Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word
John wrote: In theory, primes are nearly always optically superior, but the best zooms are so very close that it hardly matters any more. REPLY: Yes, but this theory is based on the assumption that all lense are made to the same standards. In reality, compromises is involved in all lenses; primes or zooms. Not primes vs. zoom but lens vs. lens. Today, how good a lens is going to end up can be decided at the design table fundamented on how much resources the manufacturer is willing to spend on the product. In market where 98% of lenses sold are zooms, guess in what direction the resources are heading? Pål
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Cameron Hood wrote: > > Must not have tried the FA* series zooms. Hi Cameron, Yes, you're absolutely right. I am now hesitating about buying any more Pentax gear, so it is also unlikely I ever will. John
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Don't bring the camera to your eye until you are ready to take a picture. You are not ready to take a picture until you know what you want. Assuming that I'm not taking a picture of some fleeting moment event, that I can't position myself for, I look at the subject and light and figure out how I want that 3D scene projected onto a 2D plane. Then I go to the spot to get that, while setting things like focal length and aperture, look through the finder, tweak and shoot. Bruce, That's also exactly what I do when using a zoom. I carefully choose the view I want to capture, raise the camera to my eye and zoom to include what I want and crop out what I don't. You cannot do this with a prime lens; you have to change your viewpoint to suit the only focal length that lens offers, and usually end up with a shot that is compromised. I genuinely used to believe that "zooming with your feet" with a good prime lens would always give the best results. Several years of experience using high quality Nikon zooms cured that, once and for all! With my Pentax outfit, I am using mainly primes. If I could find a selection of Pentax zooms that were optically as good as my Zoom Nikkors (20-35mm f/2.8 AF-D, 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D and 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D) I would change to them in an instant. My SMC Pentax 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 is an optical gem, despite several scratches on the front element and a loose barrel, but I haven't yet found any other Pentax zoom that comes up to Nikon standards. John
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
You're quite right I suppose. The word 'time' exists and you can find it in any dictionary. The same with the other words - they all exist and it can be proved so. By the way I saw, on the Internet, something about 'time' in May? June? ... perhaps even July. But I can't remember the details. I did bookmark the site; then later uploaded the latest Mozilla build. The install operation destroyed all my bookmarks and interfered horribly with Netscape 7.1. Every single bookmark was lost. I like the Mozilla tabs, but object to everything being wiped out. I intend to do some radical website housekeeping and updating and need all the latest browsers to make sure my code works with all of them. Of course it's possible I made some kind of mistake installing. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:12 AM Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > - Original Message - > From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 10:06 AM > Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > > > > There is no such thing as 'time'. > > But there is, or we wouldn't be talking about it. > > >Time is man-made > > Agree. And that's why there indeed is such a thing as "time". > > > -- just like Mathematics, and all the wonderfully complex mathematical 'Laws' of Physics. > > Exactly. And that's why there are such things as those mentioned above too. > > Lasse > >
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
What's the difference between lawyers and pigs? Pigs don't turn into lawyers when they get drunk. How can you tell a dead lawyer in the middle of the road from a dead snake? The snake has skid marks in front of it. What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of Lake Michigan? A good start. What's the difference between God and a lawyer? God doesn't think she's a lawyer. And, my favourite: Ten reasons that they should replace lab rats with lawyers: 1.There is an endless supply 2.Lab assistants don't get attached to them 3.It's more fun to shave and stick needles in lawyers 4.There are some things rats just won't do 5.It's fun to dispose of them when you're through 6.It's not "inhumane" treatment, when it comes to lawyers 7.No one cares when a lawyer squeals 8.We've seen what happens when they are allowed to breed freely 9.Lawyers belong in cages 10.Animal rights activist don't care if you torture them Shall I continue, Tom?What joke were you referring to? Obviously I don't know them all (yet). cheers, frank T Rittenhouse wrote: > There is a classic lawyer joke in there, but I will be nice let folks do > their own figuring. -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
There is a classic lawyer joke in there, but I will be nice let folks do their own figuring. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 6:28 PM Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > > - Original Message - > From: "frank theriault" > Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > > > > I'm only a bike messenger. > > > > My brain hurts. > > Thats Gods way of punishing you for having been a lawyer. > Serves you right. > > William Robb >
