07-18-2010, 02:35 PM
[quote name='wim' date='18 July 2010 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1279462416' post='1096']
Well, both actually. And having owned both, IMO the non-IS version did better in this regard, also after switching IS off on the IS version. In some instances I just couldn't get the image to be sharp enough, whatever I tried. Using the 135L with extender (189 F/2.8) was quite a relief in those circumstances.
I was talking about the 24L Mk I, I haven't tried the Mk II yet. And yes, with teh Mk I at MFD with 12 mm extension tube at full tilt the subject almost touches the front element. Works well, but magnification is still not all that great <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Adding a tube does increase magnification of the center part of the image, and the shorter the FL, the larger the relative magnification is, so any residual optical aberrations will be magnified too, to the same degree. I don't know whether you will be able to fit a 12 mm extension tube to the Voigtlander 20 mm rlens, and still be able to get an image at all, as it is a FF retrofocus lens. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
I thought so. It is a reason for me to do additional processing for images to be dispalyed on the web, and only use flash at high quality for now. That may help.
Except in the longer ranges and at MFD and closer (the latter with extension tubes IOW). At least, that is my experience.
As I mentioned, my experience is different than yours is. It is not a big impact, as in big big, but enough that I ended up selling my F/4 IS after experiencingthe results from my 135L, with and without extender and/or extension tubes close to MFD and even more close. I found I stopped using the zoom alltogether. I do realize that that isn't a fair comparison, zoom vs prime, but that is what happened to me anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. BTW, I was convinced, until that time, that I would never sell the 70-200 F/4L IS <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
No argument from me about this.
I've seen a comparison somewhere, where people did complain about it. The Canon F/4s don't have any breathing to speak of, AFAIK, and the F/2.8s have a little, but that is within the 5% FL tolerance anyway, so not really a problem. The Nikon goes to 165 mm or thereabouts if I am not mistaken, when fully zoomed in and at MFD, which is considerable indeed.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
The Nikon goes towards 135mm actually, depending on whichever formula one uses to calculate it.
Problem with all used formulas is that they say all Canon 70-200 lenses (and the old ones from Nikon, Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, the Sony's and so on) all reduce focal length at MFD, just not to the extent of the Nikon VRII and now the new Sigma.
But either all those formulas are inaccurate, or focal length is NOT linked to field of view.
Because, with all Canon 70-200's (both f4's and f2.8's), while according to the formulas the FL decreases, in effect the field of view gets smaller/more narrow (not only with those Canons... with all 70/80-200's I mentioned).
Puzzling!
Well, both actually. And having owned both, IMO the non-IS version did better in this regard, also after switching IS off on the IS version. In some instances I just couldn't get the image to be sharp enough, whatever I tried. Using the 135L with extender (189 F/2.8) was quite a relief in those circumstances.
I was talking about the 24L Mk I, I haven't tried the Mk II yet. And yes, with teh Mk I at MFD with 12 mm extension tube at full tilt the subject almost touches the front element. Works well, but magnification is still not all that great <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Adding a tube does increase magnification of the center part of the image, and the shorter the FL, the larger the relative magnification is, so any residual optical aberrations will be magnified too, to the same degree. I don't know whether you will be able to fit a 12 mm extension tube to the Voigtlander 20 mm rlens, and still be able to get an image at all, as it is a FF retrofocus lens. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.I thought so. It is a reason for me to do additional processing for images to be dispalyed on the web, and only use flash at high quality for now. That may help.
Except in the longer ranges and at MFD and closer (the latter with extension tubes IOW). At least, that is my experience.
As I mentioned, my experience is different than yours is. It is not a big impact, as in big big, but enough that I ended up selling my F/4 IS after experiencingthe results from my 135L, with and without extender and/or extension tubes close to MFD and even more close. I found I stopped using the zoom alltogether. I do realize that that isn't a fair comparison, zoom vs prime, but that is what happened to me anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. BTW, I was convinced, until that time, that I would never sell the 70-200 F/4L IS <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.No argument from me about this.
I've seen a comparison somewhere, where people did complain about it. The Canon F/4s don't have any breathing to speak of, AFAIK, and the F/2.8s have a little, but that is within the 5% FL tolerance anyway, so not really a problem. The Nikon goes to 165 mm or thereabouts if I am not mistaken, when fully zoomed in and at MFD, which is considerable indeed.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
The Nikon goes towards 135mm actually, depending on whichever formula one uses to calculate it.
Problem with all used formulas is that they say all Canon 70-200 lenses (and the old ones from Nikon, Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, the Sony's and so on) all reduce focal length at MFD, just not to the extent of the Nikon VRII and now the new Sigma.
But either all those formulas are inaccurate, or focal length is NOT linked to field of view.
Because, with all Canon 70-200's (both f4's and f2.8's), while according to the formulas the FL decreases, in effect the field of view gets smaller/more narrow (not only with those Canons... with all 70/80-200's I mentioned).
Puzzling!