In article , no_name
writes
Tony Polson wrote:

Eugene wrote:

Perhaps my comments were a bit harsh. I just took offense to the
suggestion that it was ignorant to use the widely accepted and
understood term "prime lens".
But "prime lens" is NOT a "widely accepted and understood term".

Who here does not understand what is meant when the term "prime lens"
is used?

A show of hands please?

As it is an ambiguous usage, i.e. one which is in conflict with the
traditional meaning of the word, then I personally avoid using the word
altogether. I agree that when others use the word it is usually apparent
from the context what they mean, but IMO it is mildly rude to one's
readers to deliberately choose to make them work out meaning from the
context.

David
--
David Littlewood