Is this tyical difference between zoom and prime?

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:27:13 GMT, "brian"
wrote:


"Owamanga" wrote in message
.. .

Minor niggle here, (not just with this post, but every post in this
thread so far). Although this describes the difference in terms that
about 99.5% of the population would comprehend, it is not accurate.

A prime lens is the first lens attached to the camera that directs
light towards the sensor/film. The view-finder lenses on non-SLR's
aren't prime, the filters or di-opters that screw to the front of the
lens aren't prime either.

All zooms and fixed focal length lenses that you attach directly to
the body of your SLR are PRIMES. Zooms or otherwise. No major lens
making company such as Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus etc describe
their fixed-focus lens as 'primes' (they are of course, but so are
their zooms) so I don't see why their customers should either.

I don't blame people for making this mistake, it's very widespread:

Here, a website that incorrectly describes prime as meaning
fixed-focal:
http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Primelens

And again:
http://www.completedigitalphotograph...ndex.php?p=228

But here is the dictionary definition. Prime means 'first', not
'fixed'

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prime

And of course a zoom lens is one that you can change focal length eg:
28-300mm
as well as focusing it.

Yep.

--
Owamanga!

Have to disagree, although your dictionary definition is correct, where
Photography is concerned, a prime lens is as stated in the first 2 links,
i.e A fixed focal length lens, NOT a zoom, It is a term used in photography
and has nothing to do with the dictionary meaning of the word.

Then it should be easy for you to find an example of Nikon or Canon
using the term in that way in their sales literature. This is *basic*
stuff.

In fact, you may also want to explain why a lens maker such as CARL
ZEISS call their zoom lenses 'Variable Primes'.

"These lenses offer continuously variable focal length, but correspond
in their maximum aperture and imaging performance to fixed focal
length lenses."

Schneider does this too.

Lets look at Sigma, they make a few lenses:

"Zoom lenses have the ability to vary focal length, and thus change
image magnifications by simply rotating a ring on the lens barrel.

For example, a 28-200mm zoom lens makes it possible to stand in one
spot and shoot a wide angle photo, then shoot a telephoto from the
same location.

Fixed focal length (i.e., non-zoom) lenses provide one angle of view.
Which means you cannot shoot a wide-angle shot, then a telephoto with
the same lens."

Okay, no mention of PRIME here either, instead the correct term "fixed
focal length" was used.

My point is that if no camera/lens manufacturer uses this term,
instead they use correct terminology such as a 'variable prime' for
zooms or 'fixed-focal-length' for non-zooms, and none of the
dictionary definitions of the word 'prime' means fixed or single, and
no other common usage of the word 'prime' means fixed or single, WHY
do people insist on using the term in this way?

I admit, it is common use, but I don't think (and neither do the
manufacturers) that the fact alone makes it right.

--
Owamanga!

" am looking to move up from a Canon S45 to a SLR.
I was thinking of getting a 70mm-200mm f2.8 Zoom (probably a Sigma not
a
Canon L) until I ran across this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml
If this is a typical difference between a zoom and a prime then I think
I
might go for the prime."

You should see what the Leica lenses do before you plunk down money for
lenses!

They trash the competition.

Alan Kerr wrote:

Prime or fixed focus lens? What is the difference between a prime lens
and a fixed focus lens?


The anal retentive object to the term "prime lens" where fixed-focal-length
lenses are being discussed.

I confess that I should object to "prime" but it's quicker to write and everyone
knows what you mean in the context of SLR cameras, so nothing to get upset about.

Cheers,
Alan Browne

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

In article .com,
wrote:
" am looking to move up from a Canon S45 to a SLR.

You should see what the Leica lenses do before you plunk down money for
lenses!

I know your day probably isn't complete without mentioning Leica somewhere
inappropriate, but given that he's moving from a *digital* point and shoot
to an SLR, and has posted in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, a good
asusmption might well be that he's buying a *digital* SLR.

Canon has a digital SLR range which covers the market from consumer, through
advanced amateur to professional, and is well regarded in the market, having
built an enviable track record since their groundbreaking D30.

Leica, in comparsion, has vapourware.

Owamanga wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:11:48 +1300, "grol"
wrote:


"Alan Kerr" wrote in message
...

Prime or fixed focus lens? What is the difference between a prime
lens
and a fixed focus lens?

A fixed focus lens is like that of a Fuji Quicksnap disposable
camera. You cannot focus the camera in any way. The focal length is
fixed also. Many 35mm non-SLR cameras were made with these. Some
early digitals too.

Yep.

