Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-11-2015, 06:44 PM   #76
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,293
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Not nearly as small as a DA21 and a DA40 together, especially if they only had one mount.
You need to fit the 35 Macro somewhere in between those. Now how are you looking?

Still, you make a valid point - there must be a lot of people whose use of zoom lenses lies at or near the extremes, and/or for whom the ultimate question is one of space in the camera bag. Or if you're not financially challenged, get yourself Tilley's Vest of Many Pockets and find out just how many Limited primes you can stuff in there.

08-11-2015, 07:13 PM   #77
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,749
The inconsistency here is that a prime doesn't have to be particularly good to be called a prime, I mean I like shooting with my Vivitar M 135 ƒ2.4 every now and then, but i wouldn't call a zoom consistent with that quality through out it's range to be a stack of primes, but a zoom has to be really good to be called a "stack of primes". There's a double standard here, that won't go away, until you stop using terms like "prime and zoom" and get to calling things good lenses and bad lenses. IN terms of utility, you have to start from the perspective that a prime, compared to most zooms, is a really limited lens. Even more so when you consider that a zoom has a lot less likely to require a lens change for a specific image. Using a prime will in dynamic situations will definitely cost you images.

Given the lack flexibility and utility in primes that leaves us with one advantage prime might posses. The possibility of superior image quality. If your zoom is excellent across it's range then where does the prime even fit in?

The fact that I can take my 18-135 to 24 mm, means compared to my 21, if I need 24 I can get 3/21=14% more subject resolution with the 18-135 than with the 21. Unless I have primes for every few mm, many of which aren't even made, primes can never completely replicate what zooms do. And even if there were, missing action every time you want a lens change would be simply un-acceptable for many uses. I can show many wildlife sequences that never would have been captured using primes.

But just to be fair, if we are going to try and maintain the superiority of primes by calling top zooms a "stack of primes", maybe we should be calling our lesser primes a "contraction of zooms". That will help the prime enthusiasts maintain their "primes are better than zooms" dogma. God knows I'm not seeing anything in many of the posted images that back it up.

Although it is clear that some people feel better about using primes than zooms, even if they can't show us comparative imagess that show us why. And for hobbyists, it's all about feeling better. I'm not sure pros can afford that luxury.

Last edited by normhead; 08-11-2015 at 07:21 PM.
08-12-2015, 03:23 PM   #78
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,825
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
You need to fit the 35 Macro somewhere in between those. Now how are you looking?

Still, you make a valid point - there must be a lot of people whose use of zoom lenses lies at or near the extremes, and/or for whom the ultimate question is one of space in the camera bag. Or if you're not financially challenged, get yourself Tilley's Vest of Many Pockets and find out just how many Limited primes you can stuff in there.
I think that part about the extremes is especially true when the zoom is only 2x. I wouldn't need to fit the 35 in there (or a 28 or 31, either, for that matter). I've never been with the 40 and a 21 in my pocket (which I do pretty frequently) and particularly missed having a 35.

Also, the zoom also isn't really a macro and gets half as close as the 35ltd though it does focus a bit closer than the 40 pancake. (28 vs. 40cm ).
08-12-2015, 03:57 PM   #79
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,293
Original Poster
Which 40 ltd are you using, SMC or HD? Mine is an SMC and feels like it's in focus closer than that, though it could just be that I'm a worse judge of distance than I think!!

08-12-2015, 04:05 PM   #80
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
TAlthough it is clear that some people feel better about using primes than zooms, even if they can't show us comparative imagess that show us why. And for hobbyists, it's all about feeling better. I'm not sure pros can afford that luxury.
This is not really that you consider primes completely unecessary or detrimental as you do use some on occasion.

So you can ask yourself and others why they use primes and no zoom in some cases. You'll get as many responses as there photographers. But I'd say the practice is far too spread even among detractors to conclude there no good reason for their use.

