Re: primes vs zooms
"Question 1: "I assume that a prime lens of 50mm, let's say a FA 50 1.4, is always going to be sharper than a FA 28-105 set at 50mm. Is this true, assuming that both were set at the same f-stop?" Pentax 50 primes are probably sharper than any of Pentax's 28-105s at 50. Other lenses (such as the Tokina ATX-AF Pro 28-80 f2.8, which I own) are nearly as sharp as some Pentax primes, and sharper than others. I posted a test on the list some months ago, but it was at f8 -- not a systematic test across all f-stops. Still, the Tokina and the FA 20-35 f4 shined, easily holding their own against primes. "Question 2: "Is a FA 100 2.8 Macro as sharp as a FA 135 2.8 at infinty for landscapes? Can I kill two birds with one stone by getting that Macro?" I'm not crazy about the performance of my FA 100 f2.8 at infinity. It's okay, just not as sharp as close up. Just a perception, not a systematic test. I haven't tried the FA 135. Joe
Re: primes vs zooms
No, the 50/1.4 performs poorly with A2X-S. Yours regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan How about an FA 50mm f/1.4 coupled with a 2x extender? Will it be as sharp as say an FA 100mm f/2.8 macro? _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
RE: primes vs zooms
-- Vasily Klyutchevsky, Russian historian > From: Larry Hodgson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Question 1: > > I assume that a prime lens of 50mm, let's say a FA 50 1.4, is always going > to be sharper than a FA 28-105 set at 50mm. Is this true, > assuming that both > were set at the same f-stop? Yes and no. If you put both at a small stop, say f/22, diffraction will dominate both lenses regarding sharpness. At the lower stops, you will loose sharpness and contrast and experience more flair with the zoom. It's the necessary cost of passing the image through more glass. For most use, this is not usually noticed and in many situations the convenience of the zoom overshadows any losses (that are usually only seen by us anyway). > Question 2: > > Is a FA 100 2.8 Macro as sharp as a FA 135 2.8 at infinty for landscapes? Don't know. > Can I kill two birds with one stone by getting that Macro? Sometimes. One of the birds usually killed when opting for a fast macro is the wallet bird, the one that chirps "money, money, money". On the other hand, if you need the macro anyway... Regards, Bob... "History is not a school-mistress. She does not teach. She is a prison matron who punishes for unlearned lessons."
Re: primes vs zooms
> I assume that a prime lens of 50mm, let's say a FA 50 1.4, is always going > to be sharper than a FA 28-105 set at 50mm. Is this true, assuming that both > were set at the same f-stop? I guess it depends on the f-stop. At f/8 the should givie similar sharpness. Disclaimer - it's just a thought, i haven't tested it, so if you wanna prove me wrong - go ahead. > > Question 2: > > Is a FA 100 2.8 Macro as sharp as a FA 135 2.8 at infinty for landscapes? > Can I kill two birds with one stone by getting that Macro? Killing birds is wrong. ;-) Regards, Lukasz [EMAIL PROTECTED] === www.fotopolis.pl === internetowy magazyn o fotografii
Re: primes vs zooms
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Francis Alviar wrote: > How about an FA 50mm f/1.4 coupled with a 2x extender? Will it be > as sharp as say an FA 100mm f/2.8 macro? Probably not. The teleconverters are generally designed to work a variety of lenses and need to make some compromises. The 50/1.4 plus teleconverter will almost definitely have more elements than the 100/2.8. Pentax teleconverters don't autofocus either. I can't find my 2X-S right now, but I remember it reporting funny f-stops to my *ist D (but that might have only been when using it with a Tamron Adaptall lens). alex
RE: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An importantstep)
Ppro wrote: > Well, HCB, IMHO, would probably have used a zoom. It fits the application > he often applied himself to. Honestly, I don't know why you would say such a thing. He used nothing but the Leica for his whole career, and he used the 50mm for 98% of every shot he ever took. If any photographer deserves to be associated with one camera and one fixed focal length lens, it is he. He almost never used the 35mm and 90mm he often carried. The idea of him using or being satisfied with a zoom is frankly absurd. --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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
Since my primary camera for most of the last fifteen years was a Mamiya Universal, I don't think so. But, if my primary income, instead of just occasional, was from photography I would have felt the need for a newer system. The reason for that is the need for off the shelf equipment availablity more than durabiliy. After all, what can go wrong with a press camera? Shutter stops, change the lens. Film advance goes out, change the holder, RF goes belly up, estimate distance. None of the essensal functions are in the body. But I had to turn down a job once because I couldn't find the lens I needed in the time I had availX-Mozilla-Status: 0009piece broke I would have had to have time to get it fixed or find another. No, if I had to make a living with it, I would use current equipment. --Tom Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I think you're underestimating the durability and usefulness of > cameras from the pre Plasticene era. - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
Well, I will agree that the very best primes are better than the very best zooms. But, once you get to the point the lens is professionally acceptable it becomes more of desire than a need. If the quality of the image is very important I will go with a bigger negative. Remember, my Graphic with its ancient Optar lens needs the same enlargement for a 16x20 as for a 4x6 from a 35mm. Also, I think using a tripod is the single best thing a person can do to develop better picture sense. I wrote a post on this in the rec.photo groups a couple of years ago. I will see if I can find it and post it in the list for those who might be interested. --Tom aimcompute wrote: > > Tom Rittenhouse wrote: > > > Except for folks who are too poor to own but one camera, why would one > want to work > > that way with 35mm? And, those relatively poor photographers > > aren't going to have a bag full of primes. > If I am following this thread properly... I often take alot of time setting > up a shot with my 35mm. The difference is often like night and day when I > use a tripod, carefully compose, consider the subject from many angles and > perspectives. For me the deliberate act of changing the lens means I'm > consciously thinking about what I'm doing.Your comment above points to > the reason I'm going to purchase a 67II... if I'm going to take this much > time, why not maximize the benefit by moving to a larger frame size? I like > zooms for what they do, but it's so easy to twist - twist and not really see > the possibilities while looking those few seconds thru the viewfinder. > > One thing I don't think there can be much doubt about from all the reading > I've done and personal observation: > > All other things being equal, a quality prime is likely to produce a > sharper, cleaner, (pick your words) image then a quality zoom. The optical > mechanics and laws of probability almost dictate that. And I suspect that > where it's most visibile is when making enlargements, as opposed to 4 X 6 > prints or scanning for low-res CRT display. - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
