to move the quality of their shooting up a notch or two. The general advantage of primes is that they're smaller, lighter, faster, less fussy (fewer operations prior to shooting, generally), and have higher overall image quality (generally, these days, that means less flare, and not much else). These points are nearly moot with digital. My current digicam only weighs a few ounces, and it's got a lens that's considerably smaller and lighter than a Leica 50mm Summicron, for instance, and it's a 35-105mm f/1.8-2.6. (My other two cameras, the Pentaxes, both have 50mm lenses on them most of the time.) The real point that continues to get me about zoom vs. prime discussions (and I've been involved in a number of them) is: HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE PHOTOGRAPHING UNTIL YOU SEE IT? Most of these arguments presume that the subject--the organization and the field of view of the desired picture--are known in advance. That is, let's say you come across a small tree in a field. You wish to make a picture of the tree. So you either a) change your lens, b) change your zoom setting, c) change your vantage point, or d) some combination of the above until the framing is composed to your liking--presumably, with the tree filling the frame adequately but not cut off. But this isn't how most photographs are seen! That is, with many photographs, there may be nothing to zoom in to or out to. What if you're looking at a complex scene and you can: --Set the zoom to 35mm and compose interesting framing; --Set the zoom to 50mm and compose interesting framing; --Set the zoom to 85mm and compose interesting framing? In this situation the zoom is becoming a needless complication, a distraction. Now go one step further than that. I've always maintained that if you're out shooting with a prime lens, you learn to see like the lens sees. That is, you don't need to lift the camera up to your eye to know how the viewfinder is going to frame a view. You already see with that cropping in mind. And this enables you to SEE PICTURES that, without a set frame in mind, you wouldn't see. The point is not so much that zooms are poor tools, or of lesser quality, or bigger, or whatever. It's that they add confusion to the act of photographing, by introducing too many needless variables and preventing you from seeing acutely. As you're working a subject you'll see a THOUSAND potential framings--tens of thousands. How do you begin to winnow all the choices down to find twenty or thirty that work pretty well, which you'll further refine when you edit? I think it helps greatly when you and the lens are seeing similarly. But then again, maybe I'm wrong about this. I've certainly had good experiences shooting complicated subjects with zooms where the zoom didn't distract or confuse me, and where I was able to make adjustments quickly and intuitively. I guess where I come down on this is merely this: I've always preferred primes; and I believe (operative word--believe) that using primes helps photographers make better pictures; and it's my opinion that any student of the art who is looking to improve his or her shooting skills should pick a prime lens and use it for a year. That would help support my point, because if you pick a prime lens and shoot with it for a year, I guarantee that it will become one of your favorite focal lengths and will probably remain so for the rest of your life. g --Mike P.S. By the way, we've got to find something for Chris to do. g - 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 . - 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
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I'm not Shel, but I think small and unobtrusive cameras and lenses are essential to street photography. A large pro-looking SLR, and a honkin' fast zoom lens tends to inhibit folks on the street a lot more than a small rangefinder with a prime lens or a small PS (like the Yashica T4 Super). There's a certain amount of intimidation factor you can avoid by going small, fast, and light. Len --- -Original Message- From: Matamoros, Cesar A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:18 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Shel, When you mention fast street shooting are you pointing to a fast (large aperture) lents? For fast (as in reaction) street shooting one would think that a zoom would work best. - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Ok let's not be so subjective. For instance the Pentax FA 135/2.8 MTF graphs indicate that wide open at F2.8 and F4 the Tokina 80-200 at 135mm is superior to it until you get to F8 when the Pentax passes it a little. The Pentax has a little less distortion but the Tokina is less than 2% at around 135mm. Heck even the Tokina 100-300/4 is better at F4 than the Pentax and about the same at F8. The Pentax 135/2.8 is an ancient design that still holds its own but I would not consider it superior to the best zooms out there these days. In the days it was designed it was way better than any zoom at that range. Actually the earlier F model of the 135 has better numbers (same as the F 100/2.8 has better numbers than the FA version). If sample variation can be as much as .4 or larger on average MTF ratings it's still pretty much a tossup. I personally don't consider flair an important issue in the case of telephotos simply because if the sun is going to bother your shot you aren't taking your photography seriously enough. In wide angles I consider it important simply because often no amount of moving can get it out of the shot. But I agree with you on one point. The best primes have MTF ratings in the 4+ range and about the best you can get out of a zoom has a ceiling of about 4. Still even guys like Bob Shell agree that the best lenses these days will overpower the quality of most films used so often we can't see any difference between shots taken with lenses that only get 3.2 ratings and those that get 4.0 ratings. Especially in the 5x7 and below range of prints where most non-pro zooms tend to work. All the camera makers get by with putting (in our opinion) crappy 28-80 slow zooms simply because if you only shoot 4x6 most shots properly done will look close to indistinguishable from much better lenses if you don't blow them up bigger or look at them with a good loupe on a light table. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paris, Leonard Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:15 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise I think your quality assessment of zoom lenses is more than just a bit subjective. I don't believe the image quality of the lenses you listed easily matches even the best primes as you stated. Even the best primes includes the most stupendous prime lenses available. Zooms haven't progressed to that point yet. I own a few Pentax Primes that I don't think your zooms can 'easily match. The FA 35mm f/2, the FA* 85mm f/1.4, the FA 100mm f/2.8, the F 50mm f/1.7, the FA 135mm f/2.8. I have owned the Tokina ATX Pro 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 before and it's a good lens but it's not better than the above mentioned primes. Len --- -Original Message- From: David Hatfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 1:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. Zooms are a great tool. They allow me to compose, shoot and recompose at a moments notice without having to waste time finding just the right spot to shoot from (assuming, of course, that my next shot will be from the same angle). The creative process still resides with me. It's only the equipment that is different. I still have to determine the best angle, framing, exposure, etc. for each shot whether I use a zoom or a prime. If I use a good quality zoom then the quality of the shot will come directly back to my capacity as a photographer, not to the nature of the lens. I currently carry four lenses in my bag the Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 (my normal lens), a Tokina ATX-pro 20-35 f2.8, a Tokina ATX-pro 80-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 105 EX f2.8 macro (my only non-zoom) used primarily for macro shots since it produces 1:1 without attachments. The quality of these lenses easily matches even the best primes and none of them releases me from having to think about how I'm composing my shot. They simply allow me the ease of altering that composition without having to dig in my bag so often. Zooms? I love 'em!! Dave Hatfield -Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
That is the proper way to start out in my opinion at least. Once you have mastered that you can then try the added benefit of a zoom (assuming you see it as one). By benefit I mean not only does the zoom allow you to frame the initial shot but by moving around you can maintain the framing if you like within the zoom range and change the perspective relative to the background by zooming as you change distances and locations relative to the subject. Unfortunately most first time users with a zoom never consider or develop that. Kent Gittings. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of aimcompute Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:35 PM To: Pentax Discuss Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Also I think primes let me get more intimate with the subject. I.E., if I have to walk up to it, away from it, or around it, I'm taking more time to really look at my subject instead of thinking oh that's pretty, I think I should take a picture. I have found in the past that when I walk up to a subject or move around it, I see possibilities, angles, compositions, maybe even other subjects, that I did not see when standing off at a distance. I also think that when I was just learning about photography it was helpful. I'd keep a 50mm lens on and it was the act of getting closer or further away that made me realize, I needed a different lens and then prompted the thought process of, OK now what can I do with this lens. I think lazy is the correct word for how zooms have affected me, to some extent. My wife, on the other hand would be lost without a zoom, and for her and her kind of picture-taking it's the right thing. I might add that the Tamron AF 28-300 is a nice lens for that kind of thing. Tom C. - 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 . ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Hi Cesar ... I mean both - a fast aperture and a lens that allows for quick, easy handling. Zooms are, IMO, too big, clumsy, and slow to operate for quick shooting. Remember, no matter what lens or camera system you're using, you'll never capture every photograph that you see. Matamoros, Cesar A. wrote: Shel, When you mention fast street shooting are you pointing to a fast (large aperture) lents? For fast (as in reaction) street shooting one would think that a zoom would work best. My understanding of zoom is more in line of a range of focal lengths in a lens. In terms of focusing you are correct. It is over the years that I honed the ability to maintain focus using my A 28-135 f4 and A 70-210 f4 lenses. I mainly carried those lenses (more so the 28-235) when attending festivals. But then, back then I had only one prime lens. Now, I cannot recall the last time I used either of those lenses. I resort to primes and have found times when it would have been nice to take a shot with a different focal length. These are usually shots that are of the fleeting moment and as such there is no time to move about... -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I looked at one of the 20-35/2.8s and found that the sharpness wasn't as good as the 20-35/3.5-4.5 I already had. Tests seem to bear this out although in most cases it might not show up on film as much. Made me decide to keep my slower version till I could afford a Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 instead. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Since you have one of the lenses I was looking at, I would be curious how you feel about the ATX 20-35 f2.8. How is the close focusing, distortion and flare. My ATX 28-70 Pro II does *not* focus close and I really have to watch the flare. I was trying to compare the Tokina to the Pentax. Thanks for your input. Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:52 PM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Bruce, I think it's great that in this, like in most things in life, people can say the same thing while approaching it from totally different angles (kind of like photography, huh?). If you learn the basics - learn to see; learn to think; learn to plan; be ready for the unexpected; etc. - then equipment generally becomes inconsequential apart from what you're comfortable with. I've used zooms all my photographic life (25+ years) even when they were terrible! I've grown accustomed to their feel and style. Who knows, some day I might pick up that LX I was talking about a few days back, get a good prime and start learning all over! Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, I'm not arguing your points at all. I am not concerned about the optical quality specifically. It has more to do with me. Years ago, I moved from a Practica screw mount match needle body to a Canon A-1 (quite a jump). While the body was quite capable, I found that it wasn't my style. I almost quit taking pictures. I finally sold it and got an Olympus OM-1 with 50mm lens. I think the point has more to do with usage and style rather than the ability of a zoom or prime to produce a great image. I'm with Shel where I find that I personally work better with a prime than a zoom. Not that I couldn't do it with a zoom, but more that I enjoy more the prime and I feel that *I* - not the lens - takes a better picture. With all of that, as I mentioned, there are many good cases for a zoom. I mentioned a few. Probably more of a style kind of thing. I have the same Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 and find the optics and build good, but quite flare prone. It balances very nicely on the MZ-S with battery grip. Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:40 AM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. Zooms are a great tool. They allow me to compose, shoot and recompose at a moments notice without having to waste time finding just the right spot to shoot from (assuming, of course, that my next shot will be from the same angle). The creative process still resides with me. It's only the equipment that is different. I still have to determine the best angle, framing, exposure, etc. for each shot whether I use a zoom or a prime. If I use a good quality zoom then the quality of the shot will come directly back to my capacity as a photographer, not to the nature of the lens. I currently carry four lenses in my bag the Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 (my normal lens), a Tokina ATX-pro 20-35 f2.8, a Tokina ATX-pro 80-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 105 EX f2.8 macro (my only non-zoom) used primarily for macro shots since it produces 1:1 without attachments. The quality of these lenses easily matches even the best primes and none of them releases me from having to think about how I'm composing my shot. They simply allow me the ease of altering that composition without having to dig in my bag so often. Zooms? I love 'em!! Dave Hatfield - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Mike Johnston wrote: (my comments interspersed) I've been arguing for years in favor of primes, basically because I think people who use ONLY zooms or who ASSUME zooms are inherently better can often benefit from having their eyes opened. Shooting with a prime for a while is a great way for people to move the quality of their shooting up a notch or two. That's what I hope to do in my case. The general advantage of primes is that they're smaller, lighter, faster, less fussy (fewer operations prior to shooting, generally), and have higher overall image quality (generally, these days, that means less flare, and not much else). I have not been unhappy with the image quality of the zooms (and mine are the less expensive Pentax AF models). I have been unhappy that they seem to make me point and shoot, versus think, look, think, look, think, look, point, and shoot. snipped digital stuff snipped more stuff that's true Now go one step further than that. I've always maintained that if you're out shooting with a prime lens, you learn to see like the lens sees. That is, you don't need to lift the camera up to your eye to know how the viewfinder is going to frame a view. You already see with that cropping in mind. And this enables you to SEE PICTURES that, without a set frame in mind, you wouldn't see. Yes, yes, yes. And for me it is still somewhat of a conscious effort, but I then start using the lens to it's advantage. I am basically FORCED to see like the lens because that is the only option. So I start moving around seeing what the lens sees. The point is not so much that zooms are poor tools, or of lesser quality, or bigger, or whatever. It's that they add confusion to the act of photographing, by introducing too many needless variables and preventing you from seeing acutely. As you're working a subject you'll see a THOUSAND potential framings--tens of thousands. How do you begin to winnow all the choices down to find twenty or thirty that work pretty well, which you'll further refine when you edit? I think it helps greatly when you and the lens are seeing similarly. I agree. I'll have to think more about confusion to the act. That may be my problem when I had thought just the opposite, that zooms were simplifying the act too much. (after rereading a number of times) Yes I believe you are right. With a zoom one has many options. So maybe I'm picking one that looks GOOD and moving on, instead of looking for a composition or angle that potentially could be BEST. Let me give an example of a shot. One of my personal favorites of my PUG submissions is http://pug.komkon.org/00febr/WoodenBoats.htm. Judge the shot as you may. I (and I say I) probably would have never gotten it if I'd been using a zoom. In fact I'm absolutely positive of that. I was using a 50mm lens. There was a light breeze blowing and the boats were slowly drifting on their ropes, several feet away from the boardwalk up in the corner of the L where two boardwalks met. No matter what I did, just standing or knealing put unwanted water or distracting background into some corner of the viewfinder. I spent quite a while (to me) walking around those boats trying to figure out what to do. It's sort of at a weird angle, huh? Especially considering I was not standing directly over the boats. I didn't SEE that angle, I didn't think about taking a shot from that angle until outstretched over the water, within seconds of getting a groin pull or falling in. Then holding the camera to my face, I saw the shot. Now what might have happened had I been carrying a zoom? Well, I knew that I liked the boats as a subject or I wouldn't have stopped. I probably would have raised camera to face, twisted the zoom and snapped the shutter, maybe more than once. Maybe I would have gotten a nice shot, but I don't believe it would have been this shot. But then again, maybe I'm wrong about this. I've certainly had good experiences shooting complicated subjects with zooms where the zoom didn't distract or confuse me, and where I was able to make adjustments quickly and intuitively. I guess where I come down on this is merely this: I've always preferred primes; and I believe (operative word--believe) that using primes helps photographers make better pictures; and it's my opinion that any student of the art who is looking to improve his or her shooting skills should pick a prime lens and use it for a year. That would help support my point, because if you pick a prime lens and shoot with it for a year, I guarantee that it will become one of your favorite focal lengths and will probably remain so for the rest of your life. g Hmm, favorite lens? Now that is a quandary. Tom C. - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I disagree about the fast street shooting. If you assume you might want to change the F. L. I'd say your correct. But you can just as easily set the zoom on a particular focal length equal to your prime and in that mode you have equal ability. Plus the ability to change your setting if you wish. These days the only primes I use are either below 20mm, 300mm and above, and macro. There is nothing in between you can't do with a pro zoom (I don't do portrait so I didn't include the 85/1.4 on my list but I would have). I still have lots of manual primes in my collection it's just that I don't use them anymore. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 5:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Well, all this prime v zoom stuff is useless without consideration of the type of photography that's involved. For fast street shooting, a prime wins. For static subjects it can be argued that either is fine. For portraits a zoom can be a wonderful tool. And then we have to consider how the final photo ends up. Will it be a smallish family snap sitting in a 5x7 frame on someone's desk, or will the photo be used in an exhibition at a size large enough to make any small error or quality difference quite noticeable, or will the photographer manipulate the hell out of the negative with photo editing software. Unlike David, I do not believe that a zoom will match a prime in quality except, perhaps, at certain focal lengths or apertures, but certainly not over the entire range. And then, let's define what a zoom lens is. My understanding is that when focused one can use the full range of focal lengths without having to refocus. That's a true zoom. Most zoom lenses on the market these days are variable focal length lenses, and are extremely slow to use because when moving from one focal length to another, the lens must be refocused in order to maintain critical sharpness. Maintaining sharpness and critical focus with a heavy, slow lens is, for most people, a difficult task - certainly not as easy as with a smaller, lighter, faster, prime lens. So, whether one is better than the other really depends on many variables. David Hatfield wrote: You may be right on the BW issue. I don't shoot that much 35mm BW though I do shoot some and haven't noticed any particularly glaring problems with the various 400 speed BW films I shoot with my zooms. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - 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 . ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
My 2cents on the whole matter... Of the 5 lenses I have, I prefer my primes when I'm out and about being creative. (Go stick a 14mm rectilinear or a 15mm semi-fish on your body... Talk about learning curve! Great fun!) But when I recently took some shots at a wedding for a friend of mine I loved having the 75-200 zoom on board for it's ability to go from a nice, tight father/daughter-while-dancing head shot to a full-length shot in just seconds. I do find I spend most of my time with my zoom at either 75mm or 200mm. I was planning my next lens purchase to be a 400mm or longer... Maybe I'll look into a nice super-fast prime in the 85mm-135mm range. Anyone got a 85mm f/1.4 they want to sell for a good price? =P -- John P.S. If there's anyone in the Union/Sommerset NJ counties that wants to get together one weekend and go fall color trekking let me know. Be nice to hang with a fellow PDML'er and share ideas. - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Who says you have to stay in one position to use a zoom? If you treat the zoom as a bag full of primes you can learn additional skills. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Chris Brogden wrote: That is, if you're going to argue that zooms encourage us to stay in one position, then it's only fair to say that primes encourage us to shoot with one focal length. I think more can be learned about a subject by shooting with one focal length and moving around than can be by staying in one position and using a zoom. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - 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 . ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
True. I think the difference is like this (in a way): You can also learn a lot about photography using a fixed focus lens camera. But there's some things you may not learn because you're not forced to. The equipment tends to obviate the need. Many things are learned through experience, not premeditated effort. A person may not know they can learn something if they don't know what that something is. Sometimes we learn by stumbling onto things. That's what the more basic equipment tends to allow and afford to a greater degree, IMO. Tom C. - Original Message - From: Kent Gittings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 10:51 AM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Who says you have to stay in one position to use a zoom? If you treat the zoom as a bag full of primes you can learn additional skills. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Chris Brogden wrote: That is, if you're going to argue that zooms encourage us to stay in one position, then it's only fair to say that primes encourage us to shoot with one focal length. I think more can be learned about a subject by shooting with one focal length and moving around than can be by staying in one position and using a zoom. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - 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 . ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** - 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 . - 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 .
Heading to Italy (was: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise)
David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm heading to Italy in two weeks and plan on taking nothing by my 28-70 and 20-35. I'll see what happens. Hi David, Any chance we can meet? I'm in Naples (well, in Ercolano, but it's so close that you cannot part one from another...). Gianfranco Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com - 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 .
Re: Heading to Italy (was: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise)
I'm in Naples Beautiful part of the world - bay of naples, vesuvius, amalfi, capri, sorrento, castellemare Ge that brings back memories - might go back there next year! - 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 .
RE: Heading to Italy (was: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise)
Buono Sera, Gianfranco, I'd love to get the opportunity to visit with you while in Italy! I will be in Naples between the 13th and the 18th. I'm not sure, however, how I might arrange it. I am a Southern Baptist minister and I am coming over to work with a US military church that we are partners with. As a result I will be at their mercy for transportation and activities. In addition, I will be traveling with three other individuals from my church. Most of my work with them will be done in the evening so I will be doing some sightseeing during the days. If you will mail me your phone number perhaps once we get there I can phone and arrange some time to visit and get acquainted. This will be my fourth visit to Napoli and I absolutely love the area and the people! If my wife and I could afford it we would move there immediately! There is just something unique about the people of Southern Italy that is so fresh and open. I speak molto poco l'Italiano so what a treat it would be to get to spend some time with someone so familiar with the area! Arrivederci! Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gianfranco Irlanda Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 5:16 PM To: David Hatfield Subject: Heading to Italy (was: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise) David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm heading to Italy in two weeks and plan on taking nothing by my 28-70 and 20-35. I'll see what happens. Hi David, Any chance we can meet? I'm in Naples (well, in Ercolano, but it's so close that you cannot part one from another...). Gianfranco Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com - 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 . - 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 .
Re: Heading to Italy (was: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise)
Tim S Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm in Naples Beautiful part of the world - bay of naples, vesuvius, amalfi, capri, sorrento, castellemare Ge that brings back memories - might go back there next year! Hi Tim, PDML members are always welcome around here! (only list members please, other people are not accepted...) :^) I started thinking of bringing a bunch of you guys and gals down here for a PDML meeting but I recall we already had plans for a meeting in London, am I right? Gianfranco Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com - 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 .
RE: Heading to Italy (was: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise)
Hi David, You are going to be here for my birthday! It's on the 14th, it'd be nice if we can meet on that day (wednesday, if I'm right). BTW, I'll mail you off list my phone number, so you can contact me when you come. A presto! Gianfranco - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:52 AM Subject: RE: Heading to Italy (was: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise) Buono Sera, Gianfranco, I'd love to get the opportunity to visit with you while in Italy! I will be in Naples between the 13th and the 18th. I'm not sure, however, how I might arrange it. I am a Southern Baptist minister and I am coming over to work with a US military church that we are partners with. As a result I will be at their mercy for transportation and activities. In addition, I will be traveling with three other individuals from my church. Most of my work with them will be done in the evening so I will be doing some sightseeing during the days. If you will mail me your phone number perhaps once we get there I can phone and arrange some time to visit and get acquainted. This will be my fourth visit to Napoli and I absolutely love the area and the people! If my wife and I could afford it we would move there immediately! There is just something unique about the people of Southern Italy that is so fresh and open. I speak molto poco l'Italiano so what a treat it would be to get to spend some time with someone so familiar with the area! Arrivederci! Dave Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com - 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 .