A prime lens is one that is at a fixed focal length such as 50mm for
example. There is no zoom. You zoom with your feet (by moving closer
or further away from the subject). Unlike the fixed focus lens, you
can adjust the focus on the prime to make objects near or far appear
in focus. Primes come in both auto-focus and manual-focus varieties.

Minor niggle here, (not just with this post, but every post in this
thread so far). Although this describes the difference in terms that
about 99.5% of the population would comprehend, it is not accurate.

A prime lens is the first lens attached to the camera that directs
light towards the sensor/film. The view-finder lenses on non-SLR's
aren't prime, the filters or di-opters that screw to the front of the
lens aren't prime either.

All zooms and fixed focal length lenses that you attach directly to
the body of your SLR are PRIMES. Zooms or otherwise. No major lens
making company such as Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus etc describe
their fixed-focus lens as 'primes' (they are of course, but so are
their zooms) so I don't see why their customers should either.

I don't blame people for making this mistake, it's very widespread:

Here, a website that incorrectly describes prime as meaning
fixed-focal:
http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Primelens

And again:
http://www.completedigitalphotograph...ndex.php?p=228

But here is the dictionary definition. Prime means 'first', not
'fixed'

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prime

And of course a zoom lens is one that you can change focal length
eg: 28-300mm as well as focusing it.


While we are investing important energy in correct word use, consider
"further" in grol's second paragraph. I believe it would further the
purpose if "farther" were substituted.


--
Frank ess

Forecasting is difficult. Particularly about the Future.
-Deepak Gupta

"chris" wrote in message
nk.net...
Chris Stolpe wrote:
I am looking to move up from a Canon S45 to a SLR.
I was thinking of getting a 70mm-200mm f2.8 Zoom (probably a Sigma not a
Canon L) until I ran across this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml
If this is a typical difference between a zoom and a prime then I think I
might go for the prime.

After looking at all the photos I took with my Canon S45 P&S I wonder how
necessary a zoom is. Out of 1051 photos only 8 focal lengths were used.
34% of the time I would use 35mm, 37% of the time I would use 105mm and
the rest were 4%-7% each. So a 35mm and 105mm would have covered 71% of
my shots.

I'm thinking of a Canon EF 135/2L USM and the 1.4x II extender with a
Canon T2 body.
Until I can afford a digital SLR body I figure I will use my S45 like a
walk around lens.
This would give me 135mm & 189mm on the film body and 216mm & 302mm on a
digital body.

TIA
Chris


Of course a prime lens is got to be sharper than a zoom lens. However,
what you were reading is about how 100-400L sucks. I read another review
that compares this lens to the equivalent Nikon's offering. The Nikon is
sharper and Canon has to stop down to f/11 to be comparable in sharpness.
This is why I got the 300/4L instead of the 100-400L. I have 17-40/4L and
70-200/4L and they are great, so don't worry much about zoom vs. prime.
it's only the 100-400L is less than ideal. I also have 50/1.4 for low
light.

I'm here to tell you that for as popular as that article is for saying how
bad the EF 100-400mm L IS is, a sharp copy of the 100-400 is very nice.
Especially with the IS, an upgrade of about $300, which allows me to easily
hand-hold and get great images, even with a 1.4x. to get 728mm on my 1D or
896mm on my Rebel. Try hand-holding the 400 f/5.6 prime at 1/30 of a second.
Oh, and I have the ability to zoom without using my feet. :-)

Chris Stolpe wrote:

I am looking to move up from a Canon S45 to a SLR.
I was thinking of getting a 70mm-200mm f2.8 Zoom (probably a Sigma not a
Canon L) until I ran across this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml
If this is a typical difference between a zoom and a prime then I think I
might go for the prime.

Yes, it is typical. But there are zooms that are almost as good as
primes.

Examples:

* EF 24-70mm 2.8 L
* EF 70-200 2.8 L
* EF 70-200 4.0 L
* EF 17-40 4.0 L

These are roughly equivalent to primes, and if they are not quite as
sharp, the difference is minimal.

Other Canon zooms which do not carry the L-label are not so good.

The 100-400 L is not sharp, and neither is the 35-350 L which I have
tried. The EF 28mm 2.8, EF 35mm 2.0, 50mm 1.4 USM and 100mm 2.8 USM
Macro are all incomparably superior to consumer zooms like the 18-55
3.5-5.6 (does not fit on all cameras) and the 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS. I
know since I own all these primes and have compared them to the
consumer zooms.

