"Eugene" wrote in message
...
OK, I stand corrected. This does make sense. Actually now that I think
about it I don't tend to use the terms "prime" and "zoom" much anyway. I'd
nearly always just refer to the specific lens type. Like I'd just say 50mm
f1.4 rather than 50mm prime. Adding "prime" is kind of redundant. If only
one focal length lens is given then it's obvious I'm not talking about
variable focal length.

Exactly, and this is what makes my teeth hurt when I see someone mention
"28mm prime," for example. (As opposed to what, a 28mm zoom?)



Also I think there would be very few situations where lumping everything
into 2 distinct groups would make sense. For example "zoom" could equally
refer to an EF-S 18-55, as it could to an EF 70-200 f2.8 L. Aside from the
fact that both lenses can change focal lengths, they really have nothing
much else in common. They serve entirely different purposes and an
entirely different market. Likewise "prime" (meaning FFL) could equally
refer to a 7mm circular fisheye, or a 1200mm super-telephoto.

Grouping lenses by focal length ranges makes more sense, ultra-wide,
wide-angle, medium-telephoto, super-telephoto etc.

And in fact that is just how camera makers *do* group them, in my
experience. I have been for 25+ years mostly a Minolta man (until I got into
digital, anyway) and admittedly I'm less familiar with other manufacturers'
lens literature, but what I have seen has followed Minolta's practice of
grouping lenses as wide-angle, standard, telephoto, zoom, etc. I have never
seen any camera maker's literature use "prime" to mean FFL, and I sure hope
I never do. (It is almost unthinkable.)

N.