----- Original Message ----- From: "gfen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:48 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: > > I vote to have a non-prime clause added to the FAQ. Of course, the one > > calling themselves, 'gfen' doesn't like me much anymore, so I don't see that > > happening! > > Actually, Brad, I still love you down inside, I just wish you'd stop being > so purposely obnoxious. That is hardly something I'm doing at all gfen. > That said, I'll be glad to add "prime lens" to the list of phrases I added > into the FAQ awhile back. > > However, I'm afraid you'll forever have to deal with camera people of all > brands referring to fixed-focal-length lenses as prime lenses. For years, > I tried to paitently explain to people that what they called "industrial > music" was not, in fact, "industrial music" because it wasn't released on > a given record label. > > It was a losing fight, eventually I gave up, referred to it by a more > correct pigeon hole when I said something, and moved on. Eventually, your > prime-versus-fixed-focal-length crusade will reach this point, as well. > > And, finally, I don't care how advanced the world becomes, a prime lens > (thhpt!) will always be marginally better than a zoom lens based on the > sheer physics of it.. Less glass which can be specifically corrected for a > given length that doesn't need to be optimized for a range of lengths. > Will the difference be noticiable by mortal humans? Probably not, though. > > > -- > http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. > http://www.eighteenpercent.com <-> photography and portfolio. >