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
- Original Message - From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 10:06 AM Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > There is no such thing as 'time'. But there is, or we wouldn't be talking about it. >Time is man-made Agree. And that's why there indeed is such a thing as "time". > -- just like Mathematics, and all the wonderfully complex mathematical 'Laws' of > Physics. Exactly. And that's why there are such things as those mentioned above too. Lasse
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
- Original Message - From: "frank theriault" Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > I'm only a bike messenger. > > My brain hurts. Thats Gods way of punishing you for having been a lawyer. Serves you right. William Robb
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
--- Dr E D F Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In fact we do it all the time. There is a > considerable lag between the > registering of information on the retina and the > final production of > information in the brain. What we see (always) has > already happened and is > in the past - there is no present. True, but the time it takes from the instant I decide I wish to capture an image to the instant the 2nd shutter closes insures that the image on the film is the future state of the scene I originally saw and decided to photograph. And mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy! ;-) Michael > > - Original Message - > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 9:21 AM > Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and > ultimate wisdom > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Thursday, July 17, 2003, 12:36:18 AM, you wrote: > > > > > > > On 16 Jul 2003 at 10:30, Michael Bergstrom > wrote: > > > > > > >> I held out a fleeting hope that its ability > to focus slightly beyond > > > >> infinity would allow me to capture images of > objects as they once > appeared in the past, > > > > > > > How cool would that be :-) > > > > > > it's what we already do. > > > > Well yes we do when viewing distant space objects > but we don't have to > focus > > past infinity to do that :-) > > > > Rob Studdert > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > > > __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
To me "the present" is the passing of the panorama of real time happenings to my senses. That there's an actual lag time to GET past my sensors and to my brain I really don't care. In the end, reality and time is only as it's perceived by me. keith whaley Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > In fact we do it all the time. There is a considerable lag between the > registering of information on the retina and the final production of > information in the brain. What we see (always) has already happened and is > in the past - there is no present. Another matter while I'm going so far off > topic. There is no such thing as 'time'. Time is man-made -- just like > Mathematics, and all the wonderfully complex mathematical 'Laws' of Physics. > Quarks and many other wonders exist, indeed they do, but not as we explain > or imagine them. No one knows this better than the Cosmologists and Particle > Physicists who investigate the nature of such 'things'. > > Now I'll duck. > > Don [...]
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
I'm only a bike messenger. My brain hurts. -frank Dr E D F Williams wrote: > In fact we do it all the time. There is a considerable lag between the > registering of information on the retina and the final production of > information in the brain. What we see (always) has already happened and is > in the past - there is no present. Another matter while I'm going so far off > topic. There is no such thing as 'time'. Time is man-made -- just like > Mathematics, and all the wonderfully complex mathematical 'Laws' of Physics. > Quarks and many other wonders exist, indeed they do, but not as we explain > or imagine them. No one knows this better than the Cosmologists and Particle > Physicists who investigate the nature of such 'things'. > > Now I'll duck. > -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Rob Studdert wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Thursday, July 17, 2003, 12:36:18 AM, you wrote: > > > > > On 16 Jul 2003 at 10:30, Michael Bergstrom wrote: > > > > >> I held out a fleeting hope that its ability to focus slightly beyond > > >> infinity would allow me to capture images of objects as they once appeared in > > >> the past, > > > > > How cool would that be :-) > > > > it's what we already do. > Well yes we do when viewing distant space objects but we don't have to focus > past infinity to do that :-) Being humans with some amount of hubris, we just wait for the light to come to US! Hah! Only in cameras is there anything "beyond infinity!" keith whaley > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Hi Dr., it is clear that "being" or "existing" is alway different to "exlanation" or "imagination" of these. This will be always the case and no other kind of seeing will change this. I belive only God sees that way. You can belive me, I am physicist! Best regards, Hans. --- "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Quarks and many other wonders exist, indeed they do, but not as we explain >or imagine them. _ 23a mail _ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED], No Ads, 6MB, IMAP, POP, SMTP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
