so now hes arguing that zooms are better than primes because an old particular prime isnt as good as new particular zoom, well that certainly proves his point, NOT!
JC OCONNELL [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 6:16 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: DA 55-300 LBA Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. > > This may apply to all photography of the usual sunday and garden > variety. Take any of those zooms into a night-time industrial setting > or any other scenery with extremely bright light sources (within or > outside of the frame) and a night sky and watch the attack of the UFO > armada you'll be getting with your zooms lens. > > The laws of physics apply to zooms just as well as to primes and under > certain circumstances less (elements and glass surfaces) is definitely > more (picture quality). Note what Adam Maas wrote: > > 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. -- 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.