>> I would venture if you make your living with your camera you won't be using elderly equipment, you could not afford to. << Well I can see where some might not want to "risk" it from the standpoint of reliability and the problem of getting stuck all or part way through an assignment with a broken piece of equipment... I don't pay the mortgage and normal bills with my income from photography, but I do make some important payments with the money I earn. I could not afford to be without the income. I could not afford to be caught with a broken piece of gear - and yet I do in fact use all vintage cameras for everything I shoot. I take care of my gear, make sure it is operational before I go on assignment, carry back-ups of critical items, and allow plenty of time for the unexpected. Paul M. Provencher Geriatric Pentax, Leica, Rollei and Hasselblad user http://whitemetal.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: Primes Vs. Zooms
- Original Message - From: "Jan van Wijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 1:42 PM Subject: RE: Primes Vs. Zooms > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:14:31 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: > > >> Looking at those "Leica versus Nikon" shots I can't help to think the obvious > >> difference in brightness is caused by the scanning/adjusting in > >> Photoshop much more than by the difference in lenses ... > >> > > > >Ignoring the colour and tonal range differences the Leica shots are generally > >more engaging and are simply a better set of shots, don't you think? > > Yes, the choice of subject and framing seems a bit more pleasing too. > > Regards, JvW It looks like those rigged before and after weight-loss shots The Nikon pics look seriously washed out and faded, perhaps deliberately under-exposed? Also they are far less (intentionally?) pleasingly composed. I would myself tend to think that a Leica or a Carl Zeiss lens would generally be better than any Nikon stuff, but these tests look deliberately, and probably unneccesarially, rigged Skip - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
I live in a small town (Poolesville, Maryland) that has several historical buildings. While visitng one such building with my Super Program and a 28mm lens, I noticed an old-timer in the backyard, setting up his SLR on a tripod. "Hi!" I said. "Do you live around here?" "No. I'm a longtime photographer with National Geographic." "Cool! What do you shoot with?" "A Nikon F2, an old 50, and a Tiltall tripod." "Have you thought about getting something more modern?" "Never saw any reason." Paul Franklin Stregevsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: (703) 834-4648 - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An importantstep)
Thanks Mike. Man, this group has just been jamming the 67II down my throat the last month. I like it! Keep it up! Tom C. - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:50 AM Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An importantstep) > aimcompute wrote: > > > Your comment above points to > > the reason I'm going to purchase a 67II... if I'm going to take this much > > time, why not maximize the benefit by moving to a larger frame size? > > > Very smart! You'll be very pleased, I'll bet. > > --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 . > - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms (Oops)
Oops, wrong link in my previous message: In : >Tests of classic 50mm's in >http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Cadrag.html and following >(with M50 f1.7, which had the bad luck of having the sun behind a cloud when >it was it's turn) that should be : http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Test50p1.html Erwin - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An importantstep)
aimcompute wrote: > Your comment above points to > the reason I'm going to purchase a 67II... if I'm going to take this much > time, why not maximize the benefit by moving to a larger frame size? Very smart! You'll be very pleased, I'll bet. --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: Primes Vs. Zooms
Hi, regarding the link I mentioned yesterday about the purist 50mm vs. Hightech zoom comparison http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Montoire1.html and http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Montoire2.html Some people have commented about Nikon vs. Leica lens quality and color from this, but one should not forget that different films were used, different exposures were used, and different "imaging technique" was used for the Web pictures. So I think that's more a Kodak Gold 200 slightly overexposed, versus Kodak Elitechrome 200 slightly underexposed, debate. Lasse Karlson said: >I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but in general I think the pictures could have >been better. However this may of course be due to the objctive (test and comparison of >lenses and focal ranges) of the shooting. Many pictures need a good cropping as well >as tonal adjustments etc My personel opinion is that the Leica 50mm pictures are pretty good, considering it was decades ago Jean Marie Sepulchre used his Leica, and that he was hampered by a 3kg Nikon combo around his neck. Of the 14 50mm pictures, at least 12 "count" in my view, and only 2 could be improved by a bit of cropping. Even if you don't like the style, there is a certain "photographers identity" in these pictures for me. The zoom pictures OTOH, seem to be devided in two categories. 6 "reportage style" ones, and 6 "portrait style" ones. The reportage style pictures with the zoom are below standard in my opinion, and some are "beyond cropping". Considering that this is a very experienced photographer, it seems to support the "zooms are no good" view. The 6 portrait style pictures OTOH, are pretty good in my opinion, considering that only landscape format pictures are shown here. I'm way offline here as an amateur, but I think it's this type of pictures some profesionnals make their money with, to a larger extent then with the 50mm style pictures. So that seems to support the "zooms are what pro need" view. So conclusions? Not really IMO, but I thought it would be nice to have some pictures to look at in the "prime vs. zoom" debate. just my opinion, Erwin PS some more links from this site, all french, but plenty of pictures to look at. More 50mm or nothing pictures by JM Sepulchre in http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Cadrag.html Tests of classic 50mm's in http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Cadrag.html and following (with M50 f1.7, which had the bad luck of having the sun behind a cloud when it was it's turn) http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Indexfaq5.html and following (T stands for a 55mm f1.8 Takumar in this one, and it's a test of handheld classic camera's with their standard lenses) For those who prefer to look at resolution graphs instead ;-), testcharts of classic 50mm's in http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Object1.html and following (with K50 f1.4, now I understand why Mike Johnston bought the screwmount version of this one as his first lens, I suppose he was a believer in test charts back then :) - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:14:31 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: >> Looking at those "Leica versus Nikon" shots I can't help to think the obvious >> difference in brightness is caused by the scanning/adjusting in >> Photoshop much more than by the difference in lenses ... >> > >Ignoring the colour and tonal range differences the Leica shots are generally >more engaging and are simply a better set of shots, don't you think? Yes, the choice of subject and framing seems a bit more pleasing too. Regards, JvW - Jan van Wijk; www.fsys.demon.nl - 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: Primes vs. Zooms
