New Sigma lense, maybe good for portraits?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

Sigma is about to release a new prime 70 mm f 2.8 lens, a macro,

It's unlikely they would release any 70mm lens that wasn't a prime lens.
What else could it be, a close-up lens?

"Prime lens" means the camera lens as opposed to some other lens or optical
device used with it.

What "prime lens" does NOT mean is fixed focal length lens, notwithstanding
the enormous popularity of this misusage.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Sigma is about to release a new prime 70 mm f 2.8 lens, a macro,

It's unlikely they would release any 70mm lens that wasn't a prime lens.
What else could it be, a close-up lens?

"Prime lens" means the camera lens as opposed to some other lens or
optical device used with it.

What "prime lens" does NOT mean is fixed focal length lens,
notwithstanding the enormous popularity of this misusage.

An awful lot of the photographic world disagrees with your claim that
prime lens does not mean "fixed focal length lens."

No major camera or lens manufacturer uses "prime lens" to mean fixed focal
length lens, as far as I know. Certainly neither Nikon nor Minolta ever did,
nor has any other major manufacturer whose literature I've seen.

On the other hand, lens manufacturers such as Schneider and Zeiss have and
still do use "prime lens" to mean lenses which are NOT fixed focal length,
e.g. their variable prime cine and video lenses which are catalogued in just
that way, "variable prime." Does it make any sense for people to keep
misusing "prime" when lens manufacturers are using the term correctly?

The misunderstanding of "prime" to mean FFL started several years ago (I
first saw this misuse on the old Fidonet) and now, through the magic of the
Usenet, has unfortunately become all too common. People now seem to use it
just for the sheer love of unnecessary jargon. In your own example,
describing a lens as 70mm already says it's fixed focal length, since a 70mm
lens can hardly be otherwise.

"Prime" WRT lenses is properly used in the standard dictionary senses of
"primary," "main," "chief" or "original." There is NO dictionary definition
for "prime" meaning fixed (or single) anything.

Neil



But that's neither
here nor there.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Sigma is about to release a new prime 70 mm f 2.8 lens, a macro,
It's unlikely they would release any 70mm lens that wasn't a prime
lens. What else could it be, a close-up lens?

"Prime lens" means the camera lens as opposed to some other lens or
optical device used with it.

What "prime lens" does NOT mean is fixed focal length lens,
notwithstanding the enormous popularity of this misusage.
An awful lot of the photographic world disagrees with your claim that
prime lens does not mean "fixed focal length lens."

No major camera or lens manufacturer uses "prime lens" to mean fixed
focal length lens, as far as I know. Certainly neither Nikon nor Minolta
ever did, nor has any other major manufacturer whose literature I've
seen.

On the other hand, lens manufacturers such as Schneider and Zeiss have
and still do use "prime lens" to mean lenses which are NOT fixed focal
length, e.g. their variable prime cine and video lenses which are
catalogued in just that way, "variable prime." Does it make any sense for
people to keep misusing "prime" when lens manufacturers are using the
term correctly?

The misunderstanding of "prime" to mean FFL started several years ago (I
first saw this misuse on the old Fidonet) and now, through the magic of
the Usenet, has unfortunately become all too common. People now seem to
use it just for the sheer love of unnecessary jargon. In your own
example, describing a lens as 70mm already says it's fixed focal length,
since a 70mm lens can hardly be otherwise.

"Prime" WRT lenses is properly used in the standard dictionary senses of
"primary," "main," "chief" or "original." There is NO dictionary
definition for "prime" meaning fixed (or single) anything.

Neil


I first heard the word "prime" circa 1965 in the context we're discussing.

Certainly "prime" was used in connection with lenses then, and earlier. But
I would be very, very, very surprised if you could come up with a ca. 1965
source showing "prime" used to mean FFL. In 1965 most lenses were still
fixed focal length, and there was no reason to invent a term to distinguish
them from non-FFL lenses.

I first saw "prime lens" used (correctly) some time in the 1950s, in
connection with close-up lenses. I first saw it misused to mean FFL some
time in the 1980s on Fidonet. My guess is that someone saw "prime lens" used
correctly in connection with a tele extender or some other device, and the
example prime lens being FFL, wrongly assumed that's what it meant. But a
zoom lens is just as much a prime lens when used with another device, and
absent the other device there's no reason to use "prime" at all.


The lack of a dictionary definition is meaningless.