SV: Heading to Italy (was: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise)
i'd be in for a pdml meeting in london, ryanair tickets sweden-london starts at 50$ return trip...dirt cheap -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- http://eman.sphosting.com - my website - Ursprungligt meddelande - Från: Gianfranco Irlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skickat: den 1 november 2001 01:09 Ämne: Re: Heading to Italy (was: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise) Tim S Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm in Naples Beautiful part of the world - bay of naples, vesuvius, amalfi, capri, sorrento, castellemare Ge that brings back memories - might go back there next year! Hi Tim, PDML members are always welcome around here! (only list members please, other people are not accepted...) :^) I started thinking of bringing a bunch of you guys and gals down here for a PDML meeting but I recall we already had plans for a meeting in London, am I right? Gianfranco Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com - 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 . - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Photographs don't present themselves (usually); they have to be looked for. I have a friend who will sometimes show me a bunch of similar proofs and say I know there was a shot there somewhere, but I didn't get it. That's a great way of putting it. There a few places I go to repeatedly to try to get *the* shot. I know I have taken some good ones but I haven't got the *one*! Come to think of it, I almost always use primes when I go to these places. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recognized was the potential of the subject. In fact, if I recall, I stopped on the way in and tried to get the boats. I gave up, walked around looking at other things for a while, and when I came back to leave I stopped again. I remember a sense of internal frustration that here I had something I liked, but could not get it right (in the viewfinder). But when finally it snapped in... I was basically wanting that roll of film back to see this one shot. Tom, I remember the shot you're talking about without even going back to the PUG to look for it! I believe I sent you a note saying how much I liked it. It's interesting what you say below, because usually the times it has happened it was with the 50mm. Has 50mm lens ever been done as a PUG theme? -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
We did 50 mm lens about a year and a half back. It was fun. I wouldn't mind trying it again. Paul Mark Roberts wrote: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recognized was the potential of the subject. In fact, if I recall, I stopped on the way in and tried to get the boats. I gave up, walked around looking at other things for a while, and when I came back to leave I stopped again. I remember a sense of internal frustration that here I had something I liked, but could not get it right (in the viewfinder). But when finally it snapped in... I was basically wanting that roll of film back to see this one shot. Tom, I remember the shot you're talking about without even going back to the PUG to look for it! I believe I sent you a note saying how much I liked it. It's interesting what you say below, because usually the times it has happened it was with the 50mm. Has 50mm lens ever been done as a PUG theme? -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - 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 . - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Chris wrote: The newer Olympuses have a constant-aperture f1.8 through the zoom range, so the C4040, for example, is a 4P camera with a 35-105mm equivalent lens that's f1.8 at every focal length. Fun, aren't they? :) Chris, I don't think that's right--the 4040 has the same lens my 3040 has, and it's an f/1.8-f/2.6. See: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C44/C44A.HTM --Mike - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
One of my favourite photos was taken about thirty years ago: I had seen that there was a potentially good combination of shapes, but I never quite got the light right (or the right light!). Then eventually, after eighteen months of revisiting the spot, it all happened! And it took just one frame, on a 55mm prime, to get. Nowadays, I tend to use the zooms as a general purpose or travelling light set, but there are occasions when I hook up a prime and make myself use it to the best possible effect. It's the best discipline, even if sometimes you come back knowing that nothing you took was really worthwhile... John Coyle Brisbane, Australia On Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:41 AM, Mark Roberts [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Photographs don't present themselves (usually); they have to be looked for. I have a friend who will sometimes show me a bunch of similar proofs and say I know there was a shot there somewhere, but I didn't get it. That's a great way of putting it. There a few places I go to repeatedly to try to get *the* shot. I know I have taken some good ones but I haven't got the *one*! Come to think of it, I almost always use primes when I go to these places. - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I'm behind on my mail again -- I've read the first several messages in this thread but am not caught up. I wanted to chime in anyhow, because I too had been thinking about primes vs. zooms recently. Basically, I started noticing more the ways in which I use both types of lenses. Some of this I've described in past zoom/prime discussions; I've just found my attention drawn to it while shooting lately. == SHOOTING STYLE: I'm not at all sure this was true earlier, but lately (by which I mean the last few weeks) I've noticed that my shooting style influences my lens choices more than the other way around. I do have more than one shooting style, and at least two of them are unfortunately lazy. (Sometimes I tell myself I have a good excuse.) If I'm going to be mostly stuck in one place or a small area (not free to move far from my seat; only one place to stand where the subject is reasonably visible; etc.) and want to be able to vary my field of view, *or* if I'm being too lazy to move around as much as I ought, a zoom is the obvious choice. I'll use the zoom as an in-camera cropping tool. Even more so if I find myself wanting those in between focal lengths that I don't have in primes. But sometimes I'll stand there with an array of primes and do pretty much the same thing by changing lenses instead of adjusting a zoom. Hmm. I just shot that with the 85 ... how does it look with the 50? Oh, let me get more of the background with the 28 just to see how that works. Go figure -- I can find a way to be just as lazy, or to solve the same legitimate problem, with a stack of primes -- it's just less convenient. On the other hand, if I'm moving around a lot, I may have a prime (or the wrong range of zoom) mounted, and will be too lazy to go fetch a different lens when I ought to. I'll move back and forth and around and crouch down or stretch to eliminate distracting background elements or to get the light (or the subject) from the right angle or to get surrounding objects into a framing composition, and sometimes I'll make a less than perfect choice of distance to get the magnification I want when I should have switched lenses instead. Of course, if I have a zoom lens mounted at the time, I'll move around just as much for the composition but will do that final adjustment of magnification with the zoom. (Once in a while I remind myself that asking the lab to crop the image for me is an option, and I'll shoot wider than I really want with a plan to crop it later.) Sometimes not going to fetch a different lens is laziness. Sometimes it's because the subject isn't going to stay put long enough, either because it's in motion or because it's a person who is getting impatient. One advantage of carrying multiple bodies is that I could have the same (or similar) film loaded in each, with lenses of different focal lengths mounted -- this makes the change of focal length much faster than removing one lens and mounting another. But I seldom take advantage of that option because I usually load each body with a different type of film so that I can shoot C41, BW, and slides (or two C41 films of different speeds or with very different looks) at the same time. It's so nice to have a choice of apropriate tools so that I can do things wrong in so many different ways. Oh, right, sometimes it means I do things right, using the right tool for the job, as well. I need to work on making the latter happen more often than the former. == LIGHT: None of my zooms are all that fast. f/3.5, f/4, f/4.5, f/5.8. If I know I'm going to really want a zoom, I'll load faster film. If I specifically want a slower film or if I know I'm not going to have enough light, I'll use a prime -- f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2, f/2.8. If I'm shooting in daylight, I've got all the options available (though I may still put faster film in one body if I plan to use the ancient 400/6.3 preset). The point is that I sometimes make the zoom/prime decision on the basis of light and subject, and sometimes choose my film based on whether I plan to use zooms or primes. Laziness is less of a factor in my film choices than it is in anything else, but even there, I sometimes choose a faster film just so that I won't have to think as much about which lenses to use or how to support the camera. If I weren't so fond of Provia 100F, Portra 160NC, and my dwindling supply of Kodachrome 25, I might be lazy about film choice more often. Note that I shoot mostly handheld ... again, sometimes for very good reasons such as needing mobility, not having space to set up a tripod, or being somewhere tripods are not permitted; and sometimes it's because I'm too lazy to carry the tripod or too lazy to set it up and adjust it. If I choose a prime for its speed, I'll probably adjust my shooting style to one
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Photographs don't present themselves (usually); they have to be looked for. I have a friend who will sometimes show me a bunch of similar proofs and say I know there was a shot there somewhere, but I didn't get it. Argh. That reminds me of my favourite harpist. I've taken some mediocre photos of her, and some _good_ photos of her, but I just know there's a Truly Great photo of her waiting to be taken -- I _know_ it's there -- but I can't seem to do better than merely good so far. So I keep trying. -- Glenn - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. I really only have one zoom that I take now (Tokina 28-70 f:2.8) and find that I don't want it to be the default lens. But for how things fit in the bag, it is easiest to leave on the body. There are a few cases where the zoom is handy - basically when the subject keeps running around (kids, soccer, birthday party). Other than that I have tried to stick with the primes. I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the 28-200 does wide angle, when was the last time I consciously thought about using it that way. Or composed with it purposely at 28mm? I can't remember. What's happening is when I see a scene I consider shooting, I adjust the focal length [FL] :-) until I'm happy with what I see in the viewfinder and snap the picture. I feel likes it's turning me into a point and shooter. I haven't been using the wide-angle capability to it's full advantage, for instance, I could be using the short-focussing distance and greater DOF to my advantage composition-wise. I should be looking for those shots, and I DID when I purposely put a 28mm prime on, BEFORE I had a zoom. Same with longer lenses. With the zoom, I'm just using it to get closer, instead of thinking about how a long lens compresses things and then using it as a composition tool. And with the relatively small maximum apertures of the zooms, I think I've been missing shots a faster lens would allow, especially if I did not have a tripod. So... I've decided to take my zooms out of the camera bag for an indefinite period of time, at least a month, maybe forever unless it's a family vacation. I will only use a M 28mm, FA 43mm, FA 100mm macro, and M 200mm. I hope to see a difference in the results, both in quality and composition. Tom C. - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
