fixed zoom

[c0ntr0lz]

when they say a lens is EF 200mm 300mm or 400mm
that means there is no zoom
it's set at that lenght?

[Belmondo]

That's right. It's a fixed focal length. Instead of zooming in and out, the photographer walks back and forth to frame his/her shot.

[c0ntr0lz]

hmm ok
thanks

[Olegis]

Lenses with fixed focal length are called primes.

[ron chappel]

The zoom lens was first used for photographic purposes sometime in the 50's or 60's by Zeiss i believe
I think one of their technitions also gave it the then silly slang name (zoom) that everyone takes for granted now.

Early zooms were definitely sub par compared to the fixed lenses.By the early seventies nikon-and maybe others-were building very good zooms but at a price.
These days zooms range from quite good (like the 300D kit zoom) to very decent (mid range zooms) to nearly as good as a fixed lens (but still at a price premium!)

[Andy_T]

These days zooms range from quite good (like the 300D kit zoom) to very decent (mid range zooms) to nearly as good as a fixed lens (but still at a price premium!)

Ron ... you're confusing me a bit here ...

so 'quite good' would lead to the ecstatic comment you post in your sig.line regarding the DRebel Kit lens ... must be some Aussie kind of praise, then :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[nosquare2003]

That's right. It's a fixed focal length. Instead of zooming in and out, the photographer walks back and forth to frame his/her shot.

And / or change lens. It's not easy to walk back and forth for long focal length change...

[ron chappel]

Ron ... you're confusing me a bit here ...

so 'quite good' would lead to the ecstatic comment you post in your sig.line regarding the DRebel Kit lens ... must be some Aussie kind of praise, then :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

:oops: :D ahhhh.oops
basically i meant that in the grand sceme of things,the 300D kit lens is quite good -compared to lenses in general over the years.It would i assume easily beat nikons first 43-86 zoom

doesn't mean i LIKE the crap thing though :?

[ron chappel]

By the way here's an interesting link to some good stories from the designers of certain early nikon lenses

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/nikkor/index.htm

[c0ntr0lz]

yeah i think i'm beinging to be happy that i got the kit lens
cause have you seen the prices of wide angles
altho the kit lens it's that awesome but it stats at 18mm and that's pretty low

[Andy_T]

yeah i think i'm beinging to be happy that i got the kit lens
cause have you seen the prices of wide angles
altho the kit lens it's that awesome but it stats at 18mm and that's pretty low

That's exactly the reason why the kit lens is a smart buy for the DRebel.

In the 100$ price range, it definitely is one of the better lenses :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

I beleive the first zooms were made by Panavision for the film industry...

Here is the first still camera zoom.. invented by the same chap.. "Zoomar" for Voigtlander~

http://www.cameraquest.com/ekzoom.htm

[c0ntr0lz]

that's amazing CDS thanks

[ron chappel]

Hey,excellent info CDS!
Now i know :oops:

[jim monroe]

while it was mentioned that with primes one walks toward or away from the subject to frame the picture, and another stated that one changes lens to another prime for the best framing from my experience, limited but growing, there is a third approach which I think may be the most often used and that is crop in post processing. This is especially true for me shooting wildlife.

[Belmondo]

while it was mentioned that with primes one walks toward or away from the subject to frame the picture, and another stated that one changes lens to another prime for the best framing from my experience, limited but growing, there is a third approach which I think may be the most often used and that is crop in post processing. This is especially true for me shooting wildlife.

Yes, but that's too easy and doesn't cost a lot of money. :lol:

Seriously, folks, cropping has its uses, but also has limitations. In my opinion, it the magnification of last resort.

The obvious downside is the degradation of image quality that occurs when you try to get away with using a small portion of the entire original image. Ideally, the only cropping we have to do is to improve composition.

[robertwgross]

Seriously, folks, cropping has its uses, but also has limitations. In my opinion, it the magnification of last resort.

The obvious downside is the degradation of image quality that occurs when you try to get away with using a small portion of the entire original image. Ideally, the only cropping we have to do is to improve composition.

It is just about the same as somebody saying that his camera has x10 digital zoom. All that is, in my opinion, a 1/10th cropping (virtually worthless).

About all I crop out of my wildlife shots is one end or the other end to leave out some distracting background and to make the aspect ratio more like what I want (like making a 2:3 aspect cropped for an 8x10 inch print).

---Bob Gross---

[jim monroe]

There is cropping and there is CROPPING. I couldn't agree with Robert more, I can't image any 1/10 crop being something I would want to keep, basically one is down from 6 Meg pixels to 0.6 Meg and the image degradation would be devastating.
I agree much of my cropping might be described as being done for composition to some extent. When I did shot with a zoom I could rather easily increase the proportion of the shot a bird or butterfly might take up in a picture by say going from 200mm to 240mm with a simple twist of the wrist. Not so with primes so I might shot at 200mm and then crop a little later. (Interesting question is which is better use zoom and no crop or prime and crop? Plelnty of variables here so no easy answer.)
Cropping may be a method of last resort for some situations, maybe most, but not in many I'm faced with. With my 400mm 5.6L I still don't have the reach I would like and as Belmondo points out I could get a longer lens just need about $5000 for the 500mm L or 600mm L or I could walk forward and then I'm likely to lose everything because these herons just don't like to stay put. Of course there is the teleconverter approach which I do use but it has its negatives as well so seems to me cropping last resort or first does come into play probably a bit more when dealing with prime lens as opposed to zoom.

[DAMphyne]

One thing about walking backward and forward with a prime lens, besides the danger of tripping, you change the perspective when you change your position to the subject. With a zoom, you just magnify.

[CoolToolGuy]

One thing about walking backward and forward with a prime lens, besides the danger of tripping, you change the perspective when you change your position to the subject. With a zoom, you just magnify.

Occasionally, the change in perspective enhances the shot. Zooms can sometimes [shields up] induce laziness into the quest for good composition. Wherever you stop to eye up that shot with a zoom is not always going to make the best result. [shields down]

Have Fun,

[KennyG]

I'll give my take on primes versus zooms if I may.

Primes are best if you know where you are going to stand and, within reason, where you subject will be. For sports photographers covering the end zone, goal mouth, bend in a race circuit or finishing line the prime works well. For someone sweeping up, down and across the field, they are not as practical.

Zooms are best if the distance to your subjects is changing, either because you or they are moving around altering the distance between you. I view them as an 'almost fits all situations' lens, rather than something more or less fixed for a particular shoot.

You can't generalise about the quality of primes being better than zooms either. It depends how good each is in its own right. For example, the Canon 70-200 2.8 is better than the majority of 3rd party primes that fall in that range but not as good as the old Canon 200 2.8L prime. At long lengths the bigger primes are in a class of their own and I would hate to think how much a zoom would cost to build to deliver the same quality, never mind the resultant weight.

Back to primes. The TC has made bigger primes more useful for some of us. Imagine the difference in object size between an F1 car and a small single seater like a Formula Ford. You may want to stay in one spot (sometimes, have to) and still be able to frame them both. It may be a case of a straight 500mm for the F1 race and the addition of a 1.4 TC for the FF's. The following week it could be bikes from the same spot and having to use a 2.0 TC. I have yet to find the need to move because of lens 'length'.

Cropping, IMHO, should be limited to no more than 20% of the image. A lot of people frame shots to allow a small amount of cropping to fit a printed size, which is fine. Cropping isn't an alternative to having enough optical magnification. You can't create detail that isn't there in the shot, no matter how clever you are with Photoshop. Digital zoom falls into the same category of 'sounds good, but useless'.