On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Bruce Dayton wrote: > I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me > something to think about.
For now, I have the K24/3.5 and the M24-35/3.5 and they're two very different lenses as far as handling goes. The zoom shows more at 24mm than the prime does, but the prime is easier to focus, and subjects seem to jump in and out of focus more distinctly with the prime than the zoom. I find there's a huge difference between 24 and 35mm, but almost nothing between 28mm and 24mm. If I had to use primes I'd cover the wides with a 24 and a 35mm, but the zoom allows for a bit more flexibility, which is nice when I'm trying to travel light. Though I prefer primes for a variety of reasons, I'm not sure I agree 100% with the zooms=laziness argument. I'd say that there are two factors involved: the angle of view of the photo (what to include within the two dimensions of the frame) and the perspective of the photo (the apparent depth of the photo based on one's distance from the subject). Using zooms allows us to fine-tune the angle of view, which is exercising a certain creativity, but it encourages us to be lazy when it comes to perspective. That is, if we want to make an object seem larger, it's easier to zoom in than it is to walk closer, and so all the shots we'll take will have the same perspective, even if the angle of view is different. This is because cropping and enlarging part of a photo shot at, say, 28mm from a particular location will give the same perspective as if you had shot with a 200mm lens from that same point. With me so far? Primes are great for playing with perspective. Because we can't stand in one spot and zoom, we have to move around to get different shots, and thus the perspective and/or "depth" of each photo will be different, since we'll be at different distances from the subject. In other words, taking two shots of a subject from the same location with a zoom (say, at 28mm and 200mm) will result in two shots with different angles of view but the same perspective, which you can see by cropping and enlarging the part of the 28mm shot that corresponds with the framing of the 200mm one. On the other hand, taking two shots with the prime will force us to change position (since we can't zoom), thus allowing two different perspectives to result. However, I think primes can make us lazy when it comes to angle of view. Zooms allow us to cycle quickly through a variety of focal lengths to determine which one best suits the scene, while primes lock us into one focal length, unless we're willing to take the time and energy to change lenses repeatedly until we find the best focal length for each particular shot. In other words, taking two shots at 28mm (one close, one far away) of a subject will result in two different perspectives, but you're still working with one basic focal length, which discourages you from trying other focal lengths; that's where the laziness comes into play. I'm not arguing that it's wrong to restrict yourself in some way, because it's often by limiting your options that you learn to make the most of what you have. But why come down so hard on zooms for encouraging laziness in changing perspective when primes encourage laziness in changing focal lengths and the angle of view? Surely it's no less valuable to restrict oneself to a certain perspective and play with framing than it is to restrict oneself to a certain focal length and play with perspective. N.B. When I talk about "restricting" oneself, I hope it's clear that this is addressing the general nature of primes and zooms that started this discussion. Obviously one can walk with a zoom and change perspective, and can change primes to take advantage of different focal lengths. I'm talking more about the way in which these lenses seem to encourage certain types of behaviour. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