--- Dag T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I look at the subject and light and figure out how I want that 3D > scene > projected onto a 2D plane. What version of AutoCAD do you currently use ? >>> Viewing a vista through one eye tends to give me a pretty good >>> approximation of the 2D scene rendering :-) >> >> But that would be conical projection only. ;-) >> >How about just closing one eye. Then you get a nice, 2D representation >of the world around you. Fully analog technology... > > >.-) > >DagT Hi Dag, it is not analog! The human eye resembles much more to a digital camera than to an analog one: There are cells which collects the light an give the signal just like the pixels in the digital camera. The cells are connected to near lying cells and are influencing each other just like it is done in the software that is build in a digital camera. The picture is stored in memory and is modified (without darkroom) by a kind of software called phantasy or imagination. Regards, Hans ;-) _ 23a mail _ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED], No Ads, 6MB, IMAP, POP, SMTP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Give it up. Gödel has proven that we can never understand the world as long as we are part of it. We can never understand ourselves either. .-) DagT På torsdag, 17. juli 2003, kl. 09:39, skrev Dr E D F Williams: 'Entropy' - another incomprehensible human invention. We will never understand nature until a new way of looking at it is found. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: "Dag T" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom Hø According to Stephen Hawking time is just the direction of increasing entropy. That´s why any attempt to tidy up is hopeless, it only increases the entropy even more some other place DagT På torsdag, 17. juli 2003, kl. 09:06, skrev Dr E D F Williams: In fact we do it all the time. There is a considerable lag between the registering of information on the retina and the final production of information in the brain. What we see (always) has already happened and is in the past - there is no present. Another matter while I'm going so far off topic. There is no such thing as 'time'. Time is man-made -- just like Mathematics, and all the wonderfully complex mathematical 'Laws' of Physics. Quarks and many other wonders exist, indeed they do, but not as we explain or imagine them. No one knows this better than the Cosmologists and Particle Physicists who investigate the nature of such 'things'. Now I'll duck. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 9:21 AM Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom Hi, Thursday, July 17, 2003, 12:36:18 AM, you wrote: On 16 Jul 2003 at 10:30, Michael Bergstrom wrote: I held out a fleeting hope that its ability to focus slightly beyond infinity would allow me to capture images of objects as they once appeared in the past, How cool would that be :-) it's what we already do. Well yes we do when viewing distant space objects but we don't have to focus past infinity to do that :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
'Entropy' - another incomprehensible human invention. We will never understand nature until a new way of looking at it is found. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: "Dag T" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > Hø > > According to Stephen Hawking time is just the direction of increasing > entropy. That´s why any attempt to tidy up is hopeless, it only > increases the entropy even more some other place > > DagT > > > På torsdag, 17. juli 2003, kl. 09:06, skrev Dr E D F Williams: > > > In fact we do it all the time. There is a considerable lag between the > > registering of information on the retina and the final production of > > information in the brain. What we see (always) has already happened > > and is > > in the past - there is no present. Another matter while I'm going so > > far off > > topic. There is no such thing as 'time'. Time is man-made -- just like > > Mathematics, and all the wonderfully complex mathematical 'Laws' of > > Physics. > > Quarks and many other wonders exist, indeed they do, but not as we > > explain > > or imagine them. No one knows this better than the Cosmologists and > > Particle > > Physicists who investigate the nature of such 'things'. > > > > Now I'll duck. > > > > Don > > ___ > > Dr E D F Williams > > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams > > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery > > Updated: March 30, 2002 > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 9:21 AM > > Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > > > > > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Thursday, July 17, 2003, 12:36:18 AM, you wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 16 Jul 2003 at 10:30, Michael Bergstrom wrote: > >>> > >>>>> I held out a fleeting hope that its ability to focus slightly > >>>>> beyond > >>>>> infinity would allow me to capture images of objects as they once > > appeared in the past, > >>> > >>>> How cool would that be :-) > >>> > >>> it's what we already do. > >> > >> Well yes we do when viewing distant space objects but we don't have to > > focus > >> past infinity to do that :-) > >> > >> Rob Studdert > >> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > >> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > >> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > >> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > >> > > > > > > >
