How much better is a prime? (Page 5): Again, thank you all for your input. Four pages of thoughtful comment is invaluable. I appreciate it very much.

Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA

Again, thank you all for your input. Four pages of thoughtful comment is invaluable.

I appreciate it very much.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Linckinn wrote:

I have never used primes, always preferring the ab... (show quote)

I have many zooms and I have many primes, I mostly shoot with the zooms for their convenience, the primes do not show superior quality compared to my zooms, I call them equal in IQ.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

speters wrote:

I have many zooms and I have many primes, I mostly shoot with the zooms for their convenience, the primes do not show superior quality compared to my zooms, I call them equal in IQ.

I think Today's Zooms (at least some of them) are so far superior to the Zooms of yesteryear that there really isn't any big difference in IQ for most applications.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

SwedeUSA2 wrote:

Now that you aren't Jerry, how would you do it?

Suppress it altogether.

There is no 'unlimited zoom' the last time I checked. All have a range, therefore a limitation and and as such none is 'infinite'.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Linckinn wrote:

I have never used primes, always preferring the ab... (show quote)

I shoot with Sony A7 series cameras. I use quite a large number of adapted Canon mount primes and zoom lenses but my goto lens is the Sony FE 24-240mm or, on occasions, the Sony FE 28-70mm. The 24-240mm seldom comes off the Sony A7R II. I also have a Sony FE 70-200 but don't find it nearly as useful... I don't have any Sony prime lenses; never found a need for them.

We recently did a cruise from Norway to Iceland. I shot 90% (4000) of my pix with the 24-240mm. The remainder were shot with the 28-70mm on an A7S, mainly indoor pix.

Have fun on the cruise. We've done three Alaska cruises; great scenery and wildlife!

bwa

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

Linckinn wrote:

I have never used primes, always preferring the ab... (show quote)

I only own one prime, my 50mm f/1.8 and it's very useful for certain situations. My go to lens however is my 28-200 which is my walk around and every day go to lens.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Linckinn wrote:

I have never used primes, always preferring the ab... (show quote)

You are asking for a lot of answers.

I'd say, it depends...

I have a lot of Prime and Zoom lenses, all do different jobs.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Rongnongno wrote:

Suppress it altogether.

There is no 'unlimited zoom' the last time I checked. All have a range, therefore a limitation and and as such none is 'infinite'.

Nobody said that.

What he stated was precisely correct. A fixed focal length lens has one focal length while a zoom has an infinite number. Obviously that is an infinite number of focal lengths. You are referencing an infinite range, which is entirely different.

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

Burk has a good take on infinity.

In photography, infinity is a surprising but practical metaphor, lacking any reality and any precision.

Many scientists forget that infinity is unobservable. So it cannot begin to be scientific (complete + correct + consistent).

Armies of scientists argue for infinity's reality, maybe because they need it. I'm pretty sure Einstein believed infinity is out-of-bounds for science but his successors by-and-large are unconcerned and horribly confused. They visit this confusion upon anybody who is listening.

Infinity is just a convenient, rich math concept/tool/whatever. And I like it -- as math.

burkphoto wrote:

Yes. It's called 'infinity'. It's precisely the largest number you can imagine beyond the largest number you can imagine, beyond...

In other words, 'precisely infinite' is a bit of an oxymoron.

Infinity is just the human way of expressing the idea that we have no idea how large the universe is, and whatever we're counting ends too far away for us to finish counting it before the sun evolves into a red giant and engulfs the Earth.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

forjava wrote:

Burk has a good take on infinity. br br In photog... (show quote)

I believe the current scientific consensus is that the size of the observable universe is 91 Billion light years in diameter (28 Billion parsecs)

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

That was a great article! Especially with the photos!

Alan Myers
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

TriX wrote:

I believe the current scientific consensus is that the size of the observable universe is 91 Billion light years in diameter (28 Billion parsecs)

Yeah, but the operant word there is "observable".

At any rate, such numbers are a bit irrelevant to our existence.

When telescopes "see" things that far away, they're just picking up light that has traveled that many years. The stars and galaxies that created that light are probably burned out by now.

Suffice it to say that, like economists, astronomers can only look at what happened. They can't really measure or see the present! The only things we can view in deep space were there long ago. In reality, they're somewhere else, now. We might be able to predict where they are, but to what end?

Maybe in a century or two, when we figure out warp drive, high power force field shielding, inertial dampening, and all those other Star Trek fantasy physics laws, we'll be able to move around a bit in our "local" galaxy. But that's hardly infinity, unless you're talking about the mark on a lens.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I do like your articles too!

burkphoto wrote:

Yes. It's called 'infinity'. It's precisely the largest number you can imagine beyond the largest number you can imagine, beyond...

In other words, 'precisely infinite' is a bit of an oxymoron.

Infinity is just the human way of expressing the idea that we have no idea how large the universe is, and whatever we're counting ends too far away for us to finish counting it before the sun evolves into a red giant and engulfs the Earth.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

burkphoto wrote:

Yeah, but the operant word there is "observab... (show quote)

Actually, as I recall, that number was determined by calculating the "bending" effect of mass on light (Einsten's equations) and the average mass density of the universe. Numerous experiments have confirmed the accuracy of Einstein's predictions. We're a bit (actually a lot) off topic, but if a physics major would like to comment further...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

TriX wrote:

Actually, as I recall, that number was determined by calculating the "bending" effect of mass on light (Einsten's equations) and the average mass density of the universe. Numerous experiments have confirmed the accuracy of Einstein's predictions. We're a bit (actually a lot) off topic, but if a physics major would like to comment further...

I'm not one to question the accuracy. I'm just pointing out that it has little current practical application.