Is this tyical difference between zoom and prime?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "Chris Stolpe" <cstolpe02@snet.net> stated that:

>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/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml
>If this is a typical difference between a zoom and a prime then I think I
>might go for the prime.

Yes, that's fairly typical of the difference between primes & even very
good zooms. For a real shock, try comparing the difference between a
cheap prime & a consumer zoom.

>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 same's true of me. I do own a few zooms, but I hardly ever use them,
compared to my primes. If I knew how little I'd use them at the time I
bought them, I would've used the money on a wider range of primes
instead.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

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/ [...] -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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

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/ [...] -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 are: 24mm, 20mm, 180/200mm,
15/17mm.
My 300, 400, fisheye & macro lenses are rarely used. YMMV!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:11:48 +1300, "grol"
<grolschie@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Alan Kerr" <AL.KERR@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:BB3Id.10177$mo2.762779@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
>> 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.completedigitalphotogra [...] .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!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:14:27 GMT, "Chris Stolpe" <cstolpe02@snet.net>
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/reviews/lenses/forgotten-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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

" 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/ [...] -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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

In article <1106321217.684727.218750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

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/ [...] -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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

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" <sorry@no.spam> wrote in message
news:csq2rf$oad$0@pita.alt.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/ [...] -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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

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/ [...] -400.shtml
> If this is a typical difference between a zoom and a prime then I think I
> might go for the prime.
>
I dunno about the performance of the zoom here. It looks even worse
than the MTF graph suggests.

I notice that almost every time somebody does a lens test they do not
say how they focused the lens. The worst possible thing to do - apart
from not focusing at all - is to rely on AF when testing a lens. That
comparison in the link looks very much to me like the zoom was actually
out of focus. The blur looks too smooth to be the result of
aberrations. I would like the tester to state whether he accurately
focused the lens manually, or whether he used AF; and if AF, whether the
focus was actually on the enlarged subject area. If MF, how are his
eyes - are they able to accommodate the apparent VF distance, or is his
view of the viewfinder not quite sharp?

In fact, using AF when testing a lens will invalidate the test. AF
relies on DOF to an extent. It has to accept a degree of unsharpness to
prevent constant hunting, so some degree of hysteresis is built in to
the focusing algorithm, which simply means that if the focus is within
the hysteresis parameter, the camera accepts it as focused. With 3D
subjects - ordinary scenes, etc. it doesn't matter, but with 2D, or
flat, targets, it can be off enough to produce the results we have seen.

These observations might seem nitpicking, but when one sets out to
evaluate the performance of a lens, rigorous attention to these matters
is essential if the results are to be meaningful.

Last, he tested one example. 'nuff said.

Colin.

PS: I don't have the lens, so I'm not biased here.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

I overlooked that that. June of 2000. Their links to their MTF charts are
broken as well. I have had to download their MTF charts seperately. I guess
I can't take a hint. The Canon site displays MTF and a sample image but it
is not a high res image nor do they indicate what apeture or focal length
the took they picture at. Anyone know of a place to download or buy a series
of high res digital or 4000 dpi scans of Fuji Velvia shot at different
apetures and focal lengths from various lenses? Any place to buy such a
thing? That is what I liked about how http://www.imaging-resource.com/ did
their digital camera tests. They shoot the same scene with different cameras
under similar circumstances and I can view it at full resolution.

Any other accurate independent source to compare lenses?
Only other information I have found is:
http://www.popphoto.com/article.as [...] e_number=1


"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:bPCdnbO1MIex-2zcRVn-2g@giganews.com...
> 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
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rj12v09dunqhvfl8ccekimhrdv6enuttbo@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:27:13 GMT, "brian" <nospam@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:5vs1v09c6lf7ots69o5g1jpt5i7f377t60@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> 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.completedigitalphotogra [...] .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!

Rather than say it is a photography term, I should have said it was a term
used by most Photographers to describe a fixed focal length lens, the fact
that the manufacturers use this term in a different context is neither here
nor there. For the purposes of this question a prime lens in a lens of fixed
focal length, simple as that. In days gone by, before the introduction of
zooms, a photographer would have a lens that he would use first and
foremost, his "prime" lens, basically his "preferred" lens.Just because a
word means something in a dictionary, it doesn't mean it MUST always be used
in that context, If you look up the word "train" in the dictionary, it's
literal meaning is to betray, also if you want to go down that road, its
not a "lens", its a series of lenses combined to create a device that
concentrates and focuses light, as a lens is a singular piece of glass, so
should we be asking for a Canon 70-200mm lenses?, the context used by the
manufacturers may be correct for them , but its not for photographers.
Neither use or definition is incorrect. It's all about context.

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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

Colin D wrote:

>
> I notice that almost every time somebody does a lens test they do not
> say how they focused the lens. The worst possible thing to do - apart
> from not focusing at all - is to rely on AF when testing a lens. That
> comparison in the link looks very much to me like the zoom was actually
> out of focus.