aimcompute wrote: So... I've decided to take my zooms out of the camera bag for an indefinite period of time, at least a month, maybe forever unless it's a family vacation. I will only use a M 28mm, FA 43mm, FA 100mm macro, and M 200mm. sniff Tom, you've renewed my faith in my fellow man. tv - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I don't use zooms much - very rarely in fact, because they're bigger, heavier, and slower to work with. They also get in the way of my shooting around a subject. It's too easy to crop with a zoom while standing in the same place, and often good shots made from a slightly different perspective are missed. Zooming to get closer doesn't provide the same results or perspective as walking to get closer and using a wider lens. While a zoom lens may offer a degree of practicality in numerous situations, it can also contribute to laziness and poor photographic vision. For about the same size and weight as a good, fast zoom (and what zooms are available in the f/1.4- f/2.0 fixed aperture range?), I can carry two bodies and three prime lenses, which provide similar flexibility and, perhaps arguably, more creative opportunities. Bruce Dayton wrote: Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. Zooms are a great tool. They allow me to compose, shoot and recompose at a moments notice without having to waste time finding just the right spot to shoot from (assuming, of course, that my next shot will be from the same angle). The creative process still resides with me. It's only the equipment that is different. I still have to determine the best angle, framing, exposure, etc. for each shot whether I use a zoom or a prime. If I use a good quality zoom then the quality of the shot will come directly back to my capacity as a photographer, not to the nature of the lens. I currently carry four lenses in my bag the Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 (my normal lens), a Tokina ATX-pro 20-35 f2.8, a Tokina ATX-pro 80-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 105 EX f2.8 macro (my only non-zoom) used primarily for macro shots since it produces 1:1 without attachments. The quality of these lenses easily matches even the best primes and none of them releases me from having to think about how I'm composing my shot. They simply allow me the ease of altering that composition without having to dig in my bag so often. Zooms? I love 'em!! Dave Hatfield -Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. I really only have one zoom that I take now (Tokina 28-70 f:2.8) and find that I don't want it to be the default lens. But for how things fit in the bag, it is easiest to leave on the body. There are a few cases where the zoom is handy - basically when the subject keeps running around (kids, soccer, birthday party). Other than that I have tried to stick with the primes. I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the 28-200 does wide angle, when was the last time I consciously thought about using it that way. Or composed with it purposely at 28mm? I can't remember. What's happening is when I see a scene I consider shooting, I adjust the focal length [FL] :-) until I'm happy with what I see in the viewfinder and snap the picture. I feel likes it's turning me into a point and shooter. I haven't been using the wide-angle capability to it's full advantage, for instance, I could be using the short-focussing distance and greater DOF to my advantage composition-wise. I should be looking for those shots, and I DID when I purposely put a 28mm prime on, BEFORE I had a zoom. Same with longer lenses. With the zoom, I'm just using it to get closer, instead of thinking about how a long lens compresses things and then using it as a composition tool. And with the relatively small maximum apertures of the zooms, I think I've been missing shots a faster lens would allow, especially if I did not have a tripod. So... I've decided to take my zooms out of the camera bag for an indefinite period of time, at least a month, maybe forever unless it's a family vacation. I will only use a M 28mm, FA 43mm, FA 100mm macro, and M 200mm. I hope to see a difference in the results, both in quality and composition. Tom C. - This message is from
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Dave, I'm not arguing your points at all. I am not concerned about the optical quality specifically. It has more to do with me. Years ago, I moved from a Practica screw mount match needle body to a Canon A-1 (quite a jump). While the body was quite capable, I found that it wasn't my style. I almost quit taking pictures. I finally sold it and got an Olympus OM-1 with 50mm lens. I think the point has more to do with usage and style rather than the ability of a zoom or prime to produce a great image. I'm with Shel where I find that I personally work better with a prime than a zoom. Not that I couldn't do it with a zoom, but more that I enjoy more the prime and I feel that *I* - not the lens - takes a better picture. With all of that, as I mentioned, there are many good cases for a zoom. I mentioned a few. Probably more of a style kind of thing. I have the same Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 and find the optics and build good, but quite flare prone. It balances very nicely on the MZ-S with battery grip. Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:40 AM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. Zooms are a great tool. They allow me to compose, shoot and recompose at a moments notice without having to waste time finding just the right spot to shoot from (assuming, of course, that my next shot will be from the same angle). The creative process still resides with me. It's only the equipment that is different. I still have to determine the best angle, framing, exposure, etc. for each shot whether I use a zoom or a prime. If I use a good quality zoom then the quality of the shot will come directly back to my capacity as a photographer, not to the nature of the lens. I currently carry four lenses in my bag the Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 (my normal lens), a Tokina ATX-pro 20-35 f2.8, a Tokina ATX-pro 80-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 105 EX f2.8 macro (my only non-zoom) used primarily for macro shots since it produces 1:1 without attachments. The quality of these lenses easily matches even the best primes and none of them releases me from having to think about how I'm composing my shot. They simply allow me the ease of altering that composition without having to dig in my bag so often. Zooms? I love 'em!! Dave Hatfield - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I think your quality assessment of zoom lenses is more than just a bit subjective. I don't believe the image quality of the lenses you listed easily matches even the best primes as you stated. Even the best primes includes the most stupendous prime lenses available. Zooms haven't progressed to that point yet. I own a few Pentax Primes that I don't think your zooms can 'easily match. The FA 35mm f/2, the FA* 85mm f/1.4, the FA 100mm f/2.8, the F 50mm f/1.7, the FA 135mm f/2.8. I have owned the Tokina ATX Pro 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 before and it's a good lens but it's not better than the above mentioned primes. Len --- -Original Message- From: David Hatfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 1:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. Zooms are a great tool. They allow me to compose, shoot and recompose at a moments notice without having to waste time finding just the right spot to shoot from (assuming, of course, that my next shot will be from the same angle). The creative process still resides with me. It's only the equipment that is different. I still have to determine the best angle, framing, exposure, etc. for each shot whether I use a zoom or a prime. If I use a good quality zoom then the quality of the shot will come directly back to my capacity as a photographer, not to the nature of the lens. I currently carry four lenses in my bag the Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 (my normal lens), a Tokina ATX-pro 20-35 f2.8, a Tokina ATX-pro 80-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 105 EX f2.8 macro (my only non-zoom) used primarily for macro shots since it produces 1:1 without attachments. The quality of these lenses easily matches even the best primes and none of them releases me from having to think about how I'm composing my shot. They simply allow me the ease of altering that composition without having to dig in my bag so often. Zooms? I love 'em!! Dave Hatfield -Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. I really only have one zoom that I take now (Tokina 28-70 f:2.8) and find that I don't want it to be the default lens. But for how things fit in the bag, it is easiest to leave on the body. There are a few cases where the zoom is handy - basically when the subject keeps running around (kids, soccer, birthday party). Other than that I have tried to stick with the primes. I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the 28-200 does wide angle, when was the last time I consciously thought about using it that way. Or composed with it purposely at 28mm? I can't remember. What's happening is when I see a scene I consider shooting, I adjust the focal length [FL] :-) until I'm happy with what I see in the viewfinder and snap the picture. I feel likes it's turning me into a point and shooter. I haven't been using the wide-angle capability to it's full advantage, for instance, I could be using the short-focussing distance and greater
