Are primes brighter and sharper than wide open zooms

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Eugene wrote:
Isn't that what's refered to as a "standard" lens?

Yes. That too.

---- Paul J. Gans


I dimly recall the term "prime lens" as being the
lens whose focal length was equal (at least roughly)
to the diagonal of the film frame. That made a 50mm
(or 45mm) lens "prime" for 35mm film.

A 135mm lens was then a "telephoto" and a 35mm lens
was a "wideangle".

Zoom hadn't been invented yet.

By the way I find acronyms very hard to remember (VHR).
I much prefer a pronoucible name. Most acronym
users seem to as well, since they often make the
acronym pronouncible.

---- Paul J. Gans

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Peter wrote:

Chris Brown wrote:

I know this may give you apoplexy, but my nice shiny EOS 5D which I bought
yesterday includes, in the box, an accessories catalogue from Canon, which
amongst other things features a complete list of their current EF lens
range. They split it up into the following categories (from memory):

Zoom
Macro
Tilt and Shift
and, yes, Prime, which lists all of their fixed-focal length lenses (apart
from the Macros and T&S).

So at least one manufacturer is using the term to mean fixed-focal length.

I am willing to bet that some (possibly all) of the "macro" lenses
in the brochure are not really macro lenses intended primarily for
1:1 and greater magnification.

I would not be even slightly surprised if the word "telephoto" were
used more than once in the brochure to describe something that is
not actually a telephoto lens.

If you get your terminology from advertising literature, you are
probably going to get it wrong.

Again, that's probably right. But when you walk into a
store to buy one of those Canon lenses, would it not help
to call it what the manufacturer calls it?

----- Paul J. Gans

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Nostrobino" wrote:
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.

So, along with the correct meaning of words being fixed in time
by when you first understood them, the Internet didn't exist
until *you* discovered it too, eh?

I have no idea how you derive that from what I said. Perhaps you have your
monitor upside down.

N.

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Nostrobino" wrote:

I've been saying the misusage is ignorant. It is. I haven't said that the
people misusing the term are ignorant. On the contrary, I presume that
most
of them are folks of at least ordinary intelligence who have innocently
picked the misusage up from Usenet and elsewhere. To be ignorant of some
particular state of affairs before one has the facts is hardly a shameful
thing. To try to DEFEND that ignorance after being apprised of the facts,
however, is stupid. Please note that I am making a careful distinction
between ignorance and stupidity. The former is often only temporary; the
latter tends to be lasting.

Your entire diatribe about language and word usage is then,
according to the above, *stupid*.

Language *is* dynamic.

Again, that is the eternal argument of the semi-literate and those whose
grasp of language is feeble. Every error is followed by the excuse,
"language is dynamic." Since these people cannot be made to understand their
mistakes, they never improve.


Dictionaries are *not* an authoritative
source of *correct* word usage, and this abjectly silly
suggestion that any jargon not found in a dictionary is
therefore wrong is a demonstration that you are ignorant about
this topic. Dictionaries are a compilation of current usage,
and have very little to do with what is or is not "correct".

Try to organize your argument such that it supports one side or the other.
If dictionaries "are a compilation of current usage," and "language *is*
dynamic," then dictionaries must reflect that dynamism according to your own
assertion and can hardly be "*not* an authoritative source of *correct* word
usage" as you claim in the same paragraph.

Make up your mind which side of the argument you're taking. You cannot take
both sides simultaneously, unless you're John Kerry.

N.

Paul J Gans wrote:

Again, that's probably right. But when you walk into a
store to buy one of those Canon lenses, would it not help
to call it what the manufacturer calls it?

----- Paul J. Gans

Of course you do. I think you may somehow be confounding me with
Neil H. I ain't him. I've got nothing against using slang, or
whatever you want to call improper terminology if it gets the
job done. I do think it is important to make a distinction between
proper technical terminology and slang so that when you have
a technical discussion you can communicate efficiently and with
precision.

For instance, the statement:

"In macro work the depth of focus is as large or larger than the
depth of field."

is a rather concise statement of an important fact. If we did not
have precise technical language, it would take considerably longer
to say the same thing and it still might not be as clear.

Another example:

"When doing closeups with a telephoto lens you need to include
pupil magnification in your bellows-factor calculations"

This is something worth knowing. If you have ever used a
retrofocus lens reverse mounted on a bellows on a camera
without a built-in light meter (I have) you might think
it a vital piece of information.

