07-18-2010, 09:38 AM
[quote name='wim' date='18 July 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1279412921' post='1084']
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. [/quote]
I do not mind you saying that at all. And it does not matter if the 70-200 f4 L IS version does better or worse, they both have the same MFD and mag. factor, so if the non-IS does better, it still disproves the rubbish. Anyway, you are talking about "with extension tubes", not MFD normally. And you do have to switch off IS.
[quote name='wim' date='18 July 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1279412921' post='1084']
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.
[/quote]
I want the EF 24mm f1.4 USM II for that purpose. You can not use the TS-E 24L II with extension tubes, as even the 12mm extension tube pushes the subject past or against the front element. The TS-E 24mm must be shorter that the II version.
I also want to try the voigtlander 20mm for that purpose (with 12mm ext. tube), but not sure how it will behave come wise. I know my 12-24mm Tokina shows horrid coma with 12mm ext. tube.
[quote name='wim' date='18 July 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1279412921' post='1084']
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
[/quote]
Well, you do see downsized images, and those do show lower sharpness. Also, I use the lens wide open, and the 70-200 f4 L USM is not as sharp wide open as the 70-200 f4 L IS. And yes, the DOF is very very shallow. That is what I am after, shallow DOF and focus on colour and composition, if my images were about sharpness impression, I would stop down to f8 or f11.
But really, I can assure you that the sharpness does not get a big impact from MFD at all with this lens.
It is silly, people claiming the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II does better, as it really cannot even get close at MFD, because of the huge breathing. Especially since I have not seen even ONE comparison showing that. It is like saying, look, the Nikon does a tad better at 135mm than the Canon does at 200mm. Right.
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. [/quote]
I do not mind you saying that at all. And it does not matter if the 70-200 f4 L IS version does better or worse, they both have the same MFD and mag. factor, so if the non-IS does better, it still disproves the rubbish. Anyway, you are talking about "with extension tubes", not MFD normally. And you do have to switch off IS.
[quote name='wim' date='18 July 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1279412921' post='1084']
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.
[/quote]
I want the EF 24mm f1.4 USM II for that purpose. You can not use the TS-E 24L II with extension tubes, as even the 12mm extension tube pushes the subject past or against the front element. The TS-E 24mm must be shorter that the II version.
I also want to try the voigtlander 20mm for that purpose (with 12mm ext. tube), but not sure how it will behave come wise. I know my 12-24mm Tokina shows horrid coma with 12mm ext. tube.
[quote name='wim' date='18 July 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1279412921' post='1084']
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
[/quote]
Well, you do see downsized images, and those do show lower sharpness. Also, I use the lens wide open, and the 70-200 f4 L USM is not as sharp wide open as the 70-200 f4 L IS. And yes, the DOF is very very shallow. That is what I am after, shallow DOF and focus on colour and composition, if my images were about sharpness impression, I would stop down to f8 or f11.
But really, I can assure you that the sharpness does not get a big impact from MFD at all with this lens.
It is silly, people claiming the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II does better, as it really cannot even get close at MFD, because of the huge breathing. Especially since I have not seen even ONE comparison showing that. It is like saying, look, the Nikon does a tad better at 135mm than the Canon does at 200mm. Right.