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 .
