"Brion K. Lienhart" wrote in message
...
Eugene wrote:
You make it sound like it's some kind of disease. In the grand scheme of
things, does it really matter? Languages are dynamic, and the meanings of
words are constantly changing. The original meaning of "prime" in the
photographic sense is just an invention anyway. Referring to the
dictionary I find no mention of lenses as related to the meaning of the
word "prime". Who is therefore to decide which usage is correct? You
apparently!

It's pretty much established jargon in the photo industry. I've seen it
used in this sense since the mid-70s (when I started paying attention to
photo stuff).

I doubt that very much. I suspect that's a false memory, to which people are
very prone. I don't doubt that you saw "prime lens" used that long ago; I've
seen it used since the 1950s, when of course there was no need for a term to
distinguish FFL lenses from zooms. But I've been reading about photo stuff
extensively since I first got into it in 1951, and it wasn't until the early
1990s that I ever saw the term misused in this way. Obviously the misusage
started with someone's misunderstanding the term, and it's possible that you
did that long ago, though it seems somewhat unlikely.

People often "remember" things that never were. In another argument on this
same subject, a user claimed her father remembered using "prime lens" to
mean FFL lens back in the 1930s. Now why on earth would anyone use a term
meant to distinguish non-zoom lenses when there were no zooms?


I hardly think it can be blamed solely on the internet.

You're right there. I first saw it misused in this way on the old Fidonet,
some time before I had access to the Internet per se. That was back in my
386 days, so probably 1991 or so.

N.