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Hø According to Stephen Hawking time is just the direction of increasing entropy. That´s why any attempt to tidy up is hopeless, it only increases the entropy even more some other place DagT På torsdag, 17. juli 2003, kl. 09:06, skrev Dr E D F Williams: In fact we do it all the time. There is a considerable lag between the registering of information on the retina and the final production of information in the brain. What we see (always) has already happened and is in the past - there is no present. Another matter while I'm going so far off topic. There is no such thing as 'time'. Time is man-made -- just like Mathematics, and all the wonderfully complex mathematical 'Laws' of Physics. Quarks and many other wonders exist, indeed they do, but not as we explain or imagine them. No one knows this better than the Cosmologists and Particle Physicists who investigate the nature of such 'things'. Now I'll duck. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 9:21 AM Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom Hi, Thursday, July 17, 2003, 12:36:18 AM, you wrote: On 16 Jul 2003 at 10:30, Michael Bergstrom wrote: I held out a fleeting hope that its ability to focus slightly beyond infinity would allow me to capture images of objects as they once appeared in the past, How cool would that be :-) it's what we already do. Well yes we do when viewing distant space objects but we don't have to focus past infinity to do that :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
In fact we do it all the time. There is a considerable lag between the registering of information on the retina and the final production of information in the brain. What we see (always) has already happened and is in the past - there is no present. Another matter while I'm going so far off topic. There is no such thing as 'time'. Time is man-made -- just like Mathematics, and all the wonderfully complex mathematical 'Laws' of Physics. Quarks and many other wonders exist, indeed they do, but not as we explain or imagine them. No one knows this better than the Cosmologists and Particle Physicists who investigate the nature of such 'things'. Now I'll duck. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 9:21 AM Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > > Hi, > > > > Thursday, July 17, 2003, 12:36:18 AM, you wrote: > > > > > On 16 Jul 2003 at 10:30, Michael Bergstrom wrote: > > > > >> I held out a fleeting hope that its ability to focus slightly beyond > > >> infinity would allow me to capture images of objects as they once appeared in the past, > > > > > How cool would that be :-) > > > > it's what we already do. > > Well yes we do when viewing distant space objects but we don't have to focus > past infinity to do that :-) > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
På torsdag, 17. juli 2003, kl. 05:13, skrev Caveman: Rob Studdert wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I look at the subject and light and figure out how I want that 3D scene projected onto a 2D plane. What version of AutoCAD do you currently use ? Viewing a vista through one eye tends to give me a pretty good approximation of the 2D scene rendering :-) But that would be conical projection only. ;-) How about just closing one eye. Then you get a nice, 2D representation of the world around you. Fully analog technology... .-) DagT
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
> Hi, > > Thursday, July 17, 2003, 12:36:18 AM, you wrote: > > > On 16 Jul 2003 at 10:30, Michael Bergstrom wrote: > > >> I held out a fleeting hope that its ability to focus slightly beyond > >> infinity would allow me to capture images of objects as they once appeared in the > >> past, > > > How cool would that be :-) > > it's what we already do. Well yes we do when viewing distant space objects but we don't have to focus past infinity to do that :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
:P You're one of us light cone geeks aren't you. On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Bob Walkden wrote: > Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:05:21 +0100 > From: Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:05:26 -0400 > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi, > > Thursday, July 17, 2003, 12:36:18 AM, you wrote: > > > On 16 Jul 2003 at 10:30, Michael Bergstrom wrote: > > >> I held out a fleeting hope that its ability to focus slightly beyond > >> infinity would allow me to capture images of objects as they once appeared in the > >> past, > > > How cool would that be :-) > > it's what we already do. > > -- > Cheers, > Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Hi, Thursday, July 17, 2003, 12:36:18 AM, you wrote: > On 16 Jul 2003 at 10:30, Michael Bergstrom wrote: >> I held out a fleeting hope that its ability to focus slightly beyond >> infinity would allow me to capture images of objects as they once appeared in the >> past, > How cool would that be :-) it's what we already do. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
