Understanding focal length

Truly, the term 'prime' is a evolution of popular use terminology, that originally did NOT exist in the vernacular! It is a term that has crept into popular use in the last 20 years!
In a book published by Olympus Optical, they use 'fixed focal length' and 'zoom'...there is no 'prime'.
In a text by Rochester Institute of Photography instructors, there is 'wide angle', 'telephoto', 'macro', 'zoom', 'supplementary', 'convertible', but there is no 'prime'.
Even in books published in 1989 there is no 'prime'...there are 'conventional, fixed focal length' and there are 'zooms'...there is no 'prime' in the professional press for any aspect of lens design. Its use to define all fixed focal length lenses is entirely within the popular jargon. a term which probably crept into its current misuse due to discussions on the internet (which itself didn't exist in its current form more than 20 years ago). I see lots of misuse of terms due to the internet...'small aperture' being used to refer to the magnitude of the f/stop number rather than to the size of the lens diaphram, is but one example of this creeping misuse of jargon.

Wilt wrote in post #2252025
Truly, the term 'prime' is a evolution of popular use terminology, that originally did NOT exist in the vernacular! It is a term that has crept into popular use in the last 20 years!
In a book published by Olympus Optical, they use 'fixed focal length' and 'zoom'...there is no 'prime'.
In a text by Rochester Institute of Photography instructors, there is 'wide angle', 'telephoto', 'macro', 'zoom', 'supplementary', 'convertible', but there is no 'prime'.
Even in books published in 1989 there is no 'prime'...there are 'conventional, fixed focal length' and there are 'zooms'...there is no 'prime' in the professional press for any aspect of lens design. Its use to define all fixed focal length lenses is entirely within the popular jargon. a term which probably crept into its current misuse due to discussions on the internet (which itself didn't exist in its current form more than 20 years ago). I see lots of misuse of terms due to the internet...'small aperture' being used to refer to the magnitude of the f/stop number rather than to the size of the lens diaphram, is but one example of this creeping misuse of jargon.

Despite origins, we should continue to use terms in the manners in which they're commonly understood. Nods of understanding are better than blank stares. Time to evolve, rather than argue the way things used to be.

You're arguing semantics that, for the most part, don't even matter.

And from a slightly different FOV..."prime" rolls of the tongue a helluva lot easier than "fixed focal length" does.

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2252079
You're arguing semantics that, for the most part, don't even matter.

No I am not arguing semantics...I was merely pointing out that the term 'prime' doesn't have a photographic definition with regard to lens characteristics!

You guys can debate 'prime' vs. 'primary' all you want, and that is arguing semantics! And since there is no official use of the term, one could say that no one is right in that debate!

Wilt wrote in post #2252168
No I am not arguing semantics...I was merely pointing out that the term 'prime' doesn't have a photographic definition with regard to lens characteristics!

You guys can debate 'prime' vs. 'primary' all you want, and that is arguing semantics! And since there is no official use of the term, one could say that no one is right in that debate!

It does have an "offical use" when thousands and thousands (millions even?) of people use it every day.

To think a word has to be in some sort of manual to be official is...arrogant I suppose.

i sort of agree with both of you. it certainly is a LOT easier to say or type prime than fixed focal length all day long. but at the same time ive said prime to some photographers and just gotten blank stares..... i say as long as you know what the heck you are talking about you can use it, but keep in mind some people arnt going to know what you are saying.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2252217
i sort of agree with both of you. it certainly is a LOT easier to say or type prime than fixed focal length all day long. but at the same time ive said prime to some photographers and just gotten blank stares..... i say as long as you know what the heck you are talking about you can use it, but keep in mind some people arnt going to know what you are saying.

But then again some "photographers" don't even know what aperture is. Mention that and you get a blank stare too.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2252217
i sort of agree with both of you. it certainly is a LOT easier to say or type prime than fixed focal length all day long. but at the same time ive said prime to some photographers and just gotten blank stares..... i say as long as you know what the heck you are talking about you can use it, but keep in mind some people arnt going to know what you are saying.

My point exactly. If terminology is not universal in use, we are subject to miscommunication. Trying to prevent miscommunication is not arrogance. Arrogance is assuming everyone uses the same term universally and cannot mistake our use!

