Mafud wrote:
> But the question[s] still stand:
> 1) can ~anyone~ tell (with any great degree of accuracy)** and without
> looking at the captions, which of the March 2001 PUG entries were made with
> primes Vs. zoom lenses?
> **(What would be a good score: 60%)?
I really don't know what the point of this would be. It's like asking "can
anybody tell, from the grammar and spelling of list members, which list
members got a B average or better in grade school?"
The only reason not to shoot with a zoom lens is this: a zoom lens has no
point of view. A fixed-focal length lens imposes its point of view on you,
and, consequently, you can learn to impose its point of view on the world.
If you routinely photograph with a fixed-focal-length lens, sooner or later
you will not need to look through your camera to know what the lens will
see--your eyes will know, your mind will know. You won't even need your
camera _with_ you to organize pictures out of the visual chaos of the world.
Your eyes and your brain will be able to visualize without aid from the
viewfinder.
A zoom is a crutch to aid visualization, but, ironically, it is an
impediment to learning how to visualize. If one wants to learn how a camera
sees, the best and easiest way is to deal with a lens you can learn, instead
of a lens that's a chameleon.
Are there other disadvantages of zooms? Of course. For one, they are usually
as large as the largest focal length lens they replace, and as slow as the
slowest focal length lens they replace. Plus, they add another control which
must be manipulated in between two events that ought to be linked as closely
as possible: recognizing a picture and taking the picture. Many times, one
might have time for this. But maybe not.
Can good photographers, who know how to visualize already, use zooms
effectively? The answer has to be yes. Are zooms often useful when you can't
choose your standpoint, as when you're behind a barricade at a sporting
event? Of course. Zooms are most especially useful, I think, at the
telephoto end of the focal length range--because the longer the lens, the
more difficult, and the more time-consuming, it is to change your angle of
view by moving yourself.
I've reviewed hundreds of photographers' portfolios, and if I had to guess,
I would say that _generally_, photographers who use zooms don't frame
pictures as well as photographers who don't. Does this mean this
generalization is true in every instance? Naturally not. Some photographers
have such skill or experience that none of this matters much.
Just because I say that zooms encourage some "students of the art" to be
sloppy and prevent them from learning visualization easily, can we
extropolate from that that zooms are bad and no photographer can make a good
photograph with a zoom? That would be an egregious logical fallacy, of
course, and I would never claim such an idiotic thing.
I do have a prejudice against zooms. I don't think they help most
photographers do better work. I do think they are an impediment to many
photographers learning how to see better. But do I have a prejudice against
people who use zooms, or pictures made with zooms? Not at all. The two
things absolutely do not logically follow one from the other.
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