This same site did this exact thing comparing the contax 35mm to the arsat
fisheye. The had one focused at infinity, the other about 20 feet from the
camera then compared crops at infinity, guess which one won? After seeing
that and then the author ARGUED that he had focused correctly when you
could obviously see it wasn't, I ignore much of what is posted there as far
as "tests"..
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> In message <35bjalF4lg5mfU1@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> MTF alone does not determine the sharpness of the lens in the context of
> its use. The size of the recording medium must be factored in, too. If
> you were to look at the inverse of MTF, in terms of resolution at a
> given contrast, you would have to halve the practical resolution for a
> 18*12mm sensor, compared to 35mm film.

does that presume full color pixels?

> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

"Carl" <carl@no.spm.please> wrote in message
news:cst54q$5hp$1@slavica.ukpost.com...
> brian wrote:
> > "Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>I admit, it is common use, but I don't think (and neither do the
> >>manufacturers) that the fact alone makes it right.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Owamanga!
> >
> >
> > Rather than say it is a photography term, I should have said it was a
term
> > used by most Photographers to describe a fixed focal length lens, the
fact
> > that the manufacturers use this term in a different context is neither
here
> > nor there. For the purposes of this question a prime lens in a lens of
fixed
> > focal length, simple as that. In days gone by, before the introduction
of
> > zooms, a photographer would have a lens that he would use first and
> > foremost, his "prime" lens, basically his "preferred" lens.Just because
a
> > word means something in a dictionary, it doesn't mean it MUST always be
used
> > in that context, If you look up the word "train" in the dictionary,
it's
> > literal meaning is to betray, also if you want to go down that road,
its
> > not a "lens", its a series of lenses combined to create a device that
> > concentrates and focuses light, as a lens is a singular piece of glass,
so
> > should we be asking for a Canon 70-200mm lenses?, the context used by
the
> > manufacturers may be correct for them , but its not for photographers.
> > Neither use or definition is incorrect. It's all about context.
> >
> > Brian...................
> >
> >
>
> Actually "prime" is a photographic term and owes its antecedents to the
> cinematographic industry, from which 35mm photography was derived.

Meanings of Prime form just ONE dictionary, I don't see even one definition
here that includes anything photographic :-

Main Entry: 1prime
Pronunciation: 'prIm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English prIm, from Latin prima hora
first hour
1 a often capitalized : the second of the canonical hours b : the first hour
of the day usually considered either as 6 a.m. or the hour of sunrise
2 a : the earliest stage b : SPRING c : YOUTH
3 : the most active, thriving, or successful stage or period <in the prime
of his life>
4 : the chief or best individual or part : PICK <prime of the flock, and
choicest of the stall -- Alexander Pope>
5 : PRIME NUMBER
6 a : the first note or tone of a musical scale : TONIC b : the interval
between two notes on the same staff degree
7 : the symbol ´
8 : PRIME RATE

ALSO

Main Entry: 2prime
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, feminine of prin first, from
Latin primus; akin to Latin prior
1 : first in time : ORIGINAL
2 a : of, relating to, or being a prime number -- compare RELATIVELY PRIME b
: having no polynomial factors other than itself and no monomial factors
other than 1 <a prime polynomial> c : expressed as a product of prime
factors (as prime numbers and prime polynomials) <a prime factorization>
3 a : first in rank, authority, or significance : PRINCIPAL b : having the
highest quality or value <prime farmland> c : of the highest grade regularly
marketed -- used of meat and especially beef
4 : not deriving from something else : PRIMARY

AND

Main Entry: 3prime
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): primed; prim·ing
Etymology: probably from 1prime
transitive senses
1 : FILL, LOAD
2 a : to prepare for firing by supplying with priming b : to insert a primer
into (a cartridge case)
3 : to apply the first color, coating, or preparation to <prime a wall>
4 : to put into working order by filling or charging with something <prime a
pump with water>
5 : to instruct beforehand : COACH <primed the witness>
6 : STIMULATE
intransitive senses : to become prime
- prime the pump : to take steps to encourage the growth or functioning of
something




begin 666 audio.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `+`+,``,X`(?___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"P`````$ `+```$(C#(&0"@F-HK>=Y>I8&6:'8D
3IT[I>K9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P``
`
end

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography (More info?)

In message <41F18563.AACBAFB2@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

>I notice that almost every time somebody does a lens test they do not
>say how they focused the lens. The worst possible thing to do - apart
>from not focusing at all - is to rely on AF when testing a lens.

I always like to slant the test pattern or subject slightly, so that
some part of it has to be in focus if I am off, and I focus manually on
the center. The sharpest strip is where the lens is focused (unoless it
is at an edge).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><