Words MEAN things. Why would anyone have applied "prime" to any type of lens
in the first place, unless the word already carried the meaning that they
wanted to apply to that lens?

Again, "prime" is still being used CORRECTLY by lens manufacturers. It makes
no sense to use it incorrectly just because a lot of other people are doing
so.

Neil

On 7/22/06 9:15 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:

Words MEAN things. Why would anyone have applied "prime" to any type of lens
in the first place, unless the word already carried the meaning that they
wanted to apply to that lens?

Again, "prime" is still being used CORRECTLY by lens manufacturers. It makes
no sense to use it incorrectly just because a lot of other people are doing
so.

What gains accrue to the photographers here to restrict the use of the
words "prime lens" to the meaning "primary lens"?

OTOH, it seems useful to 'allow' the morphing of that term to mean a
fixed focal length lens. [ffll]

--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams wrote:

What gains accrue to the photographers here to restrict the use of the
words "prime lens" to the meaning "primary lens"?

There isn't anything about the word "prime" that has anything to do with
"fixed focal length". Why change its meaning to that, destroying its
original meaning, when there is already a perfectly good way to describe
what you're talking about? Why not just call the color of the sky "green"?

OTOH, it seems useful to 'allow' the morphing of that term to mean a
fixed focal length lens. [ffll]

Why have different words at all? Why not just have one word and "allow"
it to mean everything?

--
Jeremy |

On 7/22/06 1:13 PM, Jeremy Nixon wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:

What gains accrue to the photographers here to restrict the use of the
words "prime lens" to the meaning "primary lens"?

There isn't anything about the word "prime" that has anything to do with
"fixed focal length". Why change its meaning to that, destroying its
original meaning, when there is already a perfectly good way to describe
what you're talking about?

Could you possibly address the question? And, what "original meaning"
are we in danger of losing?


Why not just call the color of the sky "green"?
[reductio ad absurdum]

OTOH, it seems useful to 'allow' the morphing of that term to mean a
fixed focal length lens. [ffll]

Why have different words at all? Why not just have one word and "allow"
it to mean everything?

[reductio ad absurdum]

You do know better.

--
lsmft

John McWilliams wrote:

Could you possibly address the question?

Even if I hadn't, the answer is blindingly obvious: the gain is that we still
have something that means "prime lens".

And, what "original meaning" are we in danger of losing?

The primary lens.

[reductio ad absurdum]

You do know better.

You're advocating changing the meaning of perfectly good words so that they
mean the same thing as other perfectly good words, losing their original
meaning in the process. There is nothing good about that, and it *is*
exactly the same thing as calling the color of the sky "green", and makes
exactly as much sense.

--
Jeremy |

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Sigma is about to release a new prime 70 mm f 2.8 lens, a macro,
It's unlikely they would release any 70mm lens that wasn't a prime
lens. What else could it be, a close-up lens?

"Prime lens" means the camera lens as opposed to some other lens or
optical device used with it.

What "prime lens" does NOT mean is fixed focal length lens,
notwithstanding the enormous popularity of this misusage.
An awful lot of the photographic world disagrees with your claim that
prime lens does not mean "fixed focal length lens."
No major camera or lens manufacturer uses "prime lens" to mean fixed
focal length lens, as far as I know. Certainly neither Nikon nor
Minolta ever did, nor has any other major manufacturer whose literature
I've seen.

On the other hand, lens manufacturers such as Schneider and Zeiss have
and still do use "prime lens" to mean lenses which are NOT fixed focal
length, e.g. their variable prime cine and video lenses which are
catalogued in just that way, "variable prime." Does it make any sense
for people to keep misusing "prime" when lens manufacturers are using
the term correctly?

The misunderstanding of "prime" to mean FFL started several years ago
(I first saw this misuse on the old Fidonet) and now, through the magic
of the Usenet, has unfortunately become all too common. People now seem
to use it just for the sheer love of unnecessary jargon. In your own
example, describing a lens as 70mm already says it's fixed focal
length, since a 70mm lens can hardly be otherwise.

"Prime" WRT lenses is properly used in the standard dictionary senses
of "primary," "main," "chief" or "original." There is NO dictionary
definition for "prime" meaning fixed (or single) anything.

Neil

I first heard the word "prime" circa 1965 in the context we're
discussing.

Certainly "prime" was used in connection with lenses then, and earlier.
But I would be very, very, very surprised if you could come up with a ca.
1965 source showing "prime" used to mean FFL. In 1965 most lenses were
still fixed focal length, and there was no reason to invent a term to
distinguish them from non-FFL lenses.

