All of the recent discussions regarding primes vs zoom image quality reminds
me of almost daily posts on Photo.net where members often slam consumer
grade lenses in favour of big ticket pro models. I recently had a friendly
email discussion with one of said "pro lens or nothing" individuals. In one
message, he admitted that he didn't own a tripod and usually used consumer
grade 400 ASA film. This brings me to my point that although I do agree that
prime lenses offer a degree of image quality greater than that of zoom
lenses, that degree isn't taken to full advantage if one does not use a
tripod, mirror lock-up, and slower fine grained films. I wish that I could
say that I always take these measures, but unfortunately due to many
circumstances (including plain laziness) I don't. Mind you, if I did, I
probably would have missed a number of fairly decent photographs ;)
Bruce Hamm
Ottawa, Canada
bhamm@xxxxxxxx
Those are good points. Of course, a big ticket lens, or a prime may
be 1 1/2 to 2 stops faster allowing higher shutter speeds
ameliorating the need for a tripod or fast film on every shot.
Of course the disciplined of a tripod with so called consumer grade
lenses(read, slower without the need for expensive glass) should
result in a much higher percentage of sharp images and should save
lots of money and weight in the camera bag.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California, USA
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|