«

Nostrobino wrote:
....
>
> A zoom lens is just as much a prime lens as a fixed-focal-length lens is.
> The OP's terminology is correct. His choice is between zoom and fixed
> focal
> length (FFL). Both are prime lenses, though there is no reason to use the
> term "prime lens" except to distinguish that lens from some supplementary
> lens or other optical device used with it.
>
....
>
> Zooms are primes.
>
> N.

You were correct at one time, but time and language have moved on. In
the English language of today prime means fixed focal length unless the
context indicates otherwise.


--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"Tony Lewis" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:51:26 GMT, "Nostrobino" <>
> wrote:
>
>>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>
>>------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C4B49B.D8BD1F20
>>Content-Type: text/plain;
>> charset="iso-8859-1"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>
> I would like to read what you are saying but it is very difficult
> unless you post pure text and not html.
>
> Thanks.

Tony, I'm sorry, but I was only replying to the post. I never set HTML in my
own posts; my news sending format is set to "plain text." Evidently the post
I was replying to has that HTML feature turned on and if there's any way to
turn it off in my reply, I don't know what it is. I will experiment a bit
and see if I can get rid of it..

N.

"Joseph Meehan" <> wrote in message
news:nQOcd.323123$.. .
> Nostrobino wrote:
> ...
>>
>> A zoom lens is just as much a prime lens as a fixed-focal-length lens is.
>> The OP's terminology is correct. His choice is between zoom and fixed
>> focal
>> length (FFL). Both are prime lenses, though there is no reason to use the
>> term "prime lens" except to distinguish that lens from some supplementary
>> lens or other optical device used with it.
>>
> ...
>>
>> Zooms are primes.
>>
>> N.
>
> You were correct at one time, but time and language have moved on. In
> the English language of today prime means fixed focal length unless the
> context indicates otherwise.

There are in fact a number of variable prime lenses (prime lenses of
variable focal length), catalogued just that way, "variable primes," by
Zeiss, Schneider and other lens makers. I am not aware of any camera maker
who catalogues FFL lenses as "prime." I know that Minolta does not, and
never has, and no lens literature I have from Nikon or Canon misuses the
term in that way either.

"Prime lens" uses "prime" in the sense of primary, original, chief,
etc.--all standard dictionary definitions for "prime," today just as much as
in the past.

There is NO dictionary definition for "prime" that means "fixed (or single)
focal length," or "fixed" or "single" anything else for that matter.

This is a misusage which evidently started when someone misunderstood the
term "prime lens," used the term incorrectly himself and the misusage was
picked up by others--and today, through the wonder of the Internet, the
misusage has spread like a weed. It has become popular jargon, which of
course makes it hard to kill. Some people love to use jargon because they
think it makes them sound knowledgeable.

It is, in short, an ignorant term, and should be avoided unless one
particularly wants to display his ignorance.

N.

"Tetractys" <> wrote in message
news:AvGdnSljj7ULoO7cRVn-...

<gibberish deleted>

Pasting in my reply to Joseph Meehan:

There are in fact a number of variable prime lenses (prime lenses of
variable focal length), catalogued just that way, "variable primes," by
Zeiss, Schneider and other lens makers. I am not aware of any camera maker
who catalogues FFL lenses as "prime." I know that Minolta does not, and
never has, and no lens literature I have from Nikon or Canon misuses the
term in that way either.

"Prime lens" uses "prime" in the sense of primary, original, chief,
etc.--all standard dictionary definitions for "prime," today just as much as
in the past.

There is NO dictionary definition for "prime" that means "fixed (or single)
focal length," or "fixed" or "single" anything else for that matter.

This is a misusage which evidently started when someone misunderstood the
term "prime lens," used the term incorrectly himself and the misusage was
picked up by others--and today, through the wonder of the Internet, the
misusage has spread like a weed. It has become popular jargon, which of
course makes it hard to kill. Some people love to use jargon because they
think it makes them sound knowledgeable.

It is, in short, an ignorant term, and should be avoided unless one
particularly wants to display his ignorance.

N.

Nostrobino wrote:

> I never set HTML in my own posts ... if there's any way to turn it off in
> my reply, I don't know what it is....

Look it up in your dictionary.

Nostrobino wrote:

> There is NO dictionary definition for
> "prime" that means "fixed (or single) focal length," or "fixed" or
> "single"
> anything else for that matter.

Except for the three I included in my
post, right, or the six dozen others
that come up when you Google "prime"
and "lens?" Are you using the kiddie
dictionary you got last year in 5th grade
to search for professional terms of art?