>Anyway, I have prefered primes since then, but ever since I bought >Cotty's Sigma 80-200/2.8 a while ago, I think I'm developing a soft >spot for zooms again. The versatility of zooms is just great. >Especially for travel kits. Jostein, you're such a nice guy, I'm gonna give you an extra 10mm for no charge at all! :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I look at the subject and light and figure out how I want that 3D scene projected onto a 2D plane. What version of AutoCAD do you currently use ? cheers, caveman
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Don't bring the camera to your eye until you are ready to take a picture. You are not ready to take a picture until you know what you want. Assuming that I'm not taking a picture of some fleeting moment event, that I can't position myself for, I look at the subject and light and figure out how I want that 3D scene projected onto a 2D plane. Then I go to the spot to get that, while setting things like focal length and aperture, look through the finder, tweak and shoot. BR Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >2. I am snap-shooting. I point my camera to whatever I think I like, I >zoom in/out and I shoot. > >All my attempts to force me to choose one focal length of a zoom lens >and pretend it is a prime, failed miserably. __ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Hi! BR> I think that it is something like practicing scales on a musical BR> instrument: it's an exercise to make you better, and not an end in BR> itself. BR> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>Bruce, would forcing a zoom owner to use a prime lens, say 50 mm, for >>say 2 months, say forcing them to shoot, say one film a week, would >>help zoom owner improve? >> >> I know virtually zilch about music, but I agree with the second part - "it's an exercise to make you better, and not an end in itself". I have both zooms and primes. I know for sure that my head really works (though you cannot hear the gears moving ) when I am out with a single prime attached to one of the cameras that I have. When I am out with zoom lens, two things are happening that I think are bad for me: 1. I am using exclusively ends of the zoom range. So in a sense, if I had two primes with these focal lengths, I need not have a zoom. Especially true for 28-135, since I have 35 and 135 mm primes. Though of course 35 mm is narrower than 28. 2. I am snap-shooting. I point my camera to whatever I think I like, I zoom in/out and I shoot. All my attempts to force me to choose one focal length of a zoom lens and pretend it is a prime, failed miserably. Ultimately, I think that for a student of photography, not a well defined maestro, primes are a good way to develop. OTOH zoom lenses can be a good way to start into photography. They allow you to try various things and decide which attracts you more. Then you could try to explore whatever you liked with zoom lens and start growing as a photographer. The first time my Sigma zoom was put onto the shelf for a long period of time was three of four months after I got my initial kit. I keep my zooms for those hopefully rare occasions when I would know in advance only zoom could do. By the way I am glad in a sense that William Robb (who happens to be a photo teacher) agreed with my previous thoughts on the subject. One more by the way - the PUG is coming... I made my submission already . --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
My first lens was a Takumar-A 28-80. As the newbie I was, I got very frustrated with my own skill. Especially all the shots of backlit scenes that became dull and grey. When I got a A-50/1.7, I realised that it was not only me; but also the lens. Years later, on the PDML, I learned what a dog that Tak-A is; one of the few SLR lenses not multicoated... Anyway, I have prefered primes since then, but ever since I bought Cotty's Sigma 80-200/2.8 a while ago, I think I'm developing a soft spot for zooms again. The versatility of zooms is just great. Especially for travel kits. cheers, Jostein > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Both primes and zooms have their place. [snip]
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Very shortly after I got my K1000 (as a gift from my mom; Thanks mom!) I bought the 28-80 Takumar-A because, of course, I NEEDED a zoom and it was a Pentax and looked nice, etc. I used it exclusively for awhile until it loosened up to the point of absurdity. I could change the framing and focus just by wiggling the front element from side to side. I started using the 50mm that came with my camera and realized what I had been missing in terms of the ease of focus and beautifully bright view. I found I didn't miss being able to adjust the angle of view too much, and I think it helped me begin to understand what's important to include in a given frame and what to exclude. I only picked up the zoom again recently just to see if it was as I remembered it. I held out a fleeting hope that its ability to focus slightly beyond infinity would allow me to capture images of objects as they once appeared in the past, but they just turned out fuzzy. I'm still looking for a four-dimensional zoom. :-) -Michael --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Both primes and zooms have their place. I really > don't think it makes all > that much difference whether you use a zoom or a > prime for the type of shooting > most of us do. I think it is more a question of what > feels good at any one > moment. For many of us it is as much about the > experience as the result. > There are times I want the convenience of a zoom and > there are times I want > the light weight (generally faster) traits of a > prime. > Quality- unless you're looking at publication in > National Geographic or huge > enlargements, I really don't think it's anything to > waste too much time on. > My belief is that what makes a lens great for any > particular photographer is > not necessarily the quality of pictures it takes > (providing it meets a certain > standard) but it's usefulness, it's handling, build > quality and most > important its range or its particular focal length. > > For example, I love zooms in the 28-105 focal > lengths. They are incredibly > useful tools for me. If you were to ask me what my > favourite zoom is it would li > kely be the 28-105. Not because it is necessarily > the best lens I have but it > is the one I reach for most often. Therefore it's > (in my opinion a great > lens.) > For someone else it is an 80-200. > For someone else it is an 85 prime, a 24 prime > That's the lens they use > most often. To them that's a great lens > I think build quality and how the lens feels with > the camera and looks > through the viewfinder influences people's opinions > as much as what the lens > produces in the way of pictures. If you feel > comfortable with a lens and like the way > it feels, chances are you will produce great images > with it. This is often > what influences people more toward loving a > particular prime lens. They're > small, well built, simple to use and they are > usually faster than they're zoom > counterparts. Photographers like what they see > through the viewfinder, they like > the feel of the lens on the camera ... and they > create nice pictures as a > result and enjoy the whole process. I don't think it > means that the pictures are > really much better in most cases. > Just my 2 cents > > vic > > __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Both primes and zooms have their place. I really don't think it makes all that much difference whether you use a zoom or a prime for the type of shooting most of us do. I think it is more a question of what feels good at any one moment. For many of us it is as much about the experience as the result. There are times I want the convenience of a zoom and there are times I want the light weight (generally faster) traits of a prime. Quality- unless you're looking at publication in National Geographic or huge enlargements, I really don't think it's anything to waste too much time on. My belief is that what makes a lens great for any particular photographer is not necessarily the quality of pictures it takes (providing it meets a certain standard) but it's usefulness, it's handling, build quality and most important its range or its particular focal length. For example, I love zooms in the 28-105 focal lengths. They are incredibly useful tools for me. If you were to ask me what my favourite zoom is it would li kely be the 28-105. Not because it is necessarily the best lens I have but it is the one I reach for most often. Therefore it's (in my opinion a great lens.) For someone else it is an 80-200. For someone else it is an 85 prime, a 24 prime That's the lens they use most often. To them that's a great lens I think build quality and how the lens feels with the camera and looks through the viewfinder influences people's opinions as much as what the lens produces in the way of pictures. If you feel comfortable with a lens and like the way it feels, chances are you will produce great images with it. This is often what influences people more toward loving a particular prime lens. They're small, well built, simple to use and they are usually faster than they're zoom counterparts. Photographers like what they see through the viewfinder, they like the feel of the lens on the camera ... and they create nice pictures as a result and enjoy the whole process. I don't think it means that the pictures are really much better in most cases. Just my 2 cents vic
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
>> > Bruce, would forcing a zoom owner to use a prime lens, say 50 mm, for >> > say 2 months, say forcing them to shoot, say one film a week, would >> > help zoom owner improve? >> >> I think so. Forcing a single angle of view onto the photographer also >forces >> a level of discipline that the zoom lens doesn't. >> I think a photographer becomes much better very quickly if they use only a >> few prime lenses for an extended period. >> However, I also think I am in the minority on this one, but I also think I >> am in the minority of people on this list who have taught photography. >> >> William Robb >> > >I should probably stay out of this, but I feel the same way as Mr. >Robb. I think zooms have a place in my camera bag, but it's rare that I dig >down that deep to pull one out. I've been trying to improve my photography >over the past couple of years, and using only single-focal-length lenses has >really given me the discipline to compose and frame better and understand >what I'm trying to accomplish. > >Christian Yep, I'll go along with that. I have 2 zooms and I much prefer to ignore them. That said, the 2 lenses that follow me every day are a 22mm and a 45-112mm for practical coverage of most situations. In the event, I use the 22mm for landscapes, and the zoom for grabs and people. If I'm walking about with just one camera/lens, the one I prefer to have on the camera as an all purpose lens is a 35mm f1.8 macro. You can do anything with that. Regards the zooms - if i do have the zoom aboard, I tend to use it either fully at the wide end or fully at the telephoto end, hardly ever in the middle - how odd. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Shooting with just primes is helping me a lot. I have only three primes right now; 2 A's and a K. I think much more about framing the shot now than when I had a rebel 2k and and a few zooms. The zooms can be a good tool to have if their quality is good. If A) An excellent zoom comes my way on the cheap or B) I get more confident about my ability to compose, frame, envision my shot; then I will buy it. I don't see either happening in the near future... But hopefully B happens before A or I will be tempted! -- Scott Paul wrote: It quite possible would help the zoom owner ti improve. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, would forcing a zoom owner to use a prime lens, say 50 mm, for say 2 months, say forcing them to shoot, say one film a week, would help zoom owner improve?
