I disagree about the fast street shooting. If you assume you might want to change the F. L. I'd say your correct. But you can just as easily set the zoom on a particular focal length equal to your prime and in that mode you have equal ability. Plus the ability to change your setting if you wish. These days the only primes I use are either below 20mm, 300mm and above, and macro. There is nothing in between you can't do with a pro zoom (I don't do portrait so I didn't include the 85/1.4 on my list but I would have). I still have lots of manual primes in my collection it's just that I don't use them anymore. Kent Gittings
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 5:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Well, all this prime v zoom stuff is useless without consideration of the type of photography that's involved. For fast street shooting, a prime wins. For static subjects it can be argued that either is fine. For portraits a zoom can be a wonderful tool. And then we have to consider how the final photo ends up. Will it be a smallish family snap sitting in a 5x7 frame on someone's desk, or will the photo be used in an exhibition at a size large enough to make any small error or quality difference quite noticeable, or will the photographer manipulate the hell out of the negative with photo editing software. Unlike David, I do not believe that a zoom will match a prime in quality except, perhaps, at certain focal lengths or apertures, but certainly not over the entire range. And then, let's define what a "zoom" lens is. My understanding is that when focused one can use the full range of focal lengths without having to refocus. That's a true zoom. Most "zoom" lenses on the market these days are variable focal length lenses, and are extremely slow to use because when moving from one focal length to another, the lens must be refocused in order to maintain critical sharpness. Maintaining sharpness and critical focus with a heavy, slow lens is, for most people, a difficult task - certainly not as easy as with a smaller, lighter, faster, prime lens. So, whether one is better than the other really depends on many variables. David Hatfield wrote: > You may be right on the B&W issue. I don't shoot that much 35mm B&W though > I do shoot some and haven't noticed any particularly glaring problems with > the various 400 speed B&W films I shoot with my zooms. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ********************************************************************** - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
