Hi, Tim, Well, in this particular situation (ie: Marnie's), I think the issue may not be "zooms versus primes", but rather "bang for the buck", in terms of her commenting that she wasn't satisfied with her images.
Hearing that she has two (what I would consider) inferior quality zooms, I think she could benefit greatly from at least a 50mm prime - cheap, sharper than the zooms she currently owns, way faster than the zooms she owns. I own a couple of what I think are pretty good zooms, and I use them often. I own some pretty good primes (along with some adequate ones), and I use them all the time, too. I've gotten good (and bad) results with both. To me, they are different tools to accomplish the various ends that I may require from time to time (and I'm still learning to use both effectively - and likely will be for the rest of my life <g>). For a beginner, I can't imagine that anything but a 50mm would be an acceptable starting point, in order to figure out what you and your camera can do together. Learn to use that combination (as Wheatfield says, to understand what light does when it hits the film), then move on from there. Marnie's story is actually a pretty scary one. I wonder how many others have purchased an SLR with inferior quality zooms, were completely unhappy with their results, then put the camera on a closet shelf, only to be pulled out on Christmas and vacations. (I know that you wouldn't do that, Marnie, because you're in a photography course, and have teachers, fellow students, and of course the collective wisdom <vbg> of this list to provide you with a confusing myriad of advice). You're right, Tim, we've had the "zooms versus primes" discussion many times before, but I suspect we'll continue having it. New list members come and go, and it's going to naturally come up in the context of various discussions on a regular basis. It's like the digital vs. film debate. It ain't going away... regards, frank Timothy Sherburne wrote: > Marnie, you've asked one of those questions that tends to polarize the > photographic community into one of two camps: those that decry the use of > zooms by students, and, sometimes, by anyone; and those that consider zooms > to be just another tool in the bag and, indeed, a sign of progress that > should be embraced. > > Perhaps each camp should elect a eloquent representative to state their case > and leave it at that. The alternative is a protracted discussion that > escalates into a flame war and finally degrades into name calling and > insulting, which usually results the departure of one or two upstanding and > respected PDML members. > > Other recent topics of recent memory include digital vs. film, flash > photography vs. available light photography, auto focus vs. manual focus, > brand X lens/camera/film vs. brand Y lens/camera/film, SUVs vs. compact > cars, and monarchies vs. everyone else. > > t > > On 11/8/02 10:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/8/2002 7:31:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > >> Getting any Pentax 50mm lens will improve your image quality > >> tremendously, and the discipline that the single focal length > >> forces on you will improve your photography at least as much > >> again. > >> This is one of those areas where you don't run into the law > >> of diminishing returns ever. > >> > >> William Robb > > > > No one has suggested that to me before. Discipline? As in walking forward and > > back and moving around to get a good shot, instead of zooming? > > > > Could you clarify? It's intriquing. > > > > Doe aka Marnie Parker > > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