Alan Chan writes: > >I may test-drive the new 24-90 when a sample arrives down > >here, if I can think of a reason to own that instead of a 77mm Limited :) > > Sure you will, just that you would still buy the 77 instead (or both?). 8-) I'm sure I would. The 77mm is faster and looks nicer, and I'm sure it'll be nicer to handle. The range of the zoom is perfect (if only it was constant f/2.8!) but unless I feel a serious calling to get a zoom I'll probably give it a miss. Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. email [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ "Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets?" -- Garfield - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms
On Wednesday, March 07, 2001 9:47 AM, Rob Studdert [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > On 6 Mar 2001, at 21:31, Erwin Vereecken wrote: > > > An old Leica M2 with 50mm versus the F100 with 80-200f2.8 > > Interesting results, even if you don't understand French (many pictures) > > > > http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Montoire1.html > > and > > http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Montoire2.html > > > > For those who don't understand French, for the tester it came down to being > > certain to get the picture in the bag with the F100, versus the occasional > > more original shots, while throwing away a lot, with the Leica. > > I must say using the F100 didn't seem to produce more pleasing pics IMHO > I find that too - to me it seemed that the Summicron pics are 'brighter', but control contrast much better than the Nikkor, where to me the shots looked muddy: although he does say that because the Summicron is 40 years old and not multi-coated, it is a little soft, and the scans were "restored" in Photoshop. I also found it interesting that the author commented, with regard to autofocus that 'Le choix des capteurs lateraux fait perdre de la performance a l'appareil, sauf si le sujet se deplace assez lentement' i.e. "The choice of the lateral focus points made the camera lose performance, except if the subject moved slowly enough" Not what you want in a fast moving situation such as the parade. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
- Original Message - From: "Tom Rittenhouse Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step) > "This is my way. What is > your way? There is no such thing as THE WAY." > --Tom I never said it was the right way But it's my way. Sure is workin' for me Ya, Its workin' for me. My friend Mark Radford sings it that way. William Robb - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
Sure, Bill, I agree with you to a point. But those large slow moving cameras are for that kind of work. Except for folks who are too poor to own but one camera, why would one want to work that way with 35mm? And, those relatively poor photographers aren't going to have a bag full of primes. I guess, what I object to in these threads is the tone (and I am not pointing a finger at you particularly) that there is some "right" way to do photography, and anything else is "wrong". Not so, IMHO, anything that works is the right way. What is the old saying? I think it applies to photography at least as much as it does to religion. "This is my way. What is your way? There is no such thing as THE WAY." --Tom - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
> William Robb wrote: > > > > What I find sad about this thread is that the PJ card got > > played immediately, like as if that is the only way to > > photograph something. "Get it now, get it while it's hot" seems > > to be the mentality. I don't work that way, I never have. I > > think that it is cheating the subject to work that way. > Um, I think I was involved in the start of this thread. Here is what Eduardo asked and my response: >> About cropping and editing: I know they are photographic skills but I >> guess that capturing subject and surrondings in the correct amout in >> the first place would be a lot better, wouldn't it? > > That's ideal. However, some people seem to think there's something wrong > with cropping. I'm just saying I don't: I like to get it perfect in the > finder, but if I don't, I have no problem cutting away. and then a couple of posts later... > It just depends...in some situations, it's acceptable to just get the > damned shot. In other situations you would want to get the shot from a > tripod on slow, 4x5 fine-grained film." 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 .
Some more Blather ( Was: What's a Kiron? & Re: Primes vs. Zooms )
Dosk wrote: > Saw: A Kiron lens for Pentax. 24mm, f2. ($69.00?) > Whatsit? Any good atall? Never heard of this brand before > Skip Kino Precision ( Kiron ) was a behind the scenes third-party manufacturer. They made lenses for Panagor ( and others? ), and the made many of the early Vivitar Series 1 lenses. In the late 70's early 80's they marketed a line of fairly expensive lenses under the Kiron brand name in the US & Canada. They made some very good lenses, the 24mm f2 is much in demand on eBay. I have one of their Zooms, a nice 70-210mm f4 with a 1.5x matched teleconverter, which leads me to... Zooms, In my previous photographic incarnation I was a "Prime Lens Until I Die Guy". The only Zoom I ever used was a borrowed Vivitar 70-210mm f3.8 Two-Touch. It was a true dog, not sharp at any focal length or aperture. Needless to say, I wasn't impressed. Put me off Zooms for decades. Now I carry a 35-70mm f4 zoom in my walk-around kit. I use it in addition to what ever prime is on the camera ( 24,28,50 or 55mm ), this works well for me. My $.02 worth. Mark Gosdin - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
Your comments make some sense for ups Pentax users who can use just about any lens Pentax ever made. But, for those other brands? However, I would venture if you make your living with your camera you won''t be using elderly equipment, you could not afford to. --Tom "Provencher, Paul M." wrote: > The mechanical construction makes for a lens that will certainly not last as > long. "Pro" zooms will perhaps have a much longer life than non-"Pro" > zooms, but both will not live as long as a "Pro" prime. This is a practical > consideration that will not affect image quality (initially) and so it is > left to the photographer to decide the importance of this. - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
William Robb wrote: > > What I find sad about this thread is that the PJ card got > played immediately, like as if that is the only way to > photograph something. "Get it now, get it while it's hot" seems > to be the mentality. I don't work that way, I never have. I > think that it is cheating the subject to work that way. Please don't use the expression "Photo Journalist" as synonymous with "unthinking grab shooter". It just isn't so. It isn't even synonymous with "photographer producing photographs on deadline". I've seen some pretty terrible landscapes, portraits, etc. Does this mean that landscape photographers, or portrait artists, are all bad photographers? No, of course it doesn't. A good photojournalist will produce good photographs. A bad one won't. The same can be said of a practitioner of any branch of photography. -- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silicon Graphics, Inc. (650)933-82952011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991 (650)932-0828 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your father. Prepare to die. - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step) > Hi Tom, > > I will take a gamble on this ( tell me how wrong I am Bill ), I suspect Bill is > referring to considered composition not simply grab shots (like Bill's > sucessful PUG entry to which you refer)? For many PJs the only image that > matters is one that has the main subject smack in the middle of the frame > and covering most of it (=happy editor). This maybe one of the differences in > perspective that seems to cause irritation between the > PJ/portrait/street/macro/scenery