The manufacturer [of Zoomar lenses] was Kilfitt Optical Works, but Zoomar was not only a tradename for their zoom-lenses but also used in the name of a trading company, likely linked to the Kilfitt Works.
Are Zooms of today "better" made than a zoom made circa 1975.?
Do you guys use a Zoom very often with your Film SLR.? Thank You
I had a -1N and a -3. Also some USM lenses and that made a difference.There is something you should know. The first generation EOS 1 was not up to the task of fast sports photography. That camera caused a backlash at Canon at a time when Nikon was making inroads into drive and AF speeds. Anecdotal feedback to Canon is what brought about ramped up research and design of the EOS 1N, with the higher frame rate and particularly the increased number of focusing points linked to a faster drive performance. It made a big difference, and from 1995 the 1N became the flagship, saturating the ranges of general media but especially sports photographers. The '1' is a quaint relict worthy of a touch and feel, but not really suited to high speed work. Improved zoom lenses (the L-series, designed around the performance of the EOS 1N and later EOS 1V) that progressively came out made the system very hard to beat. But today's digital toys can certainly outgun the best of the "old guard" analogue cameras, but it still and always will require that the photographer has the skill to be up to the task, rather than blithely putting faith in the camera to do everything for him -- irrespective of the camera being analogue or digital.
Computers are used in lens design since the mid-50s.
In the meantime not only computer aided manufacture but new lens materials emerged.
I know what you are saying but for me it wouldn't have made a difference. I was the assistant manager and unofficial team photographer. I shot a lot of pictures of the team for the girls and their parents. By shooting digital it didn't cost me anything. I couldn't have afforded all that 35mm film. I guess you could say that I could have taken the money that I paid for the digital camera and paid for the film. I was involved in eBay sales of film cameras, lenses and other equipment. That digital camera enabled me to post my images to Ebay and sell a lot of equipment over the years. The profit I made funded most of my film camera gear and also all the film I shot.
Without shooting digital I could never have afforded medium and large format film cameras. I also couldn't have afforded all the film I have shot.
If what I have read is correct, Leitz/Leica was responsible for building the first computer of probably any camera lens manufacturer and it was used mostly to help design new lenses for their cameras and, I'll bet, for their microscopes as well. And this was begun just before WW2 which began in September 1939......Regards!
I didn't see this post earlier, sorry. Thanks for the post Alan.I know what you are saying but for me it wouldn't have made a difference. I was the assistant manager and unofficial team photographer. I shot a lot of pictures of the team for the girls and their parents. By shooting digital it didn't cost me anything. I couldn't have afforded all that 35mm film. I guess you could say that I could have taken the money that I paid for the digital camera and paid for the film. I was involved in eBay sales of film cameras, lenses and other equipment. That digital camera enabled me to post my images to Ebay and sell a lot of equipment over the years. The profit I made funded most of my film camera gear and also all the film I shot.
Without shooting digital I could never have afforded medium and large format film cameras. I also couldn't have afforded all the film I have shot.
The second version of the Series 1 70 - 210 f3.5 lens that was manufactured by Tokina is the best one.
Don't believe everything you read on test reports, that's one person's very unscientific view lppm ( line pairs per millimetre) is a very old fashioned way of evaluating lens performance these days they use M.T.F. ( modulatory transfer function ) that plots definition over contrast.Well, I've never owed any version of this lens, but my understanding from the tubes is that the Komine (version 3) was considered the best, with the Tokina second. Here's one Dead Link Removed that summarizes the author's views.
If I were you, I would never apologize for what I used, might use or will use to get a job done. It is no one's business but mine what I use to do what I need to do in photography. In my lifetime, so far, I have spent entirely too much on film photography/darkroom, etc. but I did that because I wanted to and for no other reason much less to satisfy some imagined debt that I owe the hobby. And it is my hobby, nothing more.......Regards!
I didn't see this post earlier, sorry. Thanks for the post Alan.
Why?If you want to control perspective, a zoom lens is a hindrance not a help.
If you want to control perspective, a zoom lens is a hindrance not a help.
Why?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=HCB+boy+and+cart&rlz=1C1CHFX_en-GBGB558GB558&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=899&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXs-S3l6HOAhWkBcAKHQ3lAgYQ_AUICCgB#tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CVM4HGdAaIJ1IjjjMgSijR6j3DVbFD52P8EvTWZes3zjrr0ML4w0u4JVHfc2143fTj8eioGiqkaefrZhkbXMz1kR3yoSCeMyBKKNHqPcEaZf9qw3lFHoKhIJNVsUPnY_1wS8RA9-r7He641AqEglNZl6zfOOuvRFnIJ1IYGovMyoSCQwvjDS7glUdEagYR7v6smKjKhIJ9zbXjd9OPx4RaE_1u2IPvhWcqEgmKgaKqRp5-thHBCuGHpFPv0yoSCWGRtczPWRHfEWB-ORYIzBuW&q=Henri Cartier-bresson cart and boy&imgrc=2gYIcEcHZsbytM:
Here is a prime example, look at the way the position of the camera allows the angle of the cart to match the angle of the line on the wall. Try and do this with a zoom lens and you will lose the plot.
As far as I remember from what I read many years ago, perspective is controlled by distance to object, not the focal length.Why?
Well first of all lets get one of the myths of perspective out of the way, perspective does not change when you change your lens.
It is often said that a telephoto lens compresses perspective but actually the perspective remains the same. If you were to take the same image, one with a wide angle lens and one with a telephoto lens, then you were to crop the wide angle image to the same framing as the telephoto, the image would look identical.
Perspective, in fact can only be changed by changing position, for example, if you were to use the wide angle lens and physically move closer to your subject to get the same framing as the telephoto lens, then, you will have changed the perspective. What actually happens when you change lens is that your angle of view changes.
As far as I remember from what I read many years ago, perspective is controlled by distance to object, not the focal length.
But, I might be wrong.
Primes of the past or current?
Exactly and thus I do not see any shortcomings of zoom lenses on the matter of perspective.
To the contrary, as I can chose between focal lenghts I get benefits, as DOF.
They can change the perspective in the same way as you do when you change a lens, and that's deliberate as part of their design.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?