Barry:
You have summarized it perfectly. Primes force the photographic process
in a different direction. I don't doubt that if all I had was one zoom,
I would force myself to a different kind of discipline that might give
me equally good results, but I'm not entirely sure I would be entirely
successful. Maybe one day I'll take a few days and try that.
Earl
Barry B. Bean wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:04:04 -0800, Earl Dunbar wrote:
>
>
>
>>And I would also prefer prime lenses, not a lot of zooms.
>>
>>
>
>I agree, but I think you and I must be the last two. In reading usenet
>discussions and looking at a few stores, you'd get the idea that prime lenses
>went out of
>style around the time we quit carving photographs on stone tablets.
>
>Give me the equivalent of a 20, a 50,and a 100, and I can shoot 90% of
>everything I shoot. Throw in a couple of teles and a good macro and I'm set.
>I've
>never been a fan of zooms - it seems that the extra challenge of composition
>with a prime forces me to really LOOK at the pictures I'm taking, instead of
>falling
>into the "point and shoot" trap.
>
>
>--
>Barry B. Bean
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|