shooters? > > All have differing agendas. In my style of shooting zoom capability would > rarely be advantageous whereas a for PJ whose job depends on frame filling > in-your-face shots a zoom capability might be mandatory (as may IS)? What I find sad about this thread is that the PJ card got played immediately, like as if that is the only way to photograph something. "Get it now, get it while it's hot" seems to be the mentality. I don't work that way, I never have. I think that it is cheating the subject to work that way. It may be the way the modern photojournalist has to work, but this says more about the ethics of modern photojournalism than about quality photography. Photo journalism used to be about photo essays. It was about exploring the subject with the lens, it was telling their story. Now it seems to be the visual equivalent of the political sound bite. All form, no function, and no content. Little more than page filler for the vacuous minded (there's a Mafudism for you!). And how many of us (that "us" is people with cameras in general, not people on this list) are working photojournalists? Most of us don't make a living with our cameras. Mostly we are shooting for pleasure. So why fall into the modern PJ mentality? Why not fall into the older PJ mentality where pictures meant something about the subject? As amateur photographers, we have that option. We can do it better. We can tell the story. We don't have to play Rambo with our cameras. We can do it for love, which is where the term "amateur" originated. The grab shooter may get the best picture they can from a particular situation, but that does not mean they have gotten a good picture. I let more pictures get away than I shoot, simply because I am not willing to deliberately take bad pictures on general principles. As a bit of evidence relating to getting the best of a bad situation, I invite you to click on the following link: http://www.accesscomm.ca/users/wrobb/general/tipover2.jpg It really isn't a particularly good photograph. Just the best I got in the situation. I am sure that a "real" photojournalist would have done better. They could hardly have done worse. But a real PJ also does it for a living, day in and day out. I don't. Perhaps this says my skill level isn't up to snuff, and I would agree. My forte is in the field or studio with large slow moving cameras. It is what I enjoy, as a photo hobbiest who does the occassional (and getting more so every year) paying job, I have that luxury. I think most of us do, if we care to admit it. Thanks for reading William Robb - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
At 02:14 AM 3/6/01 EST, you wrote: > >Todd<< : It would end up going against the A 50mm F1.4, and maybe a Sears >50mm F1.7 for kicks.>> > >That comparison might be good for you, but wouldn't satisfy the test >requirements. >The tests are ~not~ for consumer zooms, just pro zooms. I wasn't sure. The A 35-105mm is a zoom in a class that really doesn't exist today. You could call it a semi-pro zoom. Now we have "Pro" F2.8 zooms, which is what you are talking about, and the F4-F5.5 "consumer zooms" with few lenses to choose between them. Pentax discontinuing the FA 28-70mm F4 is an example of this. > >Todd<< : In general, despite the fact the 2nd half of my email has pretty much > bashed zooms, I think what kind of lens you use depends on how you shoot > and what you like to shoot.>> > >Then why this rant about primes and against zooms? >From reading your other postings I gather you are/were a PJ. Fine, PJ is a good place to use zooms, and if I was one I'd probably use a zoom 90% of the time or more. The reason is that for PJ the advantages of a zoom lens grossly outweigh the disadvantages, in most cases. What you don't seem to get is not every one is a PJ, and that many people's style of photography is nothing like photojournalism. For these people the advantages of primes suits them better. > >Todd<< : For some people, a zoom is a nessecessity, and the short-comings of >a zoom doesn't bother them.>> > > >What #@$#@% shortcomings? "Fast?" Is that all you got or "close focus?" >That is surely elitist talk from folks who will shoot less that 6% of all the >film that will be shot into perpetuity. >What galls me most is the patently preposterous notion that primes ~are~ 35mm >photography. That only primes are worth a diddle when making 35mm photographs >or that primes make ~better~ photographs than zooms. > >Bullfeathers! Advantages to primes, I have quite a list. 1. Faster 2. Cheaper (I guess as a PJ your employer bought those Pro fast zooms, eh?) 3. Closer focusing (PJs probably don't need this very much) 4. Better optical quality. I know that many zooms are optically very good, but they still aren't as sharp as the best primes. Sharpness is important for some people, such as landscape photographers, or people who do copy work. For others, it may not be. 5. Less distortion. For some photographers (such as portrait photographers) this isn't important. For shooting buildings it becomes extremely important. 6. Less heavy. Of course hauling a truckload of primes you can nullify this quickly 7. Not so big. Like for candid/street photography where you may want to be noticed 8. They use smaller, cheaper filters, and their front element does not rotate. Of course there are advantages to zooms, and I won't bother to make a list, as you pretty much know them. I figure that very few of the things that I listed are important to YOU. That's fine, and I can see why from reading your other postings. What you have to realize is that other people who take photographs take photographs of completely different subjects in completely different environments, and for them the things on that list suddenly become very important. I never said anything about you must use primes, that primes are 35mm photography, or that you need primes to make fine photographs. I even believe I said the opposite. Anyways, just because you take fine photos with a high quality zoom lens doesn't mean primes are obsolete and everyone should use zooms (that's the message I am getting from you atleast). Todd - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Primes Vs. Zooms
Mike wrote (in the Bresson thread) >But I'll bet if anybody on this list got a chance to do some moderately >heavy shooting for a few days--say, 5 rolls a day over the course of a >10-day vacation, of some subject matter that really engaged them--9 out of >10 would end up doing better work with one LX and one $30 50/2 than they >would with a bagful of crap that included however many fancy klunky big ol' >zoom lenses you want to name. If you don't buy that, well, fine. But it's a >bet I'd be happy to take."" In the site Pentaxclover mentioned yesterday somebody tried exactly that. (merci Clover, nice link) An old Leica M2 with 50mm versus the F100 with 80-200f2.8 Interesting results, even if you don't understand French (many pictures) http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Montoire1.html and http://www.pictchallenge.com/diabolpif/Montoire2.html For those who don't understand French, for the tester it came down to being certain to get the picture in the bag with the F100, versus the occasional more original shots, while throwing away a lot, with the Leica. Erwin - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
