Define good photos, some of the best photos were made with pinhole
cameras. There is nothing stopping anyone from making a good photo with
Some attributes that you need to take good photographs under conditions
where a zoom wouldn't be as good, I thought that was obvious.
A zoom is never going to give as sharp, contrasty, colour exact image as
a good prime of the same focal length. However that may not be what you
want in the photograph.
You would think that if zooms were so good then really expensive cameras
like the hubble would use zooms?
On Monday, 5 December 2016 13:10:05 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
I don;t waste time trying to do impossible things.
I didn't call them some of the best photos yuo did.
So tel me what makes you think some of teh first photos were the best photos/
A pinhole camera doesn't have a prime lens or a zoom lens.
I do you don't. A bodycap what are you talking about ?
It doesn;lt have any optics in it.
modern bodycaps are just mostly a bit of plastic to stop dust and dirt getting in to a cameras body through the lens mount.
I do know , there are very few if any instances where a zoom wouldn't be as good, but there's 100s of reasons why a zoom lens is better for most people.
That's why even pros buy zoom lenes otherwise they wouldn;t make them.
It may be but normally isn't the best lens for teh majoroty of potos is a zoom lens.
I know and it''s is NOT a lens either.
do yuo mean vari-focal ?
CCTV tend to have digital zoom.
*You* posted the link to it!
And it is a prime lens.
There is more to it than optical quality as any photographer will tell you.
The best lens for a photo is always the one you have.
If its a cheap zoom then that's the best.
The majority of photos are taken on prime lenses even if they are in phones.
Neither is a mirror lens but that doesn't stop people using them.
However it is a lens in the sense that photographers use the word lens.
You should go on a course and they will explain it, or probably not as
they will be wasting all their time talking about film.
On Monday, 5 December 2016 15:30:18 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
I never said they couldn't yuor the one claiming they were the best not me.
a shit prime less much worse tean the majority of zooms.
Just because it;s called a prime less doesn;t make it better than all other lenses. It's lielk prime steak.
why do you thinbk it such a great lens you've said prime lenes are the best so how do you work this one out ?
I didn't say it did, however you have stated that zooms are always
better than primes.
You can spend 10% of the price of that zoom you keep on about and get a
prime that's sharper, less distortion, weighs less, has a faster
If its the only one there to take a photo it must be the best one.
Photographers use the tools they have and use their knowledge and
experience to produce photos. They don't use a film camera because
someone tells them its the only way to do photographs.
On Monday, 5 December 2016 16:02:22 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
No I have not, NOT anywhere.
You;re the one saying prime lenes are bettere as they have them in smartphones.
For me that doesn;t make them the best lenes for anything.
How about proving that with an example.
if what yuo are saying is true then no pro would bother with a zoom lens.
In the 21st century zoom lenes are better than the primes of 40 years ago and better than some primes made today.
And most prime lenes like any zooms lens will produce 'sharper' more accurate images when stopped down from it's f0.75 (the fastest lens I've heard of) .
It'll still be better at f8 and most zooms will still produce better results at f8 than the prime lens will at f 0.75.
Then there's the speciality primes that do macro or perspective control.
The advantage of a large aperature is fast focusing or lower deptth of field it;'s not to get better quality as that doesn;t happen until the lens is stopped down.
Most only have a zoom lens that is what;s supplied as the kit lens with the majority of cionsumer cameras sold today.
and they certainly arentl; refuing to buiy zooms because some idiot tells them prime lenes are better, because they know better.
So if I stop my f0.7 lens to f2 it will produce better results than your
zoom stopped down to f2.
Be careful you are approaching the diffraction limits of most lenses
when you get down to F8 or smaller. Even you must have noticed that
image quality gets worse as you stop down more.
Why does the large aperture make faster focusing?
Are you using some old fashioned autofocus?
The image quality depends on how well the lens is made.
I have some lenses that are figured to 1/8 wave length of light but you
won't get a camera lens that is anywhere near that good as they don't
even test them to that sort of level.
Hubble is to better than 1/10 wavelength IIRC.
