10-15-2010, 05:58 PM
I am beginning to regret posting...
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1287137335' post='3639']
To me is seems very strange to compare both lenses, they have nothing in common. [/quote]
I explained that in my original post.
I understand the mechanism. I thought perhaps posting a simplified scale for such lenses as part of the testing might be useful and something users might be interested in.
Is that why people come to read the tests on the net? Kind of the point of reading a review is not having to buy a lens first.
I am familiar with the concept of TC, yes.
No. Sorry, gotta call it. Optical quality of the TC matters a great deal.
Perhaps to him. I am not interested in 1.4.
Yes, he clearly implied it. I will quote to make it simpler:
[quote name='genotypewriter']
And if you care about IQ, why bother with zooms?[/quote]
And please do not argue with me that he simply meant that primes have better quality than zooms. Firstly, it greatly depends on the optical quality of the individual lens; secondly, he was referring to a specific zoom in the lines just above the material I quoted.
You may look up the tests of this lens on this site and compare to some primes in that range and be surprised by results.
Last but not least, suggesting nonchalantly that if anyone care about IQ one would never buy a zoom is ludicrous. I bit my tongue in my previous answer, but since you have joined in the choir of the same style of posts, I have to say it - read the reviews on this very site. Modern zooms can be of extremely high quality, better in fact than primes of not so many years ago.
Another suggestion that it is "better to get the other lens that doesn't need the TC" is also a revelation to me. Pity my dog ate the $8500 difference yesterday. I will have to chastise him.
Perhaps I should have posted a disclaimer at the top:
* I am 50+
* I have been photographing for the past 40 years, including professionally for a while (many years ago)
* I am not a moron
I guess I will just keep reading the reviews here.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1287137335' post='3639']
To me is seems very strange to compare both lenses, they have nothing in common. [/quote]
I explained that in my original post.
Quote:On the focus breathing, that goes gradually.
I understand the mechanism. I thought perhaps posting a simplified scale for such lenses as part of the testing might be useful and something users might be interested in.
Quote:Photozone does not test this, it is easy for you yourself to test.
Is that why people come to read the tests on the net? Kind of the point of reading a review is not having to buy a lens first.
Quote:About TC's, they all do the same.
I am familiar with the concept of TC, yes.
Quote:So, it does not matter all that much which 2x TC you use, you will see a quite similar loss in resolution from the same lens as you crop its resolving power
No. Sorry, gotta call it. Optical quality of the TC matters a great deal.
Quote:So saying that it makes more sense to compare it with an 1.4x TC is a sound suggestion
Perhaps to him. I am not interested in 1.4.
Quote:And I did not see him say the 70-200 has poor optical quality.
Yes, he clearly implied it. I will quote to make it simpler:
[quote name='genotypewriter']
And if you care about IQ, why bother with zooms?[/quote]
And please do not argue with me that he simply meant that primes have better quality than zooms. Firstly, it greatly depends on the optical quality of the individual lens; secondly, he was referring to a specific zoom in the lines just above the material I quoted.
You may look up the tests of this lens on this site and compare to some primes in that range and be surprised by results.
Last but not least, suggesting nonchalantly that if anyone care about IQ one would never buy a zoom is ludicrous. I bit my tongue in my previous answer, but since you have joined in the choir of the same style of posts, I have to say it - read the reviews on this very site. Modern zooms can be of extremely high quality, better in fact than primes of not so many years ago.
Another suggestion that it is "better to get the other lens that doesn't need the TC" is also a revelation to me. Pity my dog ate the $8500 difference yesterday. I will have to chastise him.
Perhaps I should have posted a disclaimer at the top:
* I am 50+
* I have been photographing for the past 40 years, including professionally for a while (many years ago)
* I am not a moron
I guess I will just keep reading the reviews here.