Reading mode: Light Dark

Why use a prime?

Go to last post
Forrest said:
Unless that perspective is the reason they zoom with their feet.
Click to expand...
Why is it that the prime people think that they are the only ones that have a lock on framing? The shear arrogance of the prime group is unbelievable.

Get a lense, the lense that works for you and have a good time. If primes work for you, cool. If a zooms works for you, cool. If you want to use a combination of the two at the right time and point for you, cool. But to say that a person can only benefit from the use of a prime and somehow a prime is the "Holy Grail" of the perspective/framing leaning curve is pure nutty thinking.

Who teaches this nonsense?

Anybody that thinks primes is the truth and the light has been brain washed by some sort of cult thinking and that if they don't march to the partyline, they'll be excluded from contact with the "in crowd".

We're talking sheep mentality people.

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Olaf.dk said:
Thomas Gardner said:
A very nice pic of some very nice people but the rotation causes me
to have to crink up my neck to straighten up the intentional
rotation, this is distracting and can hurt and ole guys neck. This
would come under the heading of bad composition as composition
should hurt and ole man's neck:-)
Click to expand...
Thomas, you read the picture the wrong way! You said it yourself -
the rotation was intentional - meaning I didn't intend for the
viewer to reverse the rotation by turning their head!
Click to expand...
But it's normal and natural to straighten a rotated image up. I realize that the rotation was intentional, I was only posting why the rotation doesn't work. If it works for you, cool but giving and old man a crink in his neck should tell you something. Just because you think it, rotation of an image isn't new, doesn't mean that it works, unless you want the old man to get a crink in his neck and if that's your purpose, then it works. Think of it like purposefully hanging a framed image off square. You can do it purposefully, but that doesn't mean that everybody that walks into the room isn't going to try to square the image up.
Olaf.dk said:
Of course, composition is a very subjective matter, and you are
entitled to have your opinion. To me, the rotation added some
dynamics and interest to the picture. Also, it made the woman seem
more leaning on her man, which I think makes the photograph a bit
more intimate. That's just my opinion. I am aware of different
compositional rules, but am not afraid to break them. When I do, I
make sure it is obviously intentional, otherwise it could very
easily look like a mistake.
Click to expand...
And there's also the point that some of the things that we do, don't work. You may like it and it may work for you, then your successful in your efforts.

All I'm doing is commenting why it doesn't work for me. I'm too old to be getting crinks in my neck because someone wants to rotate a portrait.

Keep rotating your images if you're so inclined as you like the results and that's the final issue that's important.
Olaf.dk said:


--
Olaf

Click to expand...
--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:
primes are all there is. Hence the mixture. I have a Sigma
100-300, that kicks Canon 300mm f/4.0L, non-IS bu++.
Click to expand...
I didn't even want to reply to this but My 300F4 Non-IS
outresolves the sensors in my 1D and 10D even wide open let alone a
D30 - I don't know exactly what the Sigma 100-300F4 beats the 300/4
for but it certainly ain't image quality !!! - the Sigma is a
superb Zoom but from what I've seen it matches the old slow 100-300
F5.6L both at F5.6 at best - in otherwords good value but no prime
killer ..
Click to expand...
This one is. We've been through this debate many, many times and I've posted chart tests proving my point. Also there are many others that have had the same experience. If there are many here that have cooberated my findings, then there's truth to my comment.

Sorry, but the results are in the can and that's good enough for me. I won't revisit the battle as Canon has lost this one.
Adam-T said:
the 120-300 F2.8 stopped down to F4 maybe another matter but it's
twice the weight of a Canon 70-200L F2.8 !!
Click to expand...
I can't comment on the two lenses above as I don't have copies of each, I'll only comment in a positive, definitive fashion on that which I own and have personally put through a series of repeatable, valid, you can do the same tests as I, tests.

The funny thing, I don't use my Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0, the Canon f/4.0 300mm non-IS version or either of the three TC's in my possession as I don't see telephoto:-) Can't part with them as one day I might trip, hit my head and be able to see telephoto. Had a glimmer of a telephoto shot yesterday, so there might be hope:-)

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Thomas Gardner said:
Why is it that the prime people think that they are the only ones
that have a lock on framing? The shear arrogance of the prime
group is unbelievable.
Click to expand...
I think it would be a bit more fair to ask why the prime people think they have a lock on perspective ( and sharpness ), and the zoom people think they have a lock on framing. This thread was started on the premise that it's impossible to frame properly with a prime -- the subject is always either too close, or too far away.
Thomas Gardner said:
Who teaches this nonsense?
Click to expand...
A guy named Frank who lives down the block...
 