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
It quite possible would help the zoom owner ti improve. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >Bruce, would forcing a zoom owner to use a prime lens, say 50 mm, for > >say 2 months, say forcing them to shoot, say one film a week, would > >help zoom owner improve? > > > > > >
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Rubenstein" Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > I think that it is something like practicing scales on a musical > instrument: it's an exercise to make you better, and not an end in > itself. Well put. William Robb
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
I think that it is something like practicing scales on a musical instrument: it's an exercise to make you better, and not an end in itself. A photographer named David Hume Kennerly did something like this with a Mamiya 67 with a single wide angle lens (read about him and the book that was the result here: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/dk_intro.html). BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, would forcing a zoom owner to use a prime lens, say 50 mm, for say 2 months, say forcing them to shoot, say one film a week, would help zoom owner improve?
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Joseph Tainter wrote: > > I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that > you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I > don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to > an article that did say something like that.) > > I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. > Then I photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I > less than a serious photographer? Good point, Joseph. I think a serious photographer should be defined as someone who takes photography seriously *as a whole*. People who obsess about equipment are often not serious photographers. The serious photographer who *does* obsess about equipment is probably not someone who rejects all zooms, but appreciates the virtues of some and the weaknesses of others - as he/she does with zooms. Needless to say, I would put myself into that category! I have used both primes and zooms for the last 17 years - before that I used only primes because the affordable zooms of that time were so very bad. Since then, I have used some superb primes, and some superb zooms, and I recognise the virtues and weaknesses of both. In theory, primes are nearly always optically superior, but the best zooms are so very close that it hardly matters any more. But to suggest this on any photo forum is to invite derision from the "prime loyalists" and support from that proportion of zoom fans who couldn't recognise a bad lens if they saw a poster-sized print from it. This only confirms the worst prejudices of the prime loyalists and war breaks out. Better not to mention it really. I'm glad I didn't! ;-) Seriously though, in my case, some of my best ever lenses have been primes, but others have been zooms. I'm glad to say that one of the best zooms I have ever used is my first choice lens at this time and it is on my first choice camera body. That's the Pentax A 35-105mm on the Super A (Super Program in the USA). I also *love* my K 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.7 and my Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro, but the results from the 35-105mm are so good that I need only carry the zoom except in poor light. Let no-one tell me that the A 35-105mm is a poor lens because it's a zoom. It is a fine lens, and one I am delighted to be able to use. But don't tell anyone I said that! John ;-))
RE: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
> Bruce, would forcing a zoom owner to use a prime lens, say 50 > mm, for say 2 months, say forcing them to shoot, say one film > a week, would help zoom owner improve? > > --- > Boris Liberman > www.geocities.com/dunno57 I'm not Bruce but I think anyone could benefit from shooting with a single prime lens for a period of time, as kind of an assignment. Every couple of weeks/months change focal lengths. Len ---
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
depends on what they like and are willing to photograph. i think it can help some, but depends on how much the person spends learning too. i used to shoot primes only but use almost all zooms now. zooms have gotten better and what i used to shoot i don't anymore. Herb - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 15:10 Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom > Bruce, would forcing a zoom owner to use a prime lens, say 50 mm, for > say 2 months, say forcing them to shoot, say one film a week, would > help zoom owner improve?