You can of course dismiss classical argument given by other to justify their use:
- shallow deph of field/low light performance
- interresting size/weight compromize also associated with less intrusive gear.
- better picture quality on many aspects (sharpness in particular on large apperture and on borders/corners, flare control, contrast/micro constrast, bokeh...)
- the feature to compose with a fixed field of view as a creative tool
- the nostalgy

As for pro, you already know many use primes too. And the general public use mostly primes with their phones.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-13-2015 at 12:15 AM.
08-15-2015, 02:37 PM - 4 Likes   #81
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,544
Can't beat a stack of real primes ...
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-5 II  Photo 
08-15-2015, 03:31 PM   #82
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 12,803
The velcro was a nice touch, k1to0. :-)
08-15-2015, 03:38 PM   #83
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,527
When they can get a zoom as thin and as light as my 40mm xs let me know.

It isn't always strictly an IQ thing, it's also a usability thing. I'm not gonna lug around a zoom for a walk in the park.

I do agree with norm however that plenty of zooms match or exceed many of the primes in their focal lengths.

08-15-2015, 04:45 PM   #84
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,781
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The inconsistency here is that a prime doesn't have to be particularly good to be called a prime, I mean I like shooting with my Vivitar M 135 2.4 every now and then, but i wouldn't call a zoom consistent with that quality through out it's range to be a stack of primes, but a zoom has to be really good to be called a "stack of primes". There's a double standard here, that won't go away, until you stop using terms like "prime and zoom" and get to calling things good lenses and bad lenses. IN terms of utility, you have to start from the perspective that a prime, compared to most zooms, is a really limited lens. Even more so when you consider that a zoom has a lot less likely to require a lens change for a specific image. Using a prime will in dynamic situations will definitely cost you images.

Given the lack flexibility and utility in primes that leaves us with one advantage prime might posses. The possibility of superior image quality. If your zoom is excellent across it's range then where does the prime even fit in?

The fact that I can take my 18-135 to 24 mm, means compared to my 21, if I need 24 I can get 3/21=14% more subject resolution with the 18-135 than with the 21. Unless I have primes for every few mm, many of which aren't even made, primes can never completely replicate what zooms do. And even if there were, missing action every time you want a lens change would be simply un-acceptable for many uses. I can show many wildlife sequences that never would have been captured using primes.

But just to be fair, if we are going to try and maintain the superiority of primes by calling top zooms a "stack of primes", maybe we should be calling our lesser primes a "contraction of zooms". That will help the prime enthusiasts maintain their "primes are better than zooms" dogma. God knows I'm not seeing anything in many of the posted images that back it up.

Although it is clear that some people feel better about using primes than zooms, even if they can't show us comparative imagess that show us why. And for hobbyists, it's all about feeling better. I'm not sure pros can afford that luxury.
A zoom doesn't have to be very good either to be called a zoom, does it? Prime and zoom are names that tell you whether a lens is a single focal length or has the ability to shoot multiple focal lengths. It says nothing about quality. That said, over time, good quality primes have usually been sharper at similar apertures to zooms, are smaller, have faster maximum apertures, have better flare resistance and less distortion.

There are plenty of reasons to shoot zooms and plenty of reasons to shoot primes. In particular, if you shoot stopped down most of the time, you are significantly less likely to see improvement from shooting a prime as compared to shooting a zoom. On the other hand, if you do portraiture and want to shoot at f1.8 or f2, you probably are going to end up using a prime -- the only zoom I know of that does that is the Sigma 18-35.

My primes are a little better than my zooms. Hard to say if it would show up at web sizes. The easiest thing to do would be to compare a DA *55 shot at f1.8 or f2 to a 50-135 shot at f2.8. The difference would be pretty clear. Maybe I'll try it if my kids will hold still, but I hate shooting comparison photos. There is always someone who shows up to point out that your settings were off on one shot or whatever.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aperture, da, day, e.g, f/3.5, fl, glass, iq, k-mount, lens, lenses, ltd, normhead, pentax lens, people, primes, slr lens, stack
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC-A 35-105 f/3.5 "Stack of Primes" Zoom Lens Fat Albert Sold Items 7 04-15-2014 06:21 PM
Good hood for A 35-105 "Stack of Primes"? Fat Albert Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 10 02-06-2014 08:22 AM
For Sale - Sold: "Stack o' Primes" Pentax-A 35-105mm f3.5 Macro (WORLDWIDE) cheekygeek Sold Items 3 10-27-2013 12:24 PM
For Sale - Sold: "Stack o' Primes" Pentax-A 35-105mm f3.5 Macro (WORLDWIDE) cheekygeek Sold Items 5 08-09-2013 01:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top