Nostrobino wrote:
> "Tony Lewis" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:51:26 GMT, "Nostrobino"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>>
>>> ------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C4B49B.D8BD1F20
>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>> charset="iso-8859-1"
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>>
>>
>> I would like to read what you are saying but it is very difficult
>> unless you post pure text and not html.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Tony, I'm sorry, but I was only replying to the post. I never set
> HTML in my own posts; my news sending format is set to "plain text."
> Evidently the post I was replying to has that HTML feature turned on
> and if there's any way to turn it off in my reply, I don't know what
> it is. I will experiment a bit and see if I can get rid of it..
>
> N.

To change from HTML to Plain Text in OE when writing a message...

select Format/Plain Text

This will work for the current message without changing your default
settings.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply

Nostrobino wrote:
> "Tetractys" <> wrote in message
> news:AvGdnSljj7ULoO7cRVn-...
>
> <gibberish deleted>

>
> There is NO dictionary definition for "prime" that means "fixed (or single)
> focal length," or "fixed" or "single" anything else for that matter.
>
> This is a misusage which evidently started when someone misunderstood the
> term "prime lens," used the term incorrectly himself and the misusage was
> picked up by others--and today, through the wonder of the Internet, the
> misusage has spread like a weed. It has become popular jargon, which of
> course makes it hard to kill. Some people love to use jargon because they
> think it makes them sound knowledgeable.
>
> It is, in short, an ignorant term, and should be avoided unless one
> particularly wants to display his ignorance.
>
> N.
Narrow minded people expect the rest of the population to conform to
their own version of correctness. "Prime" is an term for primary.
Primary lenses are the first choice lenses for photographers weighing up
variables and deciding on the appropriate set up for a given photograph.
A Photographer may have several lenses referred to a "Prime" which
become the primary lens for specific situations.

The only spread of weed like jargon on the Internet is through global
acceptance of a term or usage of that term. Global refers to the
population in general. In a democratic society, acceptance of an
occurance by the society is creation of a precedent and therefore
acceptance by society itself of the term.

"Prime" when referring to a lens for a camera is quite acceptable.
Society has deemed it so. Why are you not part of society, Nostrobino?

I fully agree about wildlife and a long lens. You need a 400 or
better and a fixed focus unless your income is in the 6 digits. I
haven't bought one for awhile but you used to be able to buy a fairly
cheap 400mm that would outperform an expensive 300 mm zoom at the
300mm focal length. If fact a zoom to 400mm that had quality was
usually rediculously expensive.

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
>
> Tetractys wrote:
>
> > BWL wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Just wondering which way I should go
> >>on this....
> >
> >
> > I cover 18mm through 300mm with three
> > good quality zoom lenses, so my opinion,
> > backed by hard-earned cash, is:
> >
> >
> >>... is the quality of fixed-focal-length lenses
> >>great enough to offset the convenience of
> >>zoom lenses?
> >
> >
> > No. There is a difference, but for the average
> > amateur and even most pros not doing studio
> > work, it's not enough to go prime unless you
> > have a specific need.
>
> Well, I'll disagree. But it really comes down to
> style. In the shorter focal lengths, if you do
> landscapes and usually stop down to f/8, then you
> probably will not see a real difference in quality
> from a zoom to a prime. If you only hand hold, then
> you probably will not see a difference either.
> I use a 28-135 mm IS as my "everyday" lens.
> It is really nice at about f/8. I also have
> 24, 28 and 50 mm primes but use them a lot less.
>
> But in the longer telephotos, the zooms are not
> as sharp as the primes. Also note some zooms by
> their zooming action may actually push and pull
> air into the camera and therefore dust onto the
> sensor. I just tested the 100-400 L IS and it is
> amazing how much air it pumps. I'll never put it
> on a DSLR again! But besides that issue, for wildlife
> you can get an f/4 lens that you can use a 1.4x TC on
> and still be sharper than the zooms. I replaced
> my 100-400 L IS with a 300 f/4 L IS (cheaper and
> sharper). I sure like the flexibility of the
> zoom, but have stopped using them in the telephoto
> focal lengths (>200mm)
>
> Roger Clark
> http://www.clarkvision.com
>
> >
> >
> >>.... Does having fixed-focal-length lenses,
> >>and having to swap them fairly frequently,
> >>invite problems with dust & debris inside
> >>the camera?
> >
> >
> > Yes. You will need to clean the CCD filter
> > from time-to-time, but the interval will be
> > greater, the less frequently you open the box.
> > (Also, avoid opening the case outside in
> > high wind at the beach, downwind of a
> > dusty baseball game, stuff like that.)
> >
> >

In message <>,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <>
wrote:

>I just tested the 100-400 L IS and it is
>amazing how much air it pumps. I'll never put it
>on a DSLR again!

I haven't had any increase in sensor dust since I started using the
100-400 regularly.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><