Bipod

Just when you thought it was safe to go into the water----he has collectors!
http://medeiros.weebly.com/

And a whole school of immitators!
http://medeiros.weebly.com/other-big-eyed-artists.html

The Internet will insure that old kitsch never dies.
Why right now on another UHH thread there is an
impassioned defense of the pictorialism of William
Mortonsen....

Sdubois Loc: Narragansett RI

ooo the 10-20mm sounds great! I need to research that lens.. I have the other lenses.

Sdubois Loc: Narragansett RI

Excellent response! I concur.

Bipod

Anyone who choses a zoom for bright sunrises and sunsets has never used a good prime lens
and knows nothing at all about optics.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I think a lot of negative comments made about zoom lenses come from folks who haven't used a modern zoom lens in quite a while. Frankly, I have found some of the most recent prime lenses disappointing...and I'm not talking about the cheap ones. They seem not to be getting the design and build attention that the best of the modern zooms are getting. And for 40 years, I wouldn't buy a zoom lens. It's a different world now.

Bipod

"Anybody who says cigarettes are addicitve and caused cancer obviously hasn't tried modern
cigarettes."

Unfortunately, you cannot test the safety of a cigarette by smoking it or the performance of a lens
by using it in the normal way. And neither the molecular structure of nicotine nor the laws of
optics have changed. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

It remains true that lenses with fewer air-glass surfaces cause less flare and transmit more light
than those with more air-glass surfaces, all else being equal. It will remain true as long as the
refractive indexes of air and of glass are different. Coatings help, but none is perfect or perfectly
applied. (With the exception, of coursre, of the nano-pixie-dust coating which is applied by the
marketing department..)

Would you, Larry, happen to have any evidence that the quality of prime lenses has
dropped off? I accept that you were disappointed, but one common cause of disappointment
is having paid too much for something, or having too high expectations.

From time to time I look at MTF data for new lenses, and compare with old ones of similar
type and design. I haven't noticed any big changes, at least not with Nikon and Canon.
However, MTF doesn't test everything, and there are reasons why the low-frequency graph
may not be a realistic metric for flare (I be happy to expalin why, if someone is interested).
Also, manufacturers rarely describe their test method in detail, or announced when they
change them in a way that affecdts the results.

Larry, if you don't mind saying why you were disappointed, and with what lenses, then we might
be able to figure out the cause. But if your intent was just to muddy the waters, then no need.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have both the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 D and 35mm f2 D. Both are very serviceable, but not super. They are certainly not what I would call flagship lenses, and do not represent any significant advances over lenses I was using 30 years ago. The newer ones that I have looked at are clunky and have a "cheap" feel. I have a 300mm F4 D lens. Again, very serviceable, but not more so than my similar zooms. I will admit that my 105mm micro is pretty impressive, though.

The situation has two dimensions...zoom lenses have come a very long way in the last 20 years or so, and primes seem to have languished, For 30 years, I would not buy a zoom. Now I think and test and evaluate very carefully before even considering buying a prime, and it doesn't happen very often.

I do not mean any malice by my comments, but the situation between the two types of lenses has changed radically in recent years. What used to be true no longer necessarily is...at least not in all cases. And the direction and speed of change will continue, because that's where development resources are being focused.

The Can Man Loc: Big Arm, Montana

😁

The Can Man Loc: Big Arm, Montana

24mm prime

Bipod

Thanks for the details What lens to buy or what car to buy is a complex decision, based on many
factors, not all of them rational. But performance is objective and measurable---but not by casusual use.

Yes, the situation has changed. The rate of improvement in zooms has declined radically since the early 1980s,
when zooms when from terrible to pretty good in just a few years (thanks to the introduction of computer-aided
design (computer simulation of geometrical optics). Back then, the rate of improement was very impressive.

Another thing that economics has forced photographers to use consumer formats, such as minature and
subminature format. Lower resolution means you can get away with a lower resolving lens.
There just weren't many serious photographers using Pocket Instamatic cameras---but 110 format
(17 x 13 mm). But FT is almost the same size: 17. 3 x 13.

You know, if you stop wearing your glasses, they'll be even less difference between zooms and primes.

I do agree that zooms continue to improve faster than primes. But the conclusion you draw-- that zoom
are therefore better or will become better--is unwarranted.

It's also true that instant dinners are improving faster than 4-star Michelin Guide restaurant dinners are.
But that doesn't imply that instant dinners are better--or ever will be. There's just too much you give
up to have a dinner with a long-shelf life that can be re-heated in minutes. Similarly, a lens that must
work over range of focal lengths rules out the optimum designs.

Visible light optics is a much more mature technology than solid state digital electronics (which has
only been around for less than 50 years. Geometrical opticds was well understood by the end of
the 18th century and phyical optics by about 1913. But people tend to tink all technology will
improve at the same rate that, say, video game have. That's a mistake. Optics is limited by
physics in a much more directly than information processing is.

Progress in optics mostly comes from improvemens in design aids (e.g. the introduction of computer
simulation in the 1980s), materialsl (e..g. optical glass and coatings), and manufacturing. But
the biggest improvements in optical glass came in the 19th century. Canon was shipping FL lenses
with fluorite elements by the 1970s.. Coated lenses begin to appear in the 1930s and most camera lens
manufacturers were shipping multi-coated lenes by the 1970s.

Barring some basic scientific discovery, the low-hanging fruit have been picked.

No doubt we will continue to see incremental improvements in materials. These will tend to
benefit zooms more than primes because zooms have more elements and groups. But a perfect
zoom lens would be as good as a prime lens at each focal length. That is simply not possible.
We know the optimal prime designs for each focal length. They are nothing like a zoom set to
that focal length.

No matter what you do to your SUV, it is not going to win the Daytona 500. It's simply too big
and was designed to do too many different jobs. Yes it will get better, but it will never be a race car.

You can't expect a 50 mm lens to perform as well as a 105 mm lens. Or the latter to perfom
as well as a 200 (I'm not talking speed here). The longer he focal length, the thinner the
objective can be. Less spherical aberration means less correcftion necessary. All else being
equal, the longer of two prime lenses will lenes will perform better.

I agree those two Nikon prime lenses have a "cheap feel". If you want, I can attach some
lead tire weights to them--no charge!

I will go further, and say there is more plastic and less steel in Nikon lenses today than in 1970.
But that goes for primes and zooms, and it also goes for Canon lenses, and nearly all lens brands.
You just notice it more in a smaller lens with less heavy glass.

To sum up the fallacies:
* "Cheap feel" means something objective and is bad
* A sample size of 2 is sufficient to draw conclusions about all prime lenses made today by all
manufactures
* If X is improving faster than Y, then X peforms better than Y
* Wherever resources are directed there will be progress
* Past rate of improvement predicts future rate of improvement
* Technology has no physical limits -- it's only limited by budget size
* You can test a lens by taking photos with it

BTW, here's a link to Nikon's purblished MTF chart for the Nikkor 500 mm 1.4D.
https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/f-mount/singlefocal/normal/af_50mmf_14d/index.htm

radiomantom Loc: Plymouth Indiana

17-50 2.8 Tamron for me.