So are you trying to make the bad argument that an expensive zoom can beat a cheapo prime so zooms are better than primes? Thats the other guys argument. Joining him??
JC OCONNELL [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:29 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: DA 55-300 LBA All else is not equal. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am not ignoring ANYTHING, zooms can never outperform primes all else > being equal because zooms have to have a whole bunch of optical and > mechanical compromises that primes DONT NEED. > > So for a given focal length, speed, company, format, cost, etc , the > PRIME will exceed the zoom on optical performance. > > Its so frikin simple and obvious, I dont know why you are still > arguing this. > > What you are arguing is totally different, your comparing different > brands, formats, models available so far in a given companies lens > line, etc. NONE of that changes the very simple facts that zooms will > never match let alone beat primes all else being equal because they > are COMPROMISED OPTICALLY in order to be able ZOOM. > i.e. a cheap prime will optically BEAT a cheap zoom > and an all out no compromise prime will beat and all > out no compromise zoom, and every price point in between. > > Am I making myself clear enough on this ? ? ? ? > > JC OCONNELL > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Adam Maas > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:06 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: DA 55-300 LBA > > > What you're ignoring in your assumptions is that almost all the > development that's gone into lenses in the last couple of decades has > been into zooms. Particularly in the last 5 years there's been a > massive improvement in the performance of ultra-wide zooms, which has > not been matched with primes. In fact there's been only about 3 new > full-frame 35mm ultra-wide primes introduced in the last 8 years > (14mm's from Canon and Nikon as well as the upcoming Zeiss 18mm f3.5) > > There is one single prime wider than 18mm that can match the recent > zoom designs for performance, and that's the Leica 15mm f2.8 Elmarit-R > and even then it's at best a match for the Nikkor 14-24, even the > recent Canon 14mm f2.8L can't match the Nikkor 14-24 nor can the > 2001-era Nikkor 14mm f2.8 and none of the other 15mm designs can > (Unsurprisingly, as the other 15mm designs are all early-70's variants > on a single design). > > The only truly modern 20/21mm design out there is the C/Y 21mm > Distagon, the rest date back to the mid 80's at the newest, and some > are a decade older than that. The Distagon's superb, and outmatches > anything else in the range including the new zooms, but no other 20 or > 21mm is even in shouting distance of it. > > Oh, and a lowly Sigma is king wider than 14mm, the Sigma 12-24 handily > beats the couple 12 and 13mm rectilinear designs available. > > Oh, and note I'm comparing Nikkor's costing $1800 to Leica's costing > $3500 and the cheaper Nikkor Zoom wins. > > -Adam > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:51 PM, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > ROTFLMAO > > > > NO prime of same cost is ever going to underperform a > > zoom of same cost, they do less, but do what they > > do better, > > > > I say this is hogwash unless you are picking out > > very cheapo primes vs very expensive zooms. > > > > To be fair, you need to compare lenses of same > > general cost/quality. DUH. > > > > The whole zoom feature adds a massive amount > > the the optical design that isnt needed for > > a prime so for same cost the prime will do > > better at what it does. > > > > 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 > >> [email protected] 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 > > [email protected] 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 > > [email protected] > > 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 > [email protected] > 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 > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