- Original Message - From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: March 6, 2001 8:41 AM Subject: Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step) > Bill, I find it interesting that you have again and again > disparaged the use of zooms and cropping in this never ending > thread (renamed several times), and that your gallery entry this > month is a highly cropped zoom lens photo. > How do you reconcile this? Ho Tom: I went back through my posts on the subject, and while I have been critical of the use of zoom lenses in the hands of the tyro, for reasons which I won't get into again, and while I have advocated filling the frame, rather than deliberately wasting image area, which is a precious commodity with the 35mm format, I don't think I have ever stated as a hard and fast rule that zooms are bad, or that cropping is evil. Of course, I could be wrong. > > Nice shot, by the way, you may be the only photographer ever to > photograph a roll over in a gymkhana. Thank you for the compliment. It was a total fluke to even get the car in the frame. Usually, my subjects sit still for me in a warm studio setting, so this was a challenging experience, both from a personal comfort POV and from a getting something useful on film. I have a lot more respect for the guys that shoot auto racing now, and can certainly see why they prefer cameras like the F5 or EOS-1 for it. Bill - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
I can't help but reply to this, and I will probably regret doing so... But here goes... >>Actually, the only thing prime only shooters have is faster-maybe sharper. What other outstanding attributes do primes offer a "pro" zoom won't? << Well, without commenting about image quality, flexibility, and convenience (all components of zoom value), zoom lenses have - more complicated construction, - more moving parts, more elements, and - cannot have an "ideal" lens hood attached. The mechanical construction makes for a lens that will certainly not last as long. "Pro" zooms will perhaps have a much longer life than non-"Pro" zooms, but both will not live as long as a "Pro" prime. This is a practical consideration that will not affect image quality (initially) and so it is left to the photographer to decide the importance of this. "Pro" zooms will be more costly. This also is left to the photographer to decide. (It is valid to argue that the cost of a zoom is actually less than that 30lb bag of primes covering the same range of focal lengths). Debates about image quality never get resolved, so humor me when I say that more elements will have some impact on image contrast and sharpness, less so with "Pro" zooms but still theoretically relevant. Against missing the shot while "fumbling", these factors are arguably insignificant. In other words the photo made with a zoom, regardless of its potential technical shortcomings, is better than no shot at all. The photographer should have the experience to know when this trade-off is meaningful and _choose the tool for the job_: - Photographers with time and fairly static subjects will benefit from using prime lenses; - the fast moving, PJ-style photog will probably be better off with the zoom. >>what would HCB, Adams and the other "prime only" greats have produced had quality zooms, such as todays, been available to them? << Well, HCB, IMHO, would probably have used a zoom. It fits the application he often applied himself to. On the other hand, I find it amusing to picture Ansel Adams, perched atop his 4WD-vehicle, with his sheet-film view camera, and a zoom lens. I think it unlikely that Mr. Adams would have see any benefit to the way he works nor, especially, to his final product. With the time it takes to set up, load film, execute the zone system of exposure and processing, it is unlikely that the zoom would have made his photographs (or his life) any better. With the time he took to do his work, he would certainly (again, based on my interpretation of everything I have read about him) wanted the sharpest, most contrasty lens he could lay hands on. So if you accept my impression of HIS style, I don't think the zoom lens fit Mr. Adams applications. I do have rucksack (well actually several Halliburtons full) of primes (all Pentax) and their zooms (all Pentax) as well. My habit is to assess my shooting needs for the assignment and decide based on that which case(s) to bring. If I need to travel light or I need to shoot a variety of situations fast, the zoom naturally goes along. If I am shooting static subjects, plain and simple, the zoom stays home (or at least stays in the case). If I am not sure, I bring it just in case. I have made photos with zooms that could not be made with any other kind of lens, no matter how hard one might try. I have made photos with primes that could just as easily been made with a zoom but were not because I chose otherwise. My legs still work so it's not too hard to take a few steps this way or that if I need to adjust the composition. One last comment - zooms, at least the larger ones, are quite obtrusive. I don't like the attention they attract. I can run around all day with a 150mm mounted and have no one looking at me. But the minute I put on an 85~210, all of a sudden, I am the center of attention. Not very useful if you want to go unnoticed. It's all about the application. (IMHO) Paul M. Provencher (ppro) http://whitemetal.com/pentax/index.htm - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
On 6 Mar 2001, at 9:41, Tom Rittenhouse wrote: > Bill, I find it interesting that you have again and again > disparaged the use of zooms and cropping in this never ending > thread (renamed several times), and that your gallery entry this > month is a highly cropped zoom lens photo. > How do you reconcile this? Hi Tom, I will take a gamble on this ( tell me how wrong I am Bill ), I suspect Bill is referring to considered composition not simply grab shots (like Bill's sucessful PUG entry to which you refer)? For many PJs the only image that matters is one that has the main subject smack in the middle of the frame and covering most of it (=happy editor). This maybe one of the differences in perspective that seems to cause irritation between the PJ/portrait/street/macro/scenery shooters? All have differing agendas. In my style of shooting zoom capability would rarely be advantageous whereas a for PJ whose job depends on frame filling in-your-face shots a zoom capability might be mandatory (as may IS)? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 Fax +61-2-9554-9259 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
William Robb wrote: > Even in medium format, there are only a handful of zooms > available from all the manufacturers combined. Pentax makes a whole ONE zoom for the 67: the 55-100. -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: Primes vs. Zooms
>I may test-drive the new 24-90 when a sample arrives down >here, if I can think of a reason to own that instead of a 77mm Limited :) Sure you will, just that you would still buy the 77 instead (or both?). 8-) regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
>Zooms make you lazy? Huh? How? That is a new twist on an old urban legend. Applied to me. I had the same problem with zooms. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Primes vs. Zooms
Mafud writes: > I stand firm for zooms in the hands of the skilled against all those "prime > only" folks and here, is not only a voice of reason, but clarity. I am sure that any *skilled* photographer could use a zoom or a prime lens equally well, but some (most?) situations definitely suit one type of lens better than the other. Having said that, I don't really see a lot of point in this debate. Zooms and primes each have their pros and cons, and one of the things we need to learn as photographers is which lens will best let us capture the images we want. FWIW, I sold my only zoom (35-70 f/2.5-3.5) a couple of weeks ago as I never use it. I may test-drive the new 24-90 when a sample arrives down here, if I can think of a reason to own that instead of a 77mm Limited :) Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. email [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ "Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets?" -- Garfield - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