Thomas Gardner said:
Sorry, but the results are in the can and that's good enough for
me. I won't revisit the battle as Canon has lost this one.
Click to expand...
Well if the Sigma looks better on a D30 than the 300F4 than you must have a really Duff 300F4 and I'd hate to see it on a 10D let alone a 1DS, it's also the first non-IS duffer I've heard of! and I've used some seriously beat up examples, all of which were razor sharp wide open on a D60 or 10D..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

The No1 Dedicated 1D forum in the UK -------->

http://www.1dforum.co.uk/php/phpBB2/

 
aussieannie said:
Thanks, I will go through it all. It is all very confusing though
Click to expand...
What ever you do choose to get, don't get the inexpensive glass.

A nice starter lense, for me, would be a Canon 20mm f/2.8. If you wanted to add a starter zoom, pick up a Canon 70-200mm f/4.0.

You can always add to your lense kit but again, don't waste your money on cheap glass. Please!

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Forrest said:
Forrest41926 said:
Why is it that the prime people think that they are the only ones
that have a lock on framing? The shear arrogance of the prime
group is unbelievable.
Click to expand...
I think it would be a bit more fair to ask why the prime people
think they have a lock on perspective ( and sharpness ), and the
zoom people think they have a lock on framing.
Click to expand...
Zoom people don't think this. You can frame with your feet but you won't hold your perspective, a zoom allows you to hold your perspective while you adjust your framing.

The difference between zoom people and prime people...... Zoom people don't care what lense you use to get the shot with, prime people think that primes are the only way. It has nothing to do with zoom people locking onto a type of thinking but it does have to do with prime people locking on to their way of thinking and projecting it as the "Truth and the Light" as well as the only valid way.

That's nutty thinking. Grab the lense that works for you and capture the image. If you like the work you're creating, then you're successful in your task.
Forrest41926 said:
This thread was
started on the premise that it's impossible to frame properly
with a prime -- the subject is always either too close, or too far
away.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't:-) Framing is the easy part, holding the perspective that grabbed your attention is the hard part. You can't do that with a prime, unless you happen to land the perspective and framing at "the" perfect point. If not, then you're going to be cropping while in PS and that takes pixels away:-) Taking pixels away is not a good thing:-)
Forrest41926 said:
Forrest41926 said:
Who teaches this nonsense?
Click to expand...
A guy named Frank who lives down the block...
Click to expand...
Now that we know, it's time to get the torches and pitchforks:-) We can't have that sort of critin living down the block.

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Yes, it's confusing.. this thread anyway.

There's people trying to make cases for primes and there's people trying to make cases for zooms.

The world isn't black and white. I use zooms. I use primes. They are tools. Each have strengths and weaknesses.

Don't worry about it if you're starting out. Get what you can afford and work with the lens. When you have more money to spend, try different lenses.

There's a time and place for every lens. My only suggestion is to get the best lens(s) possible for your budget and have fun.
aussieannie said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
aussieannie said:
I am just starting out with digital, hobby photographer only.
Which way should I go with prime v zoom?>
Click to expand...
Read through this thread. The arguments are laid out pretty well
here. It all depends on what your intended use and your ambitions
are.

Petteri
Click to expand...
aussieannie said:
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
Click to expand...
Petteri,
Thanks, I will go through it all. It is all very confusing though
Click to expand...
--
Bob Lindabury
 
Thomas Gardner said:
That's nutty thinking. Grab the lense that works for you and
capture the image. If you like the work you're creating, then
you're successful in your task.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And if you don't like the work you're creating, strive to figure out why not, and fix it. Honestly, when I don't like the work I create, it's usually because the weather/light was wrong, the composition doesn't work, I goofed the exposure, or something ( maybe a car ) got in the way. Not very often because of the lens I used ... although it can be fun to say "I wish my 16-35L was sharper/wider," or "I wish my 15-30 didn't flare so much!"
Thomas Gardner said:
No it wasn't:-) Framing is the easy part, holding the perspective
that grabbed your attention is the hard part. You can't do that
with a prime, unless you happen to land the perspective and framing
at "the" perfect point. If not, then you're going to be cropping
Click to expand...
Well, we shoot different photos, and we have different ideas of what pleasing is. Usually, it's the perspective I get from standing really close that I like ... and standing just a hair closer usually makes that better, not worse.
Thomas Gardner said:
while in PS and that takes pixels away:-) Taking pixels away is
not a good thing:-)
Click to expand...
Not if you only have three million of them!! ( Kidding, of course! ) Seriously, I thought megapixels weren't that important...?
Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:
Who teaches this nonsense?
Click to expand...
A guy named Frank who lives down the block...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thomas Gardner said:
Now that we know, it's time to get the torches and pitchforks:-)
We can't have that sort of critin living down the block.
Click to expand...
Frank has big dogs, though. We'd better bring some steak!!
 