The disparity in quality is truly dramatic, but most people are
unaware of the difference until they see or do a direct comparison.
They become satisfied because it looks decent, but the affordable
primes and the L-zooms are just worlds ahead.

Per Inge Oestmoen

Dave R knows who wrote:

I'm here to tell you that for as popular as that article is for saying how
bad the EF 100-400mm L IS is, a sharp copy of the 100-400 is very nice.
Especially with the IS, an upgrade of about $300, which allows me to easily

By "upgrade" do you mean the lens can be turned into an IS for a $300 fee, or
that difference in price is $300? If the later, then I suggest the word
"upgrade" not be used as it suggests the former.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

I was looking at:

Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM photodo.com rating 3.9 B&H price $800
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 USM photodo.com rating 4.1 B&H price $1140
Canon 135mm f2.0 L USM photodo.com rating 4.5 B&H price $900
Canon 200mm f2.8 L II USM photodo.com rating 4.1 B&H price $660

But I have no feel for what the difference between 3.9 and 4.1 (Canon vs
Sigma zoom) or 4.1 and 4.5 (Canon zoom vs Canon 135mm).

The Canon 100-400mm f4.5-f5.6 L IS USM mention in the article is rated at
3.6 by photodo.com
They didn't have a rating for the 400mm f5.6 L so I can't get a sense from
that.
But it is the only visual comparison I have come across so far.

I'm looking at these focal length based on the asumption I will by an
inexpensive film body (Canon T2) with an eye to getting a digital body in a
couple of years. The 135 fixed would be 200mm on a digital body and f2.0 to
boot.. I'd have to get the extender (another $280) for a film body. But it
woudn't go to waste either. My thinking is invest more into the lens at this
point.

But:
The Canon 70-200mm f4.0 L you mentioned is rated at 4.1, B&H price $580.
On a digital body I could use higher ISO to compensate for the 1 stop
difference in speed.
That with a digital rebel kit is in the same ballpark as the Canon 2.8 zoom
lens (especially with the rebates).

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
Chris Stolpe wrote:
I am looking to move up from a Canon S45 to a SLR.
I was thinking of getting a 70mm-200mm f2.8 Zoom (probably a Sigma
not a Canon L) until I ran across this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml
If this is a typical difference between a zoom and a prime then I
think I might go for the prime.

I don't know if it's typical or not - certainly that example is dramatic.
But I do know there are Canon L lenses that are a hell of a lot sharper
than that, so maybe that's the worst of the lot. For example, the 24-70mm
L is widely considered Canon's best lens period, and many reviews state
that it's as good as any prime throughout its range. (I happen to be
picking up that lens before the month runs out, while Canon's rebate is
still on, so I'll post my own results soon.) I happen to own the Canon
70-200mm f4 L, and though I've had it nearly a year, its sharpness
continues to astonish me - I mean, just astonish me at times. Sometimes I
load up new pictures I've taken with it, and just sit there with my jaw
drooping at how gorgeous some of them come out, exceeding my expectations
even as I was taking the shot. Mine is the f4, not the f2.8, but I
understand the f2.8 is every bit as good (just faster). I couldn't
recommend it more - it's just that freaking awesome.

You talk about "probably a Sigma and not a Canon L", but maybe that's the
real difference right there. The Canon L lenses are tough to beat, and
certainly no Sigma lens is going to approach them, prime or not.

After looking at all the photos I took with my Canon S45 P&S I wonder
how necessary a zoom is. Out of 1051 photos only 8 focal lengths were
used. 34% of the time I would use 35mm, 37% of the time I would use
105mm and the rest were 4%-7% each. So a 35mm and 105mm would have
covered 71% of my shots.

Sure, your style is definitely something to consider. I'm biased, because
I use a myriad of focal lengths, so primes are simply not for me.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chris Stolpe wrote:
I was looking at:

Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM photodo.com rating 3.9 B&H price $800
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 USM photodo.com rating 4.1 B&H price $1140
Canon 135mm f2.0 L USM photodo.com rating 4.5 B&H price $900
Canon 200mm f2.8 L II USM photodo.com rating 4.1 B&H price $660

But I have no feel for what the difference between 3.9 and 4.1 (Canon
vs Sigma zoom) or 4.1 and 4.5 (Canon zoom vs Canon 135mm).


I wonder if photodo.com's note that the Canon lens list hasn't been
updated in mosdre than four years is accurate. If it is, do you suppose
the ratings would be the same if done on current equipment? Any
quantified "ratings" that don't give the reader a "feel for what the
difference..." is probably suspect if recent, doubly so if ancient.


--
Frank ess