Mafud quotes extensively and says: > Paal responds to Mafud: > > Not Mafud > You need to be a good photographer to take full advantage of a > zoom > > Pal<< :Probably true of taking *full* advantage of any lens, but I'll grant > that with more to control on a zoom, there's more to learn how to use > well.>> [... my entire post quoted back, then ...] > Way too much of the above might be wrongly attributed to me, painting me with > a sometimes prime-sometimes not coat. > Be careful how you attribute the above messages to me. Dude, I _didn't_ attribute any of that to you, and you mistakenly attributed _my_ words to Paal. Where I quoted, I quoted Paal, who was (as I noted) responding to you. If I had quoted any of your previous post in there, it would have been set off with ">> " while Paal's text was set off with "> ", as has been an Internet standard since before it was called the Internet. It wasn't until I got all the way to the botton that I realized why you were attributing my words to Paal. -- 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
I have a headache and am not sure how coherent this is going to wind up being, but here goes anyhow. I need to wrap this up and get back to work, so I'm going to be a bit more lazy with my text-editing than I'd usually allow myself... How, ah, ironically _a_propos_. Didn't plan it that way, honest. Paal responds to Mafud: > You need to be a good photographer to take full advantage of a zoom Probably true of taking *full* advantage of any lens, but I'll grant that with more to control on a zoom, there's more to learn how to use well. > Zooms have the ability of making the photographer lazy; instead of > playing around with perspective and try different vantage point, a > zoom lens may make the photographer lazy by just zooming. But even on this point, which there doesn't seem to be much disagreement about overall, I must say that there is a flip side. Because a zoom lens allows one to change the magnification on the fly, _more_ vantage points become useable than with a prime. A truly diligent (and well equipped!) photographer may walk all around a subject, view it from different distances, and choose the prime that frames the subject the way he or she desires when standing in the spot he or she determines to present the most effective image. But I'm a lot _more_ likely to wander around and try various distances if I have a zoom, so that I don't have to keep changing lenses to see what I've got. Yes, that's some laziness, but if you make the job more difficult, I have incentive to be lazier still and stick to the distances that work with the one lens I've got mounted. BTDT -- this is not hypothetical. A _really_ well equipped photographer will, of course, also have reflectors, shades, and backdrops, and assistants to help position them. In comparison, am I lazy, cheap, or both? ;-) (Someone said he can nail the required focal length 95% of the time when looking at a scene. Great. I'm not there yet. Granted, I'll learn that skill more slowly with a zoom, but then the question becomes, "Why am I out there _today_; to study and practice, or to get this photo?" Ideally (and fairly often, really) I'll do both at the same time, but sometimes that's a luxury. As it is, I can come pretty close to picking the right focal length before I mount the lens on the camera reasonably often -- a lot less than 19/20 but enough to speed things up a wee bit -- but I often find myself wanting a focal length that I don't have in a prime (a separate reason for zooms) or wanting to tweak the framing (crop in the viewfinder) just a smidgen from one of the conventional lengths after I've found my vantage point.) So I'd say that zooms have the potential to make a photographer lazy as described above, but that avoiding them is no guaranteed cure! In fact, a zoom _may_, depending on the individual, be better from a "risk of inducing laziness" standpoint. Sometimes. Real-world example: I have 28, 35, 50, 85, 200, and 400 primes in K mount, and 28, 35, 50, 55, 135, and 200 primes in M42. Sticking to primes, To get 100mm, I need to use a 2x on an M42 50mm (since my K-mount teleconverters were stolen in the burglary). If I want 85mm, I have to shoot K-mount. To get a 65mm point of view / perspective / magnification with a prime, I have to crop after the fact. Sometimes a teleconverter is too expensive (I usually shoot handheld, not always in daylight -- two stops is a lot, plus the loss of sharpness...). I often carry enough bodies at a time to make other people shake their heads[*], but still, with _what_I've_got_, doing things properly with primes would mean at least one K-mount and one M42 body for each type of film I wanted to have loaded, rather than putting different film in each; or it would mean a lot of cropping. Or, until I train myself to see how I can crop later, it'll mean dismissing a lot of possible vantage points for not providing me the framing I want. [Note to self: Buy a g_n M42-K adaptor already...] Maybe I _do_ need to remind myself more often, "I can always crop this later," but my gut instinct has me composing in the viewfinder out of habit. And maybe I should indulge my instinct by using zooms when I want those in-between lengths. And maybe I should be saving up for in-between primes. Or maybe, just maybe, the right answer is "all of the above", because each tool has its place? IIRC, this thread started off from a comment about learning to crop, n'est-ce pas? And a parallel thread is discussing the virtues and evils of cropping (and to a much larger extent, simply whether HCB cropped). Both cropping and zoom lenses give the photographer more flexibility. Both _can_ lead to either laziness or a greater range of expression. Sloppy composition "because I can crop it later" is one side of the laziness coin. Not taking the final step that would transform a so-so photograph into a powerful visual statement because one can't be bothered to crop is the
Re: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: March 5, 2001 4:24 PM Subject: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step) > What we don't ever factor into the discussion is this: what would HCB, Adams > and the other "prime only" greats have produced had quality zooms, such as > todays, been available to them? Well, as far as Adams goes, I have yet to see a quality large format zoom lens, or for that matter, a large format zoom lens of any quality. Some of us still eschew the miniature format size that so goes hand in hand with the zoom lens. Even in medium format, there are only a handful of zooms available from all the manufacturers combined. William Robb - 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: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
