08-08-2010, 11:45 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1281265416' post='1578']
The problem with the Canon TS-E 24mm f3.5 L II is that it is so much longer than the mark I.
Where the mark I has a length to about 87mm, the MK II' s length has increased to about 107mm. That increase makes it virtually impossible to use it with a 12mm extension ring. In that light, the MK I version has an advantage for close up work past 1:3...
In comparison: The EF-S Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM has a length of about 89mm, and the Tokina 12-24mm f4 I have used about the same size.
[/quote]
Why should the physical length have anything to do with the compatibility to the 12mm extension tube? I thought only the focal length is what matters.
The problem with the Canon TS-E 24mm f3.5 L II is that it is so much longer than the mark I.
Where the mark I has a length to about 87mm, the MK II' s length has increased to about 107mm. That increase makes it virtually impossible to use it with a 12mm extension ring. In that light, the MK I version has an advantage for close up work past 1:3...
In comparison: The EF-S Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM has a length of about 89mm, and the Tokina 12-24mm f4 I have used about the same size.
[/quote]
Why should the physical length have anything to do with the compatibility to the 12mm extension tube? I thought only the focal length is what matters.