Adam-T said:
Well if the Sigma looks better on a D30 than the 300F4 than you
must have a really Duff 300F4 and I'd hate to see it on a 10D let
alone a 1DS, it's also the first non-IS duffer I've heard of!
Click to expand...
Nobody said it was a duff 300 f/4.0. It was and still is an amazing lense. It's just that at fourteen feet, shooting a test target, tripod mounted, at f/4.0, mirror lockup, it resolves, cleanly, one step above (larger lines) from the Sigma 100-300 f/4.0.

Both of these lenses are better then "any" human eye is at fourteen feet. They're both great lenses. It's just that the Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 was one notch better. So I must say, I'm using the term kicking bu++ inappropriately as that choice of word indicates many steps, not just one step. But either which way, the Sigma zoom was the better of the two, even if by only one notch:-)

And yes, this is with a 1.6X crop and yes on a FF, this could change completely. I doubt the change would be different on a 10D. Why, if you're good on a D30, the results will straight line to a 10D. As more resolution isn't somehow magically going to make one image cleaner over the other if the one is already clean. But the results will possibly change as you expand the FOV by going to the smaller crop of the 1D or the FF of the 1Ds as you're now using more of the edges of the lense. Yes, image quality does deteriate on the edges of lenses of inferior design quality.

Sooooo, in short, I agree, the final debate will take place when I get a FF sensor body, sometime in the next twenty or thirty years:-)

Hope that clarifies things.

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Forrest said:
Forrest41926 said:
Not if you only have three million of them!! ( Kidding, of course!
Click to expand...
) Seriously, I thought megapixels weren't that important...?
Click to expand...
It is if you only have three million of them and you like to do 11"X17" prints as your standard:-)
Forrest41926 said:
Forrest41926 said:
Forrest41926 said:
Forrest41926 said:
Who teaches this nonsense?
Click to expand...
A guy named Frank who lives down the block...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Forrest41926 said:
Now that we know, it's time to get the torches and pitchforks:-)
We can't have that sort of critin living down the block.
Click to expand...
Frank has big dogs, though. We'd better bring some steak!!
Click to expand...
LOL!

Great! I'm out of steak for the dogs as I'm doing the Atkins Diet. We'll have to hold on the torch light ceremony:-) Maybe we can send him a nice letter:-0

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
.
Thomas Gardner said:
Why, if you're good on a D30, the results will straight line to a
10D. As more resolution isn't somehow magically going to make one
image cleaner over the other if the one is already clean.
Click to expand...
Correct hence my comment about Duff copies, if the Sigma looks better on a D30 then it'll look even better on a 10D and the 300F4 would look awful. as I said, the 300F4 I have and others I've used out resolve my 10D and hold up to the 1DS challenge..

the 100% 10D / D60 crops from the Sigma I've seen are more in the 100-400L category though faster aperture of course. I thought about the 100-300 Sigma and declined because it Didn't match up to the 300F4 prime AND that I'd have that range covered later on with the 80-400OS or 100-400L IS - I doubt either are as good as the 100-300 Sigma and certainly don't do F4 at 300mm but I'm prepared to forgive that in a leisure lens as a trade of for stabilization.....

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

The No1 Dedicated 1D forum in the UK -------->

http://www.1dforum.co.uk/php/phpBB2/

 
Adam-T said:
Adam-T said:
Why, if you're good on a D30, the results will straight line to a
10D. As more resolution isn't somehow magically going to make one
image cleaner over the other if the one is already clean.
Click to expand...
Correct hence my comment about Duff copies, if the Sigma looks
better on a D30 then it'll look even better on a 10D and the 300F4
would look awful. as I said, the 300F4 I have and others I've used
out resolve my 10D and hold up to the 1DS challenge.
Click to expand...
That's why I corrected my comment to say that the 100-300 was only a notch better than the 300mm as the 300mm is an excellent lense, it's just that the Sigma version was better. Sigma has several lenses that are better then Canon's, so it's no big deal.