Comments mixed in. At 05:24 PM 3/5/01 EST, you wrote: >In a message dated 3/5/2001 11:41:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ><< I agree - either cropping with a zoom or copping by proximity works for me. > >> > >Hi Tom! > >We often forget, when shooting primes, that composition has a handmaiden: >perspective. I find it easier to walk around and gain both with zooms, even >my 17-28, as opposed to the hassle of walking around with a 30-35 pound sack >of lenses*-. >*-Lenses that must be changed, restored to their cases before the >photographer can compose and shoot, causing the grief of missed opportunities >as the Sun or Moon or flowers move, or the wind rises-or clouds appear, all >the while the prime-only shooter has their heads down, fumbling with this or >that accouterment. >There are shots zooms afford us which simply are unavailable to primes >(unless one has that rucksack full of the variable lengths). Compression is >also a handmaiden of composition, again, as an attribute unavailable to >primes. I guess it depends on what you are shooting. A zoom is good for walking around when you don't know what you are going to find, or things like weddings or photojournalism. If you are doing portraits or most excellent macro shots of insects, you would probably slap a good prime onto the camera and leave it there for several rolls of film. I can see why a photojournalist would like a zoom, but take a landscape photographer. After setting up the tripod, flash, determining exposure, focusing, putting on filters etc. etc. etc., do you think the landscape photographer is going to be annoyed by taking an extra 30 seconds to change a lens? I don't know about some people, but I would never walk around with a 30lb sack of lenses either. (heck, I probably don't even own anything close to that much, zooms included!). If I don't want to use a zoom, I may grab 2 or 3 primes, which can be considerably smaller and lighter than many zooms, especially fast zooms. > >Those who tout primes, harken back to the days when primes were all there >was. Actually, the only thing prime only shooters have is faster-maybe >sharper. What other outstanding attributes do primes offer a "pro" zoom >won't? >What we don't ever factor into the discussion is this: what would HCB, Adams >and the other "prime only" greats have produced had quality zooms, such as >todays, been available to them? >Zounds man, the imagination boggles! Adams would literally spend hours taking a shot, setting up the tripod and stuff, and then waiting for the perfect light to click the shutter. He didn't walk around and just photograph those scenes like a tourist. I don't think he would be bothered by a 30 sec lens change at all. Plus, how many zooms are there for 8x10 view cameras? As for HCB it's hard to say. I think he would like the idea of a zoom myself, but not the size and weight. >Would we now think so highly of primes if the greats had produced some of >their masterpieces with zooms? And why wouldn't they have? There are lots of great photographers now using zooms. What are you talking about? > >There are PENTAX zooms that rival PENTAX primes, though some would argue >differently. There are some who would say the two are an oxmoron*. To them I >say: disprove my assertion. >*In their comparative analysis, no "consumer" zooms will be allowed, only >"Pro" glass. >**And let them with "pro" zooms and primes be the ones to make the analysis. There are other differences with zooms and primes. One is that zooms are larger lens, and heavier. If all I need is, say a 100mm lens for a purpose, I'd rather not deal with the bulk of either of my zooms. Another advantage is filters. Zoom lenses, especially those fast "Pro" zooms, use large filters. Ever priced 67mm filters? 77mm filters for the FA 80-200mm F2.8? Some are more expensive than a good prime lens! Then there is the whole issue of rotating front elements, which makes using some filters such as polarizers a royal pain. Another is price. The Pentax 28-70mm F2.8 costs $1065. A FA 35mm 35mm F2, FA 50mm F1.4, and a Limited 77mm F1.8 would set me back $1120. Sure, the three primes is a tad more expensive, but which would you rather have? I know I would take the primes, especially considering they are 1 stop or more faster. Even if you don't need the speed I am sure all three of those lenses would blow the zoom away stopped down to F2.8 Also, IIRC all three of those lenses take 49mm filters. (These are B+H prices) Another reason for primes is perspective, which you mentioned above. Many zooms simply don't focus as close as many primes, usually the wider the range the worse it is. In photo classes they always tell you to get closer. I like to take a WA lens and get really close to subject for interesting photographs* (*this doesn't work on people too well, but is good for cars, and generally any subject with lots of straight lines). It's
Re: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness?
John Francis wrote: > That said: I haven't seen any image > problems using the zoom hand-held; > in fact it's the lens that is usually > mounted on my PZ-1p. Both lenses > show significant light drop-off in > the corners, especially wide open. Wouldn't "significant" light fall off be an image problem? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "The difference between a good photograph and a great photograph is subtleties." - 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: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness?
At 11:52 27.1.2001 -0700, you wrote: >Thanks, everyone. This was educational. [...] >I still like my zooms, though. And my primes. Heck, I like all my >lenses. >Joe Who doesn't ;-) Reminds me of having to get some more (after that nefarious "lens purchase enabler" started enabling, I can't resist getting more n more! ;) I use zooms under good light, and use primes for available gloom or available dark or abysmal light (choose one suiting you most). But at some film/dev combos, I would propably be unable to tell a great prime from a normal zoom: e.g. that TMZ at 16500 ASA ;-0 Frantisek - 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: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness?
So what are we saying? Expense zoom's and prime's are much better than cheap zooms, cheap Zoom's at there worst focal lenght are poor, even on 4x6" colour prints. I like the test method of writting on the back of the prints, suffling and sorting on percived "goodness". I used the same test for some b+w film/ developer tests recently and the order of preference was quite consistent. > Back when I was working at Sterling, I put my SMC-A* > 200mm f2.8 up > against the boss' Tokina ATX Pro 80-200mm f2.8, the > cheap Pentax AF > 70-210, the cheap Sigma AF 70-210, the cheap Nikon > AF 70-210 and the > Pentax 28-200, all at 200 = Regards Richard Saunders __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.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: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness?
From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If most films can resolve less than most lenses, and most scanners can resolve less than most films, why are prime lenses considered superior to good zooms? It would seem at first glance that the extra lens sharpness of a prime would not translate into extra image sharpness. ... snipped ... I respond: I'm going out on a limb a bit here because I've never seriously studied the math behind all this as it specifically relates to optics, but ... In general, comparing two lenses, a lens with higher resolving capability does result in more resolution on film even if the film has lower resolving capability than both lenses. There is a good mathematical explanation for this ... I wish I could give it ... but maybe a simple way to think about it is this ... each component (lens, film, scanner, etc...) in the chain between the scene and a print (or digital file) acts as a filter (in the matematical sense) or transfer function. Think of these components as neutral density filters and the system resolution as the amount of light transmitted through the filters. You can see that if we represent the resolution of the two lenses by 80% and 90% transmittance respectively and the film as having 50% transmittance. The system transmittance (or resolution) is 40% for the low resolution lens and 45% for the high resolution lens. The lowest resolving item in the system certainly has the greatest impact on the system resolution, but all the items in the system will effect the system resolution. Now, at what point does an increase in lens resolution make no practical improvements in the system resolution? Well, that depends on the relative resolutions of all the components in the system. Someone jump in here if I've screwed this up. Eric _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness?
