Is this tyical difference between zoom and prime?

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

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.

Chris Stolpe wrote:

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.


Damn, that's a big difference. It's not even fast. Hmm.

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.


It's what I'd expect from one 100-400 zoom vs another 400mm prime lens, it's
not what I would expect from every zoom vs every prime lens. He might have
gotten the same results from a different sample of the same lens and I've
seen shots posted on that site between two lenses that were focused at
different points in the same scene and then compared to each other?

But that zoom doesn't have a very impressive MTF graph so it very well
could be the case. Some of the newest zuiko digital zooms have a better MTF
graph than that prime so I guess it just depends on which zoom lens is
being compared to which prime lens? I'm assuming that 100-400 is from
pre-digital days and was designed with the limits of 35mm film in mind.

--

Stacey

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


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

Alan

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.


It's not only about sharpness; don't forget vignetting and - especially
- distortion. Distortion is what especially turns me off zooms.

There are also minor but meaningful charateristics such as bokeh,
3d-rendering, color saturation and others which distinguish great lenses
from the good. But often these are not noticed or considered important
by many


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.


The basic combination I use is 35mm + 85mm or 105mm, which is a classic.
In my case, other lenses in order of use a 24mm, 20mm, 180/200mm,
15/17mm.
My 300, 400, fisheye & macro lenses are rarely used. YMMV!

"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.

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.

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

grol

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.

Yep.

--
Owamanga!

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:14:27 GMT, "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.

It is. What you should be checking out when shopping for a zoom is its
range of coverage. The smaller, the better the zoom is likely to be
("better" with regard to image quality AND/OR speed).

Yes, that means that those that buy 35-350mm and 50-500mm lenses (10x
zooms) are getting sub-par resolution.


--
Alex
atheist #2007

"Owamanga" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

Brian..........................