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Dave, Thanks for your input and comments on this lens. There aren't that many choices in this type of lens for the Pentax shooter. I suspect I have two quandries, the Pentax vs. Tokina (speed and flare issues) and zoom vs. prime. I have some thinking and evaluation to do to see if I would actually use the zoom if I got it. Thanks, Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:37 PM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Bruce, I've been very pleased with the lens so far. I've only had it about 4 months so I haven't had a great deal of time to utilize it under extreme situations. Close focusing will get you down to about 1.5 feet, though, at the focal range this lens provides that's more than adequate in the situations I've encountered. Yes, flare can be an issue, just like it is with the 28-70, but I don't see it as overly exaggerated on this or any of my Tokina lenses. Conscientious use of the provided lens hoods will eliminate the flare in all but the most extreme cases. I'm extremely pleased with the results I get. If you're not familiar with it you might want to go to http://www.photographyreview.com/defaultcrx.aspx; you'll find 10 other user reviews listed for this lens. Don't be fooled by the 3.9 out of 5 rating it receives, though. Read the reviews and you'll find that, except for a couple of disgruntled individuals who submarine the lens, those who have it and use it are very pleased with its performance. You'll also find good reviews of the Pentax SMCP-FA 20-35 f4.0 which is, I assume, the lens you're comparing this with. Frankly, my decision to go with the Tokina came down to two factors the larger f2.8 aperture and the consistent 77mm filter size that allows me to purchase one set of filters to use on all three of my Tokina lenses. Hope this helps a little. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Since you have one of the lenses I was looking at, I would be curious how you feel about the ATX 20-35 f2.8. How is the close focusing, distortion and flare. My ATX 28-70 Pro II does *not* focus close and I really have to watch the flare. I was trying to compare the Tokina to the Pentax. Thanks for your input. Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:52 PM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Bruce, I think it's great that in this, like in most things in life, people can say the same thing while approaching it from totally different angles (kind of like photography, huh?). If you learn the basics - learn to see; learn to think; learn to plan; be ready for the unexpected; etc. - then equipment generally becomes inconsequential apart from what you're comfortable with. I've used zooms all my photographic life (25+ years) even when they were terrible! I've grown accustomed to their feel and style. Who knows, some day I might pick up that LX I was talking about a few days back, get a good prime and start learning all over! Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, I'm not arguing your points at all. I am not concerned about the optical quality specifically. It has more to do with me. Years ago, I moved from a Practica screw mount match needle body to a Canon A-1 (quite a jump). While the body was quite capable, I found that it wasn't my style. I almost quit taking pictures. I finally sold it and got an Olympus OM-1 with 50mm lens. I think the point has more to do with usage and style rather than the ability of a zoom or prime to produce a great image. I'm with Shel where I find that I personally work better with a prime than a zoom. Not that I couldn't do it with a zoom, but more that I enjoy more the prime and I feel that *I* - not the lens - takes a better picture. With all of that, as I mentioned, there are many good cases for a zoom. I mentioned a few. Probably more of a style kind of thing. I have the same Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 and find the optics and build good, but quite flare prone. It balances very nicely on the MZ-S with battery grip. Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:40 AM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Dave, Know that you have had your prune juice, I should mention that I have always tried to accomplish with 35mm what I would expect in medium format. Likewise, in medium format what I would expect in large format. I once had all and, speaking of intoxicating, nothing matches a fine-grained 4X5 negative. I have since cooled down and have a Horseman VHR that I use for medium format. It offers the flexibility of a view and ease as a range-finder. Sorry, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Rapp Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Hatfield Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise From David Hatfield I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. There is some truth to the above. Film for 35mm point and shoot cameras dominate the consumer film market. As a result, the emulsions that were prominent prior the New Era are gone. The above would not apply in the case of Kodachrome 25 and Pamatomic X. Older members of the list will recall the day that Kodachrome 25 was the prominent film found at all grocery store checkouts and the only colour film was Kodacolor 100 for 126. The difference between a zoom and prime are noticeable when using BW. The eye is easily intoxicated by the colour where it is the sharpness in a BW Image. Bob -Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. I really only have one zoom that I take now (Tokina 28-70 f:2.8) and find that I don't want it to be the default lens. But for how things fit in the bag, it is easiest to leave on the body. There are a few cases where the zoom is handy - basically when the subject keeps running around (kids, soccer, birthday party). Other than that I have tried to stick with the primes. I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the 28-200 does wide angle, when was the last time I consciously thought about using it that way. Or composed with it purposely at 28mm? I can't remember. What's happening is when I see a scene I consider shooting, I adjust the focal length [FL] :-) until I'm happy with what I see in the viewfinder and snap the picture. I feel likes it's turning me into a point and shooter. I haven't been using the wide-angle capability to it's full advantage, for instance, I could be using the short-focussing distance and greater DOF to my advantage composition-wise. I should be looking for those shots, and I DID when I purposely put a 28mm prime on, BEFORE I had a zoom. Same with longer lenses. With the zoom, I'm just using it to get closer, instead of thinking about how a long lens compresses things and then using it as a composition tool. And with the relatively small maximum apertures of the zooms, I think I've been missing shots a faster lens
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Dave, I have to say this as a joke, no rub intended. Rumor has it you should not be using 3rd party lenses, they supposedly scream amateur, you should be using Canon lenses, at least that's what I've heard. :-) Tom C. Dave writes: I've been very pleased with the lens so far. I've only had it about 4 months so I haven't had a great deal of time to utilize it under extreme situations. Close focusing will get you down to about 1.5 feet, though, at the focal range this lens provides that's more than adequate in the situations I've encountered. Yes, flare can be an issue, just like it is with the 28-70, but I don't see it as overly exaggerated on this or any of my Tokina lenses. Conscientious use of the provided lens hoods will eliminate the flare in all but the most extreme cases. snip - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
As in most cases, Shel, I agree with your analysis. However, I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning as to why a prime should be deemed better for street shooting than a zoom other than perhaps its size and weight could give it some advantage over a larger zoom. On my MZ-S the AF zooms I use are extremely easy to use and, in my opinion, add to street shooting since they allow me to approach some subjects even closer than I could with a prime without getting into their personal space. I will admit, however, that that big, 77mm eye pointed at someone can be somewhat intimidating and hard to disguise. I'm heading to Italy in two weeks and plan on taking nothing by my 28-70 and 20-35. I'll see what happens. As to enlargement size, I regularly go to 11x14 and frequently 16x20 and am very pleased with what I get in return. Poster size or larger? That's when I start thinking view camera and then, of course, primes are the only way to go (unless I've missed the fact that Rodenstock now makes a great zoom with a Copal shutter). Photo manipulation? Don't do it, never have, never will. (Oops! Never say never. I'm real interested in that new Canon FS4000US scanner BH is selling for $874 right now). As to the varifocal issue, with today's AF capabilities even on the most basic cameras, the time it takes to compose, focus, zoom, re-focus with a zoom lens generally should always be far faster than compose, focus, CHANGE LENS, re-compose, re-focus with a prime. However, since speed isn't the real issue here, you are correct in your definition of a true zoom lens and the accompanying issue of having to re-focus at varying focal lengths. I can't speak for others but with my various Tokina's this hasn't been a problem since they respond extremely fast, especially on the MZ-S. WELL, since it appears that I'm the only one on this end of the pool, I guess it's time for me and my zooms to slink off into the corner and play another game of FreeCell. Dave BTW, Shel - I don't care what anybody says, I don't think you look anything like Hannibal Lecter. I was thinking more along the lines of Abby Hoffman, but, of course, that's just my opinion! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Well, all this prime v zoom stuff is useless without consideration of the type of photography that's involved. For fast street shooting, a prime wins. For static subjects it can be argued that either is fine. For portraits a zoom can be a wonderful tool. And then we have to consider how the final photo ends up. Will it be a smallish family snap sitting in a 5x7 frame on someone's desk, or will the photo be used in an exhibition at a size large enough to make any small error or quality difference quite noticeable, or will the photographer manipulate the hell out of the negative with photo editing software. Unlike David, I do not believe that a zoom will match a prime in quality except, perhaps, at certain focal lengths or apertures, but certainly not over the entire range. And then, let's define what a zoom lens is. My understanding is that when focused one can use the full range of focal lengths without having to refocus. That's a true zoom. Most zoom lenses on the market these days are variable focal length lenses, and are extremely slow to use because when moving from one focal length to another, the lens must be refocused in order to maintain critical sharpness. Maintaining sharpness and critical focus with a heavy, slow lens is, for most people, a difficult task - certainly not as easy as with a smaller, lighter, faster, prime lens. So, whether one is better than the other really depends on many variables. David Hatfield wrote: You may be right on the BW issue. I don't shoot that much 35mm BW though I do shoot some and haven't noticed any particularly glaring problems with the various 400 speed BW films I shoot with my zooms. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - 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 . - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Good luck on your choice Bruce. Whichever lens you choose I will say that I use the 20-35 far less than the 28-70. Whichever lens you go with you're looking at $500-600. That's no small change to invest in a lens that might just set in your bag the majority of the time. I'm going to Italy in a couple of weeks and will be taking the 20-35 and the 28-70 with me. When I get back, if you haven't made up your mind by then, I'll drop you a line and let you know how much use I got out of both lenses. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Thanks for your input and comments on this lens. There aren't that many choices in this type of lens for the Pentax shooter. I suspect I have two quandries, the Pentax vs. Tokina (speed and flare issues) and zoom vs. prime. I have some thinking and evaluation to do to see if I would actually use the zoom if I got it. Thanks, Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:37 PM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Bruce, I've been very pleased with the lens so far. I've only had it about 4 months so I haven't had a great deal of time to utilize it under extreme situations. Close focusing will get you down to about 1.5 feet, though, at the focal range this lens provides that's more than adequate in the situations I've encountered. Yes, flare can be an issue, just like it is with the 28-70, but I don't see it as overly exaggerated on this or any of my Tokina lenses. Conscientious use of the provided lens hoods will eliminate the flare in all but the most extreme cases. I'm extremely pleased with the results I get. If you're not familiar with it you might want to go to http://www.photographyreview.com/defaultcrx.aspx; you'll find 10 other user reviews listed for this lens. Don't be fooled by the 3.9 out of 5 rating it receives, though. Read the reviews and you'll find that, except for a couple of disgruntled individuals who submarine the lens, those who have it and use it are very pleased with its performance. You'll also find good reviews of the Pentax SMCP-FA 20-35 f4.0 which is, I assume, the lens you're comparing this with. Frankly, my decision to go with the Tokina came down to two factors the larger f2.8 aperture and the consistent 77mm filter size that allows me to purchase one set of filters to use on all three of my Tokina lenses. Hope this helps a little. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Since you have one of the lenses I was looking at, I would be curious how you feel about the ATX 20-35 f2.8. How is the close focusing, distortion and flare. My ATX 28-70 Pro II does *not* focus close and I really have to watch the flare. I was trying to compare the Tokina to the Pentax. Thanks for your input. Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:52 PM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Bruce, I think it's great that in this, like in most things in life, people can say the same thing while approaching it from totally different angles (kind of like photography, huh?). If you learn the basics - learn to see; learn to think; learn to plan; be ready for the unexpected; etc. - then equipment generally becomes inconsequential apart from what you're comfortable with. I've used zooms all my photographic life (25+ years) even when they were terrible! I've grown accustomed to their feel and style. Who knows, some day I might pick up that LX I was talking about a few days back, get a good prime and start learning all over! Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, I'm not arguing your points at all. I am not concerned about the optical quality specifically. It has more to do with me. Years ago, I moved from a Practica screw mount match needle body to a Canon A-1 (quite a jump). While the body was quite capable, I found that it wasn't my style. I almost quit taking pictures. I finally sold it and got an Olympus OM-1 with 50mm lens. I think the point has more to do with usage and style rather than the ability of a zoom or prime to produce a great image. I'm with Shel where I find that I personally work better with a prime than a zoom. Not that I couldn't
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I will only use a M 28mm, FA 43mm, FA 100mm macro, and M 200mm. I hope to see a difference in the results, both in quality and composition. Tom, You will see and feel the difference. Regards, Bob S. - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I've learned something new, today, Bob - I HATE prune juice! I'm envious of your 4x5 capabilities. I tried medium format for a while but didn't find that it offered that much over 35 for the type shooting I do. I would like to try some 4x5 stuff but have been reluctant to invest the $$$ needed to get started. I like your compromise of the Horseman and may give that some consideration as time goes by, but, at my age, of course, there may not be much time :)! Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Rapp Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Know that you have had your prune juice, I should mention that I have always tried to accomplish with 35mm what I would expect in medium format. Likewise, in medium format what I would expect in large format. I once had all and, speaking of intoxicating, nothing matches a fine-grained 4X5 negative. I have since cooled down and have a Horseman VHR that I use for medium format. It offers the flexibility of a view and ease as a range-finder. Sorry, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Rapp Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Hatfield Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise From David Hatfield I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. There is some truth to the above. Film for 35mm point and shoot cameras dominate the consumer film market. As a result, the emulsions that were prominent prior the New Era are gone. The above would not apply in the case of Kodachrome 25 and Pamatomic X. Older members of the list will recall the day that Kodachrome 25 was the prominent film found at all grocery store checkouts and the only colour film was Kodacolor 100 for 126. The difference between a zoom and prime are noticeable when using BW. The eye is easily intoxicated by the colour where it is the sharpness in a BW Image. Bob -Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. I really only have one zoom that I take now (Tokina 28-70 f:2.8) and find that I don't want it to be the default lens. But for how things fit in the bag, it is easiest to leave on the body. There are a few cases where the zoom is handy - basically when the subject keeps running around (kids, soccer, birthday party). Other than that I have tried to stick with the primes. I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the 28-200 does wide angle, when was the last time I consciously thought about using it that way. Or composed with it purposely at 28mm? I can't remember. What's happening is when I see a scene I consider shooting, I adjust the focal length [FL] :-) until I'm happy with what
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 5:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Thanks for your input and comments on this lens. There aren't that many choices in this type of lens for the Pentax shooter. I suspect I have two quandries, the Pentax vs. Tokina (speed and flare issues) and zoom vs. prime. I have some thinking and evaluation to do to see if I would actually use the zoom if I got it. The Pentax FA 20-35 is my most used lens. Then again, I'm a wide guy. tv - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Hey, Dave! I'm 58 and lugging it keeps me fit. Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Hatfield Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 10:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise I've learned something new, today, Bob - I HATE prune juice! I'm envious of your 4x5 capabilities. I tried medium format for a while but didn't find that it offered that much over 35 for the type shooting I do. I would like to try some 4x5 stuff but have been reluctant to invest the $$$ needed to get started. I like your compromise of the Horseman and may give that some consideration as time goes by, but, at my age, of course, there may not be much time :)! Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Rapp Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Know that you have had your prune juice, I should mention that I have always tried to accomplish with 35mm what I would expect in medium format. Likewise, in medium format what I would expect in large format. I once had all and, speaking of intoxicating, nothing matches a fine-grained 4X5 negative. I have since cooled down and have a Horseman VHR that I use for medium format. It offers the flexibility of a view and ease as a range-finder. Sorry, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Rapp Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Hatfield Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise From David Hatfield I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. There is some truth to the above. Film for 35mm point and shoot cameras dominate the consumer film market. As a result, the emulsions that were prominent prior the New Era are gone. The above would not apply in the case of Kodachrome 25 and Pamatomic X. Older members of the list will recall the day that Kodachrome 25 was the prominent film found at all grocery store checkouts and the only colour film was Kodacolor 100 for 126. The difference between a zoom and prime are noticeable when using BW. The eye is easily intoxicated by the colour where it is the sharpness in a BW Image. Bob -Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. I really only have one zoom that I take now (Tokina 28-70 f:2.8) and find that I don't want it to be the default lens. But for how things fit in the bag, it is easiest to leave on the body. There are a few cases where the zoom is handy - basically when the subject keeps running around (kids, soccer, birthday party). Other than that I have tried to stick with the primes. I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the 28
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, at 07:19 PM, tom wrote: David Hatfield wrote: I still say, though, that what you're doing with five lenses I can do with two. Since I don't own any of the lenses you mention I can't speak from first hand experience, but I still contend that with proper photographic technique in place we can take comparable shots, enlarge to 11x14 or 16x20 and there won't be any discernible difference in quality, contrast or sharpness even to the most critical eye from a normal viewing distance. Have you ever actually done this? When I was at Sterling, we ran a 200mm shootout. The contestants were mostly in Pentax mount, since the person who wanted to know which lens was best at 200mm was looking for a tele for their MZ-10. The lenses were: Sigma 70-210 AF (the cheap one) Pentax 80-200 AF (not the 2.8...forget what the aperture is) Pentax 80-320 AF Sigma 70-300 AF (the Super one, as I recall) Pentax A* 200mm f2.8 (mine) Tokina 80-200(ish) f2.8 (the boss') Those last two were in there for a bit of friendly rivalry. So, the camera (an MZ-5, I believe, except for the Tokina, which was in Nikon mount on an F90) was on a tripod, shutter tripped via self timer to avoid shake. We shot each lens wide open, f8 and f22. The resulting images were printed 4x6, marked on the back as to which lens they were from, separated into aperture groupings (i.e. all the wide opens together) and then those piles were shuffled. Then we asked customers all week long which looked to be the sharpest pictures. Well, the Tokina and the A* were hard to tell apart, but were the clear winners. The Sigmas were in the middle of the pack, with the Pentax 80-200 above them and the 80-320 below. None stank at 4x6, though the Sigma 70-210 showed a decided lack of contrast. But the only zoom that wasn't easily identifiable as definitely less sharp on a 4x6 print than the A* prime was the expensive Tokina. -Aaron - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