It seems then that the term "prime" is the slang for "fixed focal length". Thank you for the clarification

Wilt wrote in post #2252244
My point exactly. If terminology is not universal in use, we are subject to miscommunication. Trying to prevent miscommunication is not arrogance. Arrogance is assuming everyone uses the same term universally and cannot mistake our use!

Look, the technicalities of photography need to be learned, period. The same person who stares at you blankly for calling it a prime could have stared at you blankly for calling it a fixed focal length. Those two terms seem to cause confusion not because of misconmmunication but rather lack of education in general. Photography is artistic AND technical. Some people concentrate on the art and ignore the technicals. You could look at someone and tell them you think it's time to update your blog and they could give you a blank stare. Just because someone hasn't heard of it doesn't make it a word that isn't universal in use, or at least common within its own realm.

Your argument also outlaws slang. People use slang a lot. Sometimes it catches on like a firestorm, sometimes it takes longer to get passed around. Slang is still legitimate verbage.

No my argument is not outlawing slang. Merely that assuming everyone uses the same slang is not good. I heard slang from someone 30 years ago. I never heard it again until my wife today commented about hearing it and not understanding it. 'Shine' something. Most people would think someone is applying a coat of wax and buffing it, yet the term was about dismissing something and taking no action.

Sorry but you have not totally not comprehending what point you are trying to make with that sentence. That photographic jargon is very specific to that collection of knowledge? True universally of any 'jargon' (at least Mr. Webster's folks think so!)

Now I know how ScottE feels.

Wilt wrote in post #2252025
Truly, the term 'prime' is a evolution of popular use terminology, that originally did NOT exist in the vernacular!

Whose vernacular? I've been using "prime" to describe fixed-focus lenses since the first time I contemplated a zoom to compare it to. And that was about 25 years before my first use of the Internet in 1996.

Folks, it's the thing that defines the word, not the word that defines the thing. A fixed-focal-length lens is still the same three-dimensional object whether or not we call it a "prime". Thus, the word we use we choose solely to convey meaning. And in my circle of photographer friends, dating from long before the Internet, and including working commercial photographers going back into the 70's, the term "prime lens" ALWAYS referred to a fixed-focus lens.

In fact, the term "fixed-focus" was never applied to a prime lens, but rather to a lens set from the factory at hyperfocal distance with the appropriate aperture built in. Instamatics and other similar cameras were all made that way, and they were distinguished from the cheapie rangefinders of the day by the term "fixed focus".

But then, I never went to Rochester or learned photography out of a book.

I have changed my terminology many times in many fields when I realized that my own assumptions about the vernacular didn't convey the meaning I intended. The only time I refuse to is when a term has been defined by a standards organization to have an official and technical meaning. As an engineer I run into that frequently. I don't think that's the case here, though.

So, if the vast majority of readers are not confused about the meaning of the word "prime", then I'll use it. If, 20 years from now, that word means something else, then I'll use whatever word has the correct meaning then.

Rick "recalling that some of the early Kilfitt Zoomars were fixed-focal-length telephoto lenses" Denney

Rick, In the vernacular of those in camera manufacturing and optical design and in the vernacular of those who write professionally in publications about the topic, I have not seen 'prime' in any glossary or discussion of 'fixed focal length' vs. 'zoom'. That was what I was pointing out.

'fixed focus' and 'fixed focal length' deal with different concepts (how did 'fixed focus' enter this thread?)

Well I think it's about time we dropped the vernacular "zoom" and started calling 'em "variable focal length" - obviously the correct thing to do!



What a daft argument!!

No words (or phrases) exist in any vernacular until they're coined and commonly used.

Someone coined and started to use "fixed focal length", someone did likewise with "zoom"... we'd still be pointing at things and grunting if language didn't evolve like this.

In common with the other 99.9% of photographers that know what "prime" means in the context of lenses, that's what I'll keep calling them.

I'm happy to explain my meaning though, to anyone who hasn't quite caught up yet.

Mind you, I didn't even realise that Ansel Adams, William Friese Green and Louis Daguerre were still alive.

Keith I didn't say you cannot add terms. In messages 16 & 18, I made the point that the term 'prime' did not exist 20 years ago, has arisen within the past 15 years. BTW the term is not yet accepted enough in the context of photographic usage to even hit Webster's Unabridged Universal Dictionary.