Based upon others comments, my comments are well within the relm of common knowledge. Both lenses make excellent images, it's just that one makes sharper images then the other but it doesn't make the loser of the sharpness battle a duff lense.

Besides, I don't got no duff lenses:-)
Adam-T said:
the 100% 10D / D60 crops from the Sigma I've seen are more in the
100-400L category though faster aperture of course. I thought about
the 100-300 Sigma and declined because it Didn't match up to the
300F4 prime AND that I'd have that range covered later on with the
80-400OS or 100-400L IS - I doubt either are as good as the 100-300
Sigma and certainly don't do F4 at 300mm but I'm prepared to
forgive that in a leisure lens as a trade of for stabilization.....
Click to expand...
Sigh....... if I could only see telephoto:-)

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Thomas Gardner said:
aussieannie said:
Thanks, I will go through it all. It is all very confusing though
Click to expand...
What ever you do choose to get, don't get the inexpensive glass.

A nice starter lense, for me, would be a Canon 20mm f/2.8. If you
wanted to add a starter zoom, pick up a Canon 70-200mm f/4.0.

You can always add to your lense kit but again, don't waste your
money on cheap glass. Please!
Click to expand...
I think cheap glass has its place. If you're not sure what to get, a cheap lens will help you make up your mind. In this case, it pays to buy Canon just for the brand name -- even the bottom-feeder Canons retain their value pretty well. OTOH, if you spring for, say, a brand-new 100-400 IS L and then decide you don't really care for tele photography much, the depreciation that happened by simply carrying the lens out of the store would've been more than the price of a whole 75-300.

Besides, some cheap glass is way better than it has any right to be. Ask Adam-T if you don't believe me.

Damn, Thomas -- isn't there anything we agree about? I'd even have recommended the Sigma 20/1.8 over the Canon 20/2.8, and neither would've been my suggestion for a first lens. :-)

Petteri
--



Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
Who teaches this nonsense?
Click to expand...
[snip]

We'll be sending a van with some compadres over presently. I'm sure
they'll be able to get you to see reason.

Colonel Pedro
Click to expand...
My appologies Senor Colonel. Ouch! Yes! I've errored in my ways. Ooch, ouch! Yes Senor All my zoom have industrial duct tape wrapped around the zoom barrel as our compadre, DavidP suggested. I don't know what got into me:-)

Ooch, ouch, party line. Yes sir. Ouch! My pleasure sir! Thank you sir! No sir, you're welcome to take them with you sir:-)

I think that went very well:-)

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
Damn, Thomas -- isn't there anything we agree about? I'd even
have recommended the Sigma 20/1.8 over the Canon 20/2.8, and
neither would've been my suggestion for a first lens. :-)
Click to expand...
LOL!

I working on it, I'm working on it. Give me enough time. I'll find something. Here's some balloons, everybody likes balloons. I know you don't like my style of street photography but it's in color and there are balloons in the image.

This is from last weeks Sunday shooting secession.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1766384&size=lg

Let's see, no GW comments. Pro US comments out. Okay, no politics. Let's see, lenses? Nope! Aaaaaaah, let's see, cars? Nope don't wanna go there. Let's see....... here's a neutral one. How about a nice 1999, Napa, Merlot by BV Vineyards. Relatively inexpensive, yet full bodied and a pleasure to enjoy with your BBQ'd foods. Needs to breath in the glass for about fifteen minutes and it's quite a treat after a tough day on DPReview:-)

http://www.bvwines.com/bvwines/en_US/bvwines/wineprofile/0,7772,15575955_15604988_0_16997491,00.html

So if the balloon shot doesn't agree with you, how about the choice of wines?

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
I'm more of a beer guy myself. Sorry. If you like, we can discuss
the merits of Saaz versus Hallertauer hops...
Click to expand...
I've only gotten as far as a cold Samuel Adams on tap, so I wouldn't do very good there either.

I guess I'll just have to be happy with "Camera store's service blows." :-) It's a start:-)

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Few have heard of him (relative to say Ansel Adams) because he's so "anti photography", at least according to some.

Heck, he was accused of being nothing more than a "snap shooter".

Just not "artsy fartsy" enough, I guess.

On the other hand, I kinda like him, because he didn't like to use flash at all. I guess you could say he was the only "memorable" photojournalist. "Memorable" being relative to other PJ's, of course.
Nilo Here said:
Always pointing the finger elsewhere. If users sought to educate
themselves about an icon as much as their tool, we'd would see
better results.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top