Try to say the same thing without using technical terms with
well defined meanings. There is good reason why telephoto
is not a synonym for long-focus lens, macro starts when the
image size is at least equal to object size, and close-up
photography starts at 1/10th life size when bellows factor
starts to be significant. The reason is that the terms are
defined as they are for the convenience of people discussing
photography in a technical way. The idea that the meanings
should change with fashion makes nonsense of the reasons for
having technical vocabulary in the first place.

Peter.
--

Nostrobino wrote:

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tony Polson wrote:


Since there is no accepted definition of a "prime" lens we should just
drop the term, as it serves only to confuse.

Feel free to go ahead. The rest of the world will carry on using it.


"The rest of the world" is defined as the few dozen people who post in a
couple of newsgroups?

Well, if you include some of the more common photo magazines. That's
where I got it from.

Nostrobino wrote:

"no_name" wrote in message
om...

Nostrobino wrote:


[ . . . ]

Just because "popular usage" may not appear in a particular dictionary
does not constitute "misuse".

If you speak of a prime lens to photographers, they know what you're
talking about.


The problem is, they may not. I do sometimes have occasion to mention "prime
lens" and I assure you I use it correctly. People who think it means fixed
focal length will, therefore, not understand what I am saying.

N.

Oh-ho, so that's it. Anyone who doesn't instantly understand your
feverish babble is an ignorant, "semi-literate ... whose
grasp of language is feeble"

Thank you for playing. You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

"Nostrobino" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote:
"Nostrobino" wrote:

I've been saying the misusage is ignorant. It is. I haven't said that the
people misusing the term are ignorant. On the contrary, I presume that
most
of them are folks of at least ordinary intelligence who have innocently
picked the misusage up from Usenet and elsewhere. To be ignorant of some
particular state of affairs before one has the facts is hardly a shameful
thing. To try to DEFEND that ignorance after being apprised of the facts,
however, is stupid. Please note that I am making a careful distinction
between ignorance and stupidity. The former is often only temporary; the
latter tends to be lasting.

Your entire diatribe about language and word usage is then,
according to the above, *stupid*.

Language *is* dynamic.

Again, that is the eternal argument of the semi-literate and those whose
grasp of language is feeble. Every error is followed by the excuse,
"language is dynamic." Since these people cannot be made to understand their
mistakes, they never improve.

Hogwash. You are suggesting we should all be speaking Chaucer's
English. Patently, and we would hope obviously to anyone with
half a thimble full, *stooopid*. And I don't mean ignorant, I
mean stupid.

Dictionaries are *not* an authoritative
source of *correct* word usage, and this abjectly silly
suggestion that any jargon not found in a dictionary is
therefore wrong is a demonstration that you are ignorant about
this topic. Dictionaries are a compilation of current usage,
and have very little to do with what is or is not "correct".

Try to organize your argument such that it supports one side or the other.
If dictionaries "are a compilation of current usage," and "language *is*
dynamic," then dictionaries must reflect that dynamism according to your own
assertion and can hardly be "*not* an authoritative source of *correct* word
usage" as you claim in the same paragraph.

You have real difficulty with understanding English, don't you?

Dictionaries are a *history* of past usage that has become
common enough to be recorded as such. But you cannot 1) find a
current dictionary that includes correct usage *as* *it*
*exists* *today*, or 2) find one that predicts what will be
correct tomorrow, or 3) find one that lists the jargon for all
fields. Which says, simply put, that a dictionary is *not*
the authority on "correct" word usage.

Make up your mind which side of the argument you're taking. You cannot take
both sides simultaneously, unless you're John Kerry.

Learn to read the English language. You'll do a *lot* better
yourself.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

no_name wrote:
Nostrobino wrote:
"no_name" wrote:
Nostrobino wrote:

Just because "popular usage" may not appear in a particular
dictionary does not constitute "misuse".

If you speak of a prime lens to photographers, they know what
you're talking about.
The problem is, they may not. I do sometimes have occasion to
mention "prime lens" and I assure you I use it
correctly. People who think it means fixed focal length will,
therefore, not understand what I am saying.
N.

Oh-ho, so that's it. Anyone who doesn't instantly understand your
feverish babble is an ignorant, "semi-literate ... whose
grasp of language is feeble"

Thank you for playing. You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

Isn't that a fascinating demonstration of how asinine humans can
be? The purpose of language is to communicate, but what
Nostrobino communicates is not what he thinks, but rather *how*
he thinks... people don't walk off with knowledge of what he
meant to say, only with an understanding that he won't say it.
Strange...

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...

Hogwash. You are suggesting we should all be speaking Chaucer's
English. Patently, and we would hope obviously to anyone with
half a thimble full, *stooopid*. And I don't mean ignorant, I
mean stupid.

Yo da man bro! wassamatta dat gay mofo huh?