07-18-2010, 12:28 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' date='18 July 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1279406487' post='1081']
Care to share where you got this wisdom?
In my opinion it is not based on ANYTHING what so ever. In my opinion it is nonsense to claim that the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II is better at close distances (it can not even get close) and that it somehow would give more detail.
I will say It again, I often use my 70-200mm f4 L USM for close ups. And it is NOT the sharpest Canon 70-200 on the market (the new 70-200 f4 L IS USM and 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM II are the sharpest), yet it resolves PERFECTLY at MFD and beyond MFD (with extension tube).
The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II for sure is a better lens than the Nikon VR II for close ups. Also regarding detail. Of course it is, it has a much bigger magnification.
Anyway, if for some reason you want to keep arguing otherwise, it would be nice to see actual evidence of what you are claiming.
PS: here three examples of my 70-200 f4 L IS USM past MFD (with 12mm extension tube), at 0.9m distance:
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=gallery&module=images§ion=img_ctrl&img=189&type=download"]http://forum.photozo...9&type=download[/url]
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=gallery&module=images§ion=img_ctrl&img=143&type=download"]http://forum.photozo...3&type=download[/url]
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=gallery&module=images§ion=img_ctrl&img=144&type=download"]http://forum.photozo...4&type=download[/url]
Before you confuse shallow DOF with lack of detail... all taken wide open (f4).
[/quote]
Well, I hope you don't mind me saying, but I didn't particularly like the results with my 70-200 F/4L IS with extension tubes a lot either. In the long reaches the resolution clearly deteriorated. The 70-200 F/4L (non-IS) actually was better in this regard. I do use all of my lenses with extension tubes, as I like macro/semi-macro a lot, and I can assure you that close to MFD and beyond (IOW, even closer) at 135 to 200 mm is not the strong point of the 70-200 F/4L IS. The 135L does a lot better, as do the 50L and 100-400L, even the TS-E 24L for that matter.
If I have to be very honest, your pictures, although I really like the composition and colour contrasts, don't seem all that sharp, although that could be caused by lack of DoF and/or web compression.
Kind regards, Wim
Care to share where you got this wisdom?
In my opinion it is not based on ANYTHING what so ever. In my opinion it is nonsense to claim that the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II is better at close distances (it can not even get close) and that it somehow would give more detail.
I will say It again, I often use my 70-200mm f4 L USM for close ups. And it is NOT the sharpest Canon 70-200 on the market (the new 70-200 f4 L IS USM and 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM II are the sharpest), yet it resolves PERFECTLY at MFD and beyond MFD (with extension tube).
The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II for sure is a better lens than the Nikon VR II for close ups. Also regarding detail. Of course it is, it has a much bigger magnification.
Anyway, if for some reason you want to keep arguing otherwise, it would be nice to see actual evidence of what you are claiming.
PS: here three examples of my 70-200 f4 L IS USM past MFD (with 12mm extension tube), at 0.9m distance:
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=gallery&module=images§ion=img_ctrl&img=189&type=download"]http://forum.photozo...9&type=download[/url]
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=gallery&module=images§ion=img_ctrl&img=143&type=download"]http://forum.photozo...3&type=download[/url]
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=gallery&module=images§ion=img_ctrl&img=144&type=download"]http://forum.photozo...4&type=download[/url]
Before you confuse shallow DOF with lack of detail... all taken wide open (f4).
[/quote]
Well, I hope you don't mind me saying, but I didn't particularly like the results with my 70-200 F/4L IS with extension tubes a lot either. In the long reaches the resolution clearly deteriorated. The 70-200 F/4L (non-IS) actually was better in this regard. I do use all of my lenses with extension tubes, as I like macro/semi-macro a lot, and I can assure you that close to MFD and beyond (IOW, even closer) at 135 to 200 mm is not the strong point of the 70-200 F/4L IS. The 135L does a lot better, as do the 50L and 100-400L, even the TS-E 24L for that matter.
If I have to be very honest, your pictures, although I really like the composition and colour contrasts, don't seem all that sharp, although that could be caused by lack of DoF and/or web compression.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....