I first saw "prime lens" used (correctly) some time in the 1950s, in
connection with close-up lenses. I first saw it misused to mean FFL some
time in the 1980s on Fidonet. My guess is that someone saw "prime lens"
used correctly in connection with a tele extender or some other device,
and the example prime lens being FFL, wrongly assumed that's what it
meant. But a zoom lens is just as much a prime lens when used with
another device, and absent the other device there's no reason to use
"prime" at all.


The lack of a dictionary definition is meaningless.

Words MEAN things. Why would anyone have applied "prime" to any type of
lens in the first place, unless the word already carried the meaning that
they wanted to apply to that lens?

Again, "prime" is still being used CORRECTLY by lens manufacturers. It
makes no sense to use it incorrectly just because a lot of other people
are doing so.

Neil


Language and the meanings of words evolve and change, sometimes
dramatically.

Indeed, that seems to be always one of the first arguments that occur to
people who misuse terminology: "the meanings of words evolve and change."

Language does evolve, but incorrect usage resulting from misunderstanding is
not an example of evolution, just incorrect usage. Popularity of the
misusage doesn't necessarily change this. There are terms that have been
misunderstood and misused for decades, and are still wrong today.



As an example, consider the word "conservative" in the context of American
politics. In the 1960s and 1970s, it conjured up one set of meanings.
Today, it conjures up an almost entirely different set of meanings. So,
define "conservative" in the context of a changing society. Does it mean
someone like, say, Barry Goldwater, or does it mean someone like, say, oh,
Dick Cheney? These two are so far apart in attributes that matter that
they cannot both be conservatives.

Sure they can. Conservatives do not always agree on every point or every
issue. I'm not aware of any philosophical difference between Goldwater and
Cheney, but there probably are some differences and clearly both men are
examples of conservatives anyway. Similarly for leftists (or "liberals" as
they are called in the U.S. for some reason).

Neil

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
On 7/22/06 9:15 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:

Words MEAN things. Why would anyone have applied "prime" to any type of
lens
in the first place, unless the word already carried the meaning that they
wanted to apply to that lens?

Again, "prime" is still being used CORRECTLY by lens manufacturers. It
makes
no sense to use it incorrectly just because a lot of other people are
doing
so.

What gains accrue to the photographers here to restrict the use of the
words "prime lens" to the meaning "primary lens"?

That's what the term means, and has always meant. Avoiding unnecessary
confusion should be reason enough to use the term correctly. It still IS
used correctly by some, and people who think it means something else won't
understand what they're reading when they see it used correctly. Isn't that
a good enough reason to stop the misusage?



OTOH, it seems useful to 'allow' the morphing of that term to mean a
fixed focal length lens. [ffll]

About as useful as it would be to call a lens a shutter. How is it useful to
misuse the term?

Neil

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..
On 7/22/06 1:13 PM, Jeremy Nixon wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:

What gains accrue to the photographers here to restrict the use of the
words "prime lens" to the meaning "primary lens"?

There isn't anything about the word "prime" that has anything to do with
"fixed focal length". Why change its meaning to that, destroying its
original meaning, when there is already a perfectly good way to describe
what you're talking about?

Could you possibly address the question? And, what "original meaning"
are we in danger of losing?

Why do you say he isn't addressing the question? The original, still current
(and logically correct) meaning is the camera's primary lens. The term is
still used to mean that, but not often since there's generally no reason to
use a term that only distinguishes the camera lens from some other lens or
optical device. When so many people flood the photo newsgroups with the
misusage, that obviously does endanger the original and still correct
meaning. Newcomers see the misuse and, liking jargon, innocently pick it up
themselves. That is almost certainly how 99% of people who misuse the term
got started doing so. Surely there is no LOGICAL reason to use "prime" to
mean fixed focal length.




Why not just call the color of the sky "green"?
[reductio ad absurdum]

OTOH, it seems useful to 'allow' the morphing of that term to mean a
fixed focal length lens. [ffll]

Why have different words at all? Why not just have one word and "allow"
it to mean everything?

[reductio ad absurdum]

You do know better.

No, he's correct. This sort of reckless misusage is what I call Humpty
Dumptyism.

For those not familiar with "Through the Looking Glass," here's the relevant
passage:

(Humpty is speaking to Alice)

'And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory
for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't--
till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for
you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice
objected.

'When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor
less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean
so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--
that's all.'


Neil