On 30 Oct 2001, at 15:00, David Hatfield wrote: That's great, Len. I still say, though, that what you're doing with five lenses I can do with two. Since I don't own any of the lenses you mention I can't speak from first hand experience, but I still contend that with proper photographic technique in place we can take comparable shots, enlarge to 11x14 or 16x20 and there won't be any discernible difference in quality, contrast or sharpness even to the most critical eye from a normal viewing distance. Pull out a 10x loupe and maybe so, I don't know, but it's just not enough to make me retire my zooms. Like I said earlier, it's what I'm used to, I'm more than pleased with my results, so it's back to whatever rings your bell at this point. Hi Dave, I understand your perspective but I must agree with the other listers. I believe that zooms not only affect compositional perspectives (WRT the way most zoom owners use their zoom lenses) but even the best new zooms don't match the quality of the best prime lenses available. I agree that sharpness at certain apertures may be on par however more subtle image elements such as absolute contrast, micro-contrast, flare control, aperture ghost images, open aperture performance, fast apertures and geometric distortion remain as discernible differences. Also since I use limited DOF as a feature in my compositions zooms aren't suitable to me. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I was having the same problem too. I have found myself enjoy the process of photography much more when using primes. Prime lenses make me slow down and do some serious thinking about composition, dof and angle of view. Not to mention prime lenses deliver better performance in general. The only zoom I have now is the SMC-A 70-210/4 which is very useful, but hardly the best optically. Perhaps it's time to release a FA* 70-210/4 ED [IF] (the f2.8 is just too expensive, big and heavy for me)? regards, Alan Chan _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
You don't know what you are missing because none of your lenses are Pentax. :) regards, Alan Chan I currently carry four lenses in my bag the Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 (my normal lens), a Tokina ATX-pro 20-35 f2.8, a Tokina ATX-pro 80-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 105 EX f2.8 macro (my only non-zoom) used primarily for macro shots since it produces 1:1 without attachments. The quality of these lenses easily matches even the best primes and none of them releases me from having to think about how I'm composing my shot. They simply allow me the ease of altering that composition without having to dig in my bag so often. Zooms? I love 'em!! _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
David, David, David sigh (Comments interspersed) As in most cases, Shel, I agree with your analysis. This is a very wise approach, for rarely am I wrong, although I often go against the crowd g. However, I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning as to why a prime should be deemed better for street shooting than a zoom other than perhaps its size and weight could give it some advantage over a larger zoom. Well, size and weight are often critical components in the overall package when one is out shooting on the street. Smaller size plays another factor besides speed - it allows the camera and the photographer to be less intrusive and yet work closer to people. Smaller lenses and cameras aren't as intimidating as larger lenses and cameras. Faster primes allow for faster focusing (with MF gear) and allow greater control of DOF, which allows for a more varied look to the photographs. On my MZ-S the AF zooms I use are extremely easy to use and, in my opinion, add to street shooting since they allow me to approach some subjects even closer than I could with a prime without getting into their personal space. That goes to personal style, as I implied earlier. A zoom doesn't allow ~you~ to get closer, rather, it allows you to stay further away from the subject while allowing you to use the tele end of the lens. The result is that your perspective is limited to the longer focal length if that's how you shoot. Of course, with that noisy MZ-S with auto winder, getting close may cause the people you're photographing to turn and run when the film advances to the next frame. I say this only half in jest- there is a smiley in there somewhere. I will admit, however, that that big, 77mm eye pointed at someone can be somewhat intimidating and hard to disguise. Smaller lenses don't have as much need to be disguised ;-)) I'm heading to Italy in two weeks and plan on taking nothing by my 28-70 and 20-35. I'll see what happens. How big are those lenses? What's their aperture? As to enlargement size, I regularly go to 11x14 and frequently 16x20 and am very pleased with what I get in return. We can discuss this point all day, but without seeing your results and knowing what satisfies you, there's no way to know the quality of your prints. Describing the quality of a photograph, or anything, with just words leaves much to be desired. As to the varifocal issue, with today's AF capabilities even on the most basic cameras, the time it takes to compose, focus, zoom, re-focus with a zoom lens generally should always be far faster than compose, focus, CHANGE LENS, re-compose, re-focus with a prime. This assumes that one wants to change the focal length. Most street shooters that I've encountered go out with one to three cameras, and shoot with a particular focal length. Juan and I went shooting on Sunday, and based on where we were and the subjects we were focusing on, we agreed it was a wide to normal kind of day. I was using two bodies, one with a 35mm and the other with a 50mm. Juan was using two bodies, one with a 24mm and the other with a 50mm. We both had longer lenses but they weren't appropriate. The difference, I think, is that we knew what we wanted, and weren't just hunting for subjects. What we wanted to photograph required lenses in the range we chose. Speaking only for myself, I don't try to capture every Kodak Moment, but rather, work by focusing on the subject matter that I went out originally to photograph. Believe me, lots of good photos get passed by, but the quality of what I do get may be improved because the shooting day is specifically directed. BTW, Shel - I don't care what anybody says, I don't think you look anything like Hannibal Lecter. Which Hannibal Lecter am I supposed to look like? I was thinking more along the lines of Abby Hoffman, but, of course, that's just my opinion! If you're basing your opinion on a 30+ year old photo, I'd suggest that your opinion is wrong g. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I have owned the Tokina ATX Pro 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 before and it's a good lens but it's not better than the above mentioned primes. Not to mention the mighty Pentax SMC. regards, Alan Chan _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - 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 .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Bruce Dayton wrote: I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. For now, I have the K24/3.5 and the M24-35/3.5 and they're two very different lenses as far as handling goes. The zoom shows more at 24mm than the prime does, but the prime is easier to focus, and subjects seem to jump in and out of focus more distinctly with the prime than the zoom. I find there's a huge difference between 24 and 35mm, but almost nothing between 28mm and 24mm. If I had to use primes I'd cover the wides with a 24 and a 35mm, but the zoom allows for a bit more flexibility, which is nice when I'm trying to travel light. Though I prefer primes for a variety of reasons, I'm not sure I agree 100% with the zooms=laziness argument. I'd say that there are two factors involved: the angle of view of the photo (what to include within the two dimensions of the frame) and the perspective of the photo (the apparent depth of the photo based on one's distance from the subject). Using zooms allows us to fine-tune the angle of view, which is exercising a certain creativity, but it encourages us to be lazy when it comes to perspective. That is, if we want to make an object seem larger, it's easier to zoom in than it is to walk closer, and so all the shots we'll take will have the same perspective, even if the angle of view is different. This is because cropping and enlarging part of a photo shot at, say, 28mm from a particular location will give the same perspective as if you had shot with a 200mm lens from that same point. With me so far? Primes are great for playing with perspective. Because we can't stand in one spot and zoom, we have to move around to get different shots, and thus the perspective and/or depth of each photo will be different, since we'll be at different distances from the subject. In other words, taking two shots of a subject from the same location with a zoom (say, at 28mm and 200mm) will result in two shots with different angles of view but the same perspective, which you can see by cropping and enlarging the part of the 28mm shot that corresponds with the framing of the 200mm one. On the other hand, taking two shots with the prime will force us to change position (since we can't zoom), thus allowing two different perspectives to result. However, I think primes can make us lazy when it comes to angle of view. Zooms allow us to cycle quickly through a variety of focal lengths to determine which one best suits the scene, while primes lock us into one focal length, unless we're willing to take the time and energy to change lenses repeatedly until we find the best focal length for each particular shot. In other words, taking two shots at 28mm (one close, one far away) of a subject will result in two different perspectives, but you're still working with one basic focal length, which discourages you from trying other focal lengths; that's where the laziness comes into play. I'm not arguing that it's wrong to restrict yourself in some way, because it's often by limiting your options that you learn to make the most of what you have. But why come down so hard on zooms for encouraging laziness in changing perspective when primes encourage laziness in changing focal lengths and the angle of view? Surely it's no less valuable to restrict oneself to a certain perspective and play with framing than it is to restrict oneself to a certain focal length and play with perspective. N.B. When I talk about restricting oneself, I hope it's clear that this is addressing the general nature of primes and zooms that started this discussion. Obviously one can walk with a zoom and change perspective, and can change primes to take advantage of different focal lengths. I'm talking more about the way in which these lenses seem to encourage certain types of behaviour. chris - 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 .
