YOU dont get it, prime will always beat zooms all else being equal . PERIOD. The point you dont seem to understand is that there is nothing being done with zooms that cant be done with primes too. A zoom is always a comprimise compared to a non zoom, that is so BASIC. JC OCONNELL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: DA 55-300 LBA And once again, you assume that a 20+ year old prime design can match a brand new zoom design, especially one that's well optimized. While you could no doubt produce a modern prime design to match these new zooms, nobody actually is doing so except Ziess, and Zeiss doesn't have any currently available SLR lenses wider than 25mm (the 18mm f3.5 hasn't shipped yet, and based on published MTF charts, will only match the Nikkor Zoom in performance). Another irony is you assume the zoom is more complex. Take the Nikkor 14-24 for starters. It's a brand new design (released last fall), 14 elements in 11 groups with 2 ED, 3 Aspherical and 1 Nano-coat elements. The only prime to exceed it in performance is the Zeiss 21mm Distagon, which is 15 elements in 13 groups (and is also the only vaguely modern 20/21mm design for 35mm SLR's, having been released around 10-15 years ago as a clean-sheet design). The Prime's more complex, not less. The only real-world advantage to primes wider than 24mm or so is size. And that will remain the case until somebody starts producing modern ultra-wide prime designs. -Adam On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Second thoughts on this, > > I find it so funny because you seem to have a very basic fundamental > misunderstanding of the differences between prime and zooms optical > designs. THERE IS NO WAY that a zoom can be better than a prime for a > give amount of money no matter what focal lenght range. What I found > so funny is the way you posted this, you try to make is sound like a > zoom is BETTER/NECESSARY than/vs. a prime for some focal lengths, > thats just plain misleading or false or hogwash or whatever. Any > of those good zooms mentioned could/probably are easily matched with primes > and most likely could match them optically while reducing > cost or increasing speed or both, or BEAT them optically > while maintaining costs. Zooms are always an optical compromise > vs. primes at ANY focal length! > > JC OCONNELL > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Adam Maas > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:47 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: DA 55-300 LBA > > > Actually, Superwide zooms these days often exceed the performance of > primes, look at Nikon's recent 14-24mm f2.8, which matches or exceeds > any prime in its range except the Zeiss C/Y mount 21mm Distagon, their > older 17-35mm f2.8 AF-S is nearly as good, outmatching pretty much any > lens in its range except for the exotic German glass. Wider than 20mm, > nothing can touch the Nikkor 14-24. Nikon's 200-400 f4 VR is similar > in being able to match or exceed prime performance. > > Of course, either of these lenses is a significant investment ($1800 > for the 14-24, $6000 for the 200-400). > > -Adam > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:38 PM, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> In general I have found that most telezooms are softer >> at the long end than the short end and most primes >> at the same focal length as the long end of zoom >> will easily beat the zoom at the long end. For this reason, I try to >> avoid telezooms ( and wide zooms, and extended range zooms for that >> matter ). >> >> For some reason, the closer you get to "normal lenses" >> in focal length, the better zooms do, but super wide >> OR super long zooms, no go! >> >> JC OCONNELL >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of Toine >> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 4:26 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: DA 55-300 LBA >> >> >> I sold my 80-320 to finance this lba. My only problem with the 80-320 >> was lens creep while walking. Corner sharpness is a little better on >> the 80-320 which isn't a surprise for a FA lens. Contrast and image >> quality at 300 is better with the 55-300. At the wide end the 80-320 >> has very good image quality, maybe the best of the two. >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >> and follow the directions. >> > > > > -- > M. Adam Maas > http://www.mawz.ca > Explorations of the City Around Us. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
