mirrored
Established
I have search postings about tri-elmar but it's hopeless. After an hour I find it mentioned. What are the optical ability on Tri-Elmar-M 1:4/28-35-50mm ASPH and are there any other versions?
I hate chancing optics! I prefer other ways as two body.
edit: Google helps. "tri-elmar review" show many links to here too
I hate chancing optics! I prefer other ways as two body.
edit: Google helps. "tri-elmar review" show many links to here too
Last edited:
zenlibra
Crazy Leica Fox
I started off using zooms on my DSLRs like everyone else. I found also that I was at either end of the zoom and rarely in the middle. I've never owned Canon L glass but my three primes are fast and give me sharp pictures more often than I ever experienced with a zoom lens. I've fallen hard for prime lenses and the only zoom I use any more is the Canon EF-S 10-22mm for landscape work. It's usually set at 14mm.
Last edited:
pvdhaar
Peter
What is fundamentally wrong with using a zoom to crop?
Yes, I know, using a zoom this way is usually frowned upon, and you're supposed to pick a focal length first and then zoom with your feet..
But I think that's false reasoning. Instead of putting focal length first and perspective second, doesn't it make more sense to turn it around? Why not decide first on distance and perspective and only then the select the focal length to match?
Entirely valid approach in my book, and that's where zooms come in..
Phantomas
Well-known
Zooms limit my creativity. With zooms I end up with cheesy framed pictures. Primes make me work and think about composition. Only primes for me.
mirrored
Established
You are very right and all that selections are made with primes once together (same time) with a help of experience and knowing the lens.
But in a start, for a beginner, it's good method use prime or tape-fixed zoom. It only close one oppornity to learn fruitless habits but I think it work. Every focal lenght have different character and using only one makes that familiar most efficient way. Even if it feels unfit to the subject - or just that moment.
craygc
Well-known
Maybe the issue is how and what I shoot. Im street/documentary in style and most of the time there is never the luxury of time to choose a focal length. The problem for me with a zoom is that I can never make the assumption of knowing what focal length it is at a point in time - it needs to be checked each time. That just introduces another degree-of-freedom in choices I find I don't need to deal with. And... by the very nature of having zoom available there is always that subconscious tendency to do fine tuning of the framing through zoom-cropping.
This was never an "I really hate zooms" thread, merely a discussion around why they really don't work for me
mirrored
Established
Other method to efficient learning would be compose without camera, with some hand-frame help occasionally. And compose it very ready and after that only took a picture. In that situation chancing focal lengt doesn't harm anything, but with zoom really must remember take a look to the lenght choiced.
Second part is making photos and look at them. What longer you arrived, that more you can imagine and form a ready photo when shooting. Looking pictures, others too, is important. Analyse and showing it to others... (what I write.
I cut it. where was the topic .)By the way, perhaps RF itself direct to the way where compose without camera, comparing to SLR.
Last edited:
mirrored
Established
Philosophy of Photography Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography. One of the best authors on the subject is Susan Sontag in her book "On Photography."
I need very large sight to see how my writing above sit to the meaning of this discussion area. One loose way to explain question what is philosophy: It is about what kind of is the world and how to live with it.
I need very large sight to see how my writing above sit to the meaning of this discussion area. One loose way to explain question what is philosophy: It is about what kind of is the world and how to live with it.
photorat
Registered Abuser
Question: If zoom lenses offered all the same properties (speed, contrast, resolution and less objective criteria like "draw" and "character") over the same focal lengths as corresponding primes, would you prefer them? I know I would. Twisting a barrel is preferable to fumbling with three to four different lenses and subsequently missing shots any day.
Of course, fixed focal lengths 'force' us to relate to a scene in a different way and often inspire creativity, but once the scene as been 'seen' and an intention to capture it in a certain way formed, a zoom lens can be a very useful tool. Its advantages are to be weighed up against the (contingent) decrease in quality. But to reject zoom lenses because they make things too easy just seems neurotic to me. We're out to make pictures, in the end.
Of course, fixed focal lengths 'force' us to relate to a scene in a different way and often inspire creativity, but once the scene as been 'seen' and an intention to capture it in a certain way formed, a zoom lens can be a very useful tool. Its advantages are to be weighed up against the (contingent) decrease in quality. But to reject zoom lenses because they make things too easy just seems neurotic to me. We're out to make pictures, in the end.
sjw617
Panoramist
Do not blame the lens if you end up with cheesy pictures.
craygc
Well-known
I would almost never have time to contemplate changing a lens. Its about knowing what Im looking for and the focal length that fits. Or potential in reverse, knowing the focal length Im using and looking for how to fit to it.
A zoom equal in all respects to a prime would still not interest me. That twisting of a barrel potentially lost the moment. 95% of my work is with either a 21mm or 35mm lens; I know them both intimately and when Im photographing I ONLY see the world with the characteristics of the lens that's currently attached. As I see the opportunity coming together I watch, set the camera, move and time everything so that all the elements fall into place (for that lens) as I rasie the camera to my eye; and its usually only ever that one chance.
To the contrary, to me zooms make my life far more difficult. Focal length is just not a decision I want to have to make as I raise the camera to my eye.
mirrored
Established
Deside before, with zoom without chancing lens.
IF they would be enought good, I will use them definetely. (distortion, sharpness, 'speed', weight, ...
Last edited:
user237428934
User deletion pending
Deside before, with zoom without chancing lens.
IF they would be too good, I will use them definetely. (distortion, sharpness, 'speed', ...