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
I dunno. Show us the pic. Joseph Tainter wrote: ">The debate is a non-issue." "There can be no reason why we should not discuss these trade-offs. If we stopped, PDML would not need to exist and our lives would be greatly the poorer for its loss." I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to an article that did say something like that.) I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. Then I photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I less than a serious photographer? Joe
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Pieces like that should only be taken seriously by tyros. If you know what you're doing, as in you know what you'll get on film with what you have, then you are the true expert for that shot. People who use a zoom to avoid moving around probably aren't very good photographers to begin with, and giving them a bag of primes, or just one, won't make them any better. Lack of image quality is just a consequence of buying an old/cheap zoom. BR Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that >you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I >don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to >an article that did say something like that.) > >I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. >Then I photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I >less than a serious photographer? __ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to an article that did say something like that.) I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. Then I photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I less than a serious photographer? Joe Joe - Many serious and conscientious photographers use zooms with great frequency. They are, however, not supposed to admit it on message boards . Ed _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
">The debate is a non-issue." "There can be no reason why we should not discuss these trade-offs. If we stopped, PDML would not need to exist and our lives would be greatly the poorer for its loss." I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to an article that did say something like that.) I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. Then I photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I less than a serious photographer? Joe
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Joseph Tainter wrote: > > It's very simple. Everything in photography is a trade-off. Everything: > film format (size), film type, camera bodies, lenses, whether or not to > carry a tripod, what one spends, etc. Provided that we have some > experience with gear or film, we each make our own decisions about which > trade-offs we accept and which we don't. Zooms vs. primes are just > another trade-off. There's no right or wrong answer. EXACTLY RIGHT!! >The debate is a non-issue. There can be no reason why we should not discuss these trade-offs. If we stopped, PDML would not need to exist and our lives would be greatly the poorer for its loss. I greatly value the informed opinions of the members of this list as *the best possible way* for me rapidly to assimilate a lot of genuinely useful information. After changing from Nikon AF to a Pentax K/M/A outfit earlier this year, I cannot imagine finding a better "expert system" for guiding me through the Pentax jungle. Just my $0.02. John
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
PDML is where people discover and share their personal experience in these trade-offs. I think this is welcome as long as it doesn't become a 'debate'. Tonghang. On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Fred wrote: > > It's very simple. Everything in photography is a trade-off. > > Everything: [snip] The debate is a non-issue. > > Then we don't need the PDML ???
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
> It's very simple. Everything in photography is a trade-off. > Everything: [snip] The debate is a non-issue. Then we don't need the PDML ??? Fred
Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
It's very simple. Everything in photography is a trade-off. Everything: film format (size), film type, camera bodies, lenses, whether or not to carry a tripod, what one spends, etc. Provided that we have some experience with gear or film, we each make our own decisions about which trade-offs we accept and which we don't. Zooms vs. primes are just another trade-off. There's no right or wrong answer. The debate is a non-issue. Joe
