I do not agree that all the "development" in optical design has been "targeted at zooms" and thus by your inference "prime designs" are somehow lagging. Thats absurd, everything they learn in developing zooms gets 100% applied to primes because primes are a simple subset of zooms. THEY DO LESS, not more or not something different, thats why they are better.
If you want to argue there is a lack of good primes at certain focal lengths, so there are some zooms where the best lens for a given focal length on a given camera system brand , for a given format, etc, that is one thing, but the argument that "more development" is going into zooms, thats why they are better, is not going to hold any water with me or anyone else who understands the difference between primes and zooms mechanincally and optically. JC OCONNELL [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:57 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: DA 55-300 LBA No, as Adam said, all the development work has been targeted at zooms. So all is not equal. In terms of what's available, zooms are at least the equal of primes. In terms of what's possible, I'm sure primes can excel. But we were talking about what's available. Paul -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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. -- 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.