Just try one. There are some really good zoom lenses on the market. Ok, if you have the right DSLR.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Not all zooms are created equal.
So far only a few impressed me, and strangely, they are not super-modern DSLR ones.
Konica UC Hexanon 80-200mm/1:4. All wide open of course
So far only a few impressed me, and strangely, they are not super-modern DSLR ones.
Konica UC Hexanon 80-200mm/1:4. All wide open of course
clayne
shoot film or die
Realistically, for a single day of shooting, why does anyone actually *need* to carry around 4 primes anyways?
Stick with a 35 and 50. Occasionally substitute one or the other for a differing focal length and at most either an ultra-wide for a situation which might require it or a telephoto for situations which benefit from compression.
It's a limitation that increases the quality of output. Using additional options to get around failures in seeing, composition, or framing is an exercise in mediocrity. Perhaps the underlying issue is that people are trying to do too much at once?
Simplify.
Stick with a 35 and 50. Occasionally substitute one or the other for a differing focal length and at most either an ultra-wide for a situation which might require it or a telephoto for situations which benefit from compression.
It's a limitation that increases the quality of output. Using additional options to get around failures in seeing, composition, or framing is an exercise in mediocrity. Perhaps the underlying issue is that people are trying to do too much at once?
Simplify.
photorat
Registered Abuser
Fair and interesting comment and I must admit I tend to work the same way. That said, there are surely times where an extra degree or two of angle would improve the picture. 'Seeing' in a certain focal length usually demands 'moving' to compose a picture. All I'm saying is that in some situations, constraints of time or space preclude the possibility of moving, and a twist of a zoom lens could offer the answer.
But it's been ages since I've used a zoom and I suspect that it would be a serious distraction if I were ever to use one again.
mirrored
Established
Beautiful photos above!
I have been using only primes over 25 years (and SLR). Now I have my first and good zoom in my digi. After using that I became wish zoom to other cameras too. It's only a wish - i am not purchasing a zoom. I have high criterias. Propably too high for a deal. I have opportunity buy Leica R Vario-Elmar 28-90 asph, mint, for a 1200€ but I left it.
In RF I am beginner. Absolutely beginner. (Is there zooms to it anyway? Cover much finder area? Are slow?)
I have been using only primes over 25 years (and SLR). Now I have my first and good zoom in my digi. After using that I became wish zoom to other cameras too. It's only a wish - i am not purchasing a zoom. I have high criterias. Propably too high for a deal. I have opportunity buy Leica R Vario-Elmar 28-90 asph, mint, for a 1200€ but I left it.
In RF I am beginner. Absolutely beginner. (Is there zooms to it anyway? Cover much finder area? Are slow?)
Last edited:
katgut@earthlink.net
Established
I'm suspicious of a poster who goes from loving his perfect zoom to suddenly vilifying it as evil. It seems at best rather capricious consumerism, and at worst slavish trend-following. Rather like looking at one's shoes and suddenly realizing everyone else's are square-toed and your suddenly hate your unfashionable (yet previously much-loved) round-toed versions.
There are many different types and grades of zooms, as there are primes.
Some of my zooms have outperformed my primes. But I have to disagree with those that say one should just zoom with the feet. I doesn't work that way--moving closer is NOT the same perspective as zooming in with a long focal length (and the same is true with wide-angles).
There are many different types and grades of zooms, as there are primes.
Some of my zooms have outperformed my primes. But I have to disagree with those that say one should just zoom with the feet. I doesn't work that way--moving closer is NOT the same perspective as zooming in with a long focal length (and the same is true with wide-angles).
peterm1
Veteran
There is nothing inherently too wrong with zooms. They make a photographer's life easier and the best of modern zooms do a fine job in the technical department. But I have recently rediscovered the joy of shooting primes. Manual focus ones at that. I bought a D200 recently (near new and for a knock down price from someone who upgraded to a D300 or D700) The main reason I bought it is that it meters with non AF lenses and so opens up a world of shooting using my old Nikkors. I was prepared for the quality of images and for example the ability to shoot wide at 1.4 with a 50mm to properly throw the background out of focus. What I was not prepared for was the way that the prime lens (and the manual focus) led me to be more contemplative in my shooting. I would stop observe, move in or out to frame better, adjust the aperture to maximize or minimize the depth of field etc. I try to remember to do these things with a modern AF zoom when I am using it. But in the main I just shoot and trust in my camera to do the rest. I do not say I got bad shots before, But I do say that I get better ones now! Hurray for manual focus primes.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Zooms first gained popularity in the motion picture and television industry. Both utilized big heavy cameras mounted on a dolly for studio work. The MP industry used them outside too. A 35mm Mitchell with a 1,000 foot magazine is a big camera! It was difficult to follow action with a set of three or four turret mounted primes, and if they weren't precisely T-stop callibrated there'd be a density difference from lens to lens. It's also extremely difficult to come up with a set of lenses with matching color and bokeh. A zoom solves all of those concerns. The movie guys could pump all the light they needed into the scene so they didn't have to shoot at f/1.4. The on screen resolution of a TV set doesn't require the sharpness you need to make 16x20's from your Leica.
I've said it before: when I raise a camera to my eye I already KNOW what a particular lens will cover. That's not the time when I want to be fiddling with the zoom control trying to find my framing.
I've said it before: when I raise a camera to my eye I already KNOW what a particular lens will cover. That's not the time when I want to be fiddling with the zoom control trying to find my framing.