>> There are several people on this list who use 4000 dpi film >> scanners. And Kodak photo CDs can be made for anyone. And who >> says you have to scan your film at all? > >I was gonna say that it's the same argument as "Why spend money for good >lenses when all you're going to do is make 4x6s?" :) > >But I'll tell ya...regardless of how unsharp your film is and how lo-res >your scanner is (or how unsharp your enlarger lenses are), if you really >look at the images you can see the difference. I almost wept when I got >back my first roll of film (printed in 4x6s) shot with my SMC-A* 200mm >f2.8. There is a clear and obvious difference, even on a 4x6 minilab >print. Scale that difference up to an 8x10 or 11x14, and it's a huge difference. I can still clearly remember the first enlargements I made of photos taken with my FA*24/2.0: They were *literally* breathtaking. I just gasped. - 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: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness?
Mark Roberts wrote: > There are several people on this list who use 4000 dpi film > scanners. And Kodak photo CDs can be made for anyone. And who > says you have to scan your film at all? I was gonna say that it's the same argument as "Why spend money for good lenses when all you're going to do is make 4x6s?" :) But I'll tell ya...regardless of how unsharp your film is and how lo-res your scanner is (or how unsharp your enlarger lenses are), if you really look at the images you can see the difference. I almost wept when I got back my first roll of film (printed in 4x6s) shot with my SMC-A* 200mm f2.8. There is a clear and obvious difference, even on a 4x6 minilab print. Scale that difference up to an 8x10 or 11x14, and it's a huge difference. Back when I was working at Sterling, I put my SMC-A* 200mm f2.8 up against the boss' Tokina ATX Pro 80-200mm f2.8, the cheap Pentax AF 70-210, the cheap Sigma AF 70-210, the cheap Nikon AF 70-210 and the Pentax 28-200, all at 200. The image was of the store's sign from across the road...lots of straight lines and fine text. The bodies used were a Nikon F70 and a Pentax MZ-5 (might've been a 5n, but I think it was a 5). We made 4x6s of everything, marked them on the back as to what they were, and had everyone who came in that week (who cared) put the images in order from best to worst. Without hesitation, people picked out the 28-200 as the worst every time, at every aperture. They didn't even need to look closely. The SMC-A* just barely edged out the Tokina ATX (a lot of people thought they were tied), but they were clearly the winners. The three cheapies were a virtual tie for "middle place", too. There may be math that says the difference in sharpness is not very big. I don't give a damn about the math, since I'm not hanging the math on my wall. If I can see the difference with my eyes, no math in the world will change my mind. I think that some criticism of primes may come from people who can't see the difference on their prints because they're either not attuned to it or because their lab does not have a set of lenses as good as the ones they were shooting with. I would not at all be surprised to find out that the second was true. 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: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness?
There are some differences apparent, especially at the edges, even with the Pentax 28-70 f/4 AL, which is one of the best zooms around. An example of this can be seen at http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/infinitytest.htm Other zooms perform considerably worse than this. I used to have a 35-80, and it was really soft at the edges. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness?
Sacrilege!!! You dare question the superiority of primes? HAR - Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: January 25, 2001 1:57 PM Subject: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness? > The quote below came up on rec.photo.film+labs. It brings up something > I've often wondered about, to wit: > > If most films can resolve less than most lenses, and most scanners can > resolve less than most films, why are prime lenses considered superior > to good zooms? It would seem at first glance that the extra lens > sharpness of a prime would not translate into extra image sharpness. T-Max 100 can quite happily resolve close to 100 lppm in normal shooting situations. Most prime lenses are hard pressed to hit 60 lppm in normal conditions, and the best zooms will likely be not much higher than 50 lppm. A bad zoom may be as low as 30 lppm (those are the ones with the word Minolta on the lens bezel ). So, the problem to me is that the person who wrote the post to rec.photo.film+labs is passing incorrect information. There is also more than mere resolution to think about. Lens flare, contrast and bokeh to name a few are qualities where primes tend to be better. Primes also tend to have better colour correction and suffer fewer optical abberations than zooms, especially long range ones that go from wide angle to telephoto. William Robb > > I use several zooms for, of course, their convenience, but also have > three primes that I use often. > > This isn't meant to start a flame war. I've seriously wondered about > this for some time. > > Thanks, > > Joe > > "If you use film, the only thing you will be testing is the film itself > since film see only about 10 to 20% of the resolution the lens will see. > > "An example: A typical f4 lens will have about 500 lines per millimeter > with noon daylight summer sun. Most picture type ASA 50 to 400 films > will record betweent 50 to 100 l/mm from this 500 l/mm image o r about 10 > to 20%. This is a false statement. There is a huge difference between measurable aerial resolution and what the lens will actually project onto the film. > > "Special aerial recon films can do up to about 350 l/mm or 60+% but ASA > ratings are down under 10." Hmmm, I want to see manufacturers specs on that one. I bet he is taking the 1000:1 TOC measurment rather than the 6:1 TOC measurement. William Robb - 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: Primes vs. Zooms: Unusable Sharpness?
Because: #1 Effective results The better the sharpness on edges, the better the results, even at every level of loss. Better lenses minimize loss. #2 Barrel & pincusion distortion ... are reduced or eliminated. The Tamron 70-300 LD IF lense may be extremely sharp, but look through the finder while zooming it. You can see the corners pull away from the center. Trashy lens, imho. #3 COST A great zoom costs about the same as a good st of primes. Compare a good 80-200/2.8 to 100/2.8 + 135/2.8 + 200/4. #n They're probably more reasons to choose from. Collin >From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >If most films can resolve less than most lenses, and most scanners can >resolve less than most films, why are prime lenses considered superior >to good zooms? It would seem at first glance that the extra lens >sharpness of a prime would not translate into extra image sharpness. > >I use several zooms for, of course, their convenience, but also have >three primes that I use often. > >This isn't meant to start a flame war. I've seriously wondered about >this for some time. > >Thanks, > >Joe *** "The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." --James Madison, Federalist 47 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