Old film lenses were designed to very poor performance as the film
couldn't resolve to the limits anyway (it still can't).
On Monday, 5 December 2016 17:13:12 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
What people seems tlo be just you and you seem top have the idea that prime
lenes are the best those used on digital camera are better than pro zoom I
don't think so try again.
A Prime lens is one of fixed focal length that is all it means to be a prim
and you can get better flat glass than prime lenes, so what.
Thre are 100s of prime lenes that are shit compared to a modern well design
ed zoom. In the mid 1900s you might have been correcst when any lens was be
tter than the first few zoom lenes but that is no longer the case.
5% what exactly what's so special about this lens ?
It's not even for a FF DLSR it's aimed at the mirrorless market.
There's no gurentee of that it's not that simple maybe you are but leneses
Not at f8 you don;t f16 and smaller yes.
Even your prime lens has f8 f11 f16
>Even you must have noticed that
No it doesn't
More light entering the camera or human eye in the old days.
Did you not know that even humans focus better in bright light.
Like eye sight.
In the first instance yes.
why would you have such a lens and how do you know if they donl;t test them
so have have yuo got one.
then how do you know what you;'rs is ?
the hubble is a mirror NOT a lens.
That wasn't the reason.
People do buy them but that doesn't mean they are buying them because they
are top quality optics.
Remember a prime lens is a fixed focal length lens nothing more.
Quality – traditionally prime lenses are known for their advanced
optics and quality. They generally have less moving parts and so manufactur
ers are able to concentrate their efforts on adding quality glass and menan
Keep in mind however that just because it’s a prime lens doesn?
??t mean that it is going to be of the highest standards. Manufacturers
make a range of lenses at different price point (zoom and prime) and some
are always going to be better than others.
Price – in general prime lenses are simpler in terms of constructio
n and as a result they can be cheaper to buy. Of course it’s not as
simple as this and quality is determined by many factors and as a result p
rice varies a lot even in the prime lens range of most manufacturers.
Dave - Google the design of prime and zoom lenses.
You might then notice a zoom lens has more bits of glass than most prime
You might then Google the optical quality of various materials. When you
find a perfect one get back to us.
*Too many clicks spoil the browse *
Dave Plowman email@example.com London SW
On Tuesday, 6 December 2016 14:06:27 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
if yuo had a clue you'd know it's more than just the optical quality.
Tell me what is so specail about this prime lens
It is a prime lens. What specail glass and how much of it.
Come off it! The design of any lens (prime or zoom) has a big effect on the
quality of images it produces. I could make a lens out of a single piece of
glass, but it would have horrendous chromatic aberration. If I used two
pieces of glass with different refractive indexes I'd compensate for this,
to some extent. That's the *start* of designing a lens to produce a better
image, though there's a lot more to it than that.
A zoom lens has more elements (and therefore is heavier and *may* produce
more distortion or purple fringing) than a prime lens. Compromises will be
made: it may be possible to reduce pincushion/barrel distortion and
chromatic aberration to levels that are too small to see in normal
photographs, for certain focal lengths, but these faults may be worse at
other focal lengths. I had a couple of Sigma lenses for my Canon film SLR
and they had horrendous pincushion at longer lengths (I wish I'd noticed
before I bought them), so it was better to use my 70-200 on 70 than it was
to use my 28-70 on 70, though I had to suffer a slightly worse max aperture.
There is software that will correct for distortions in many lenses, using a
database of lenses and cameras. PTLens is one such program. For digital
cameras it can read the camera and lens make/model and the focal length
used, and correct automatically. For film cameras you'd need to scan the
neg/slide and tell it the focal length used.
The camera make is only relevant for compact cameras where the lens is not
interchangeable and the lens tends to be defined by the make of camera.
You choose a lens based on the quality of images that it produces, which
*tends to* be better with more lens elements. On the other hand, that
increases the weight and maybe the length and the maximum aperture, and
these are also factors that may be significant in choosing a lens.
I think that was Dave's point in his sarcastic comment "When you find a
perfect one get back to us", with the implication that you won't find a
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.