Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sigma 70-200 OS available from July 23
#21
[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.
#22
[quote name='Brightcolours' date='18 July 2010 - 11:38 AM' timestamp='1279445935' post='1091']

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]

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.

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 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='Big Grin' />.

Quote: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.

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='Big Grin' />.

Quote:Well, you do see downsized images, and those do show lower sharpness.

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.
Quote: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.

Except in the longer ranges and at MFD and closer (the latter with extension tubes IOW). At least, that is my experience.

Quote: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.

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='Big Grin' />. 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='Big Grin' />.

Quote: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.

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
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 ....
#23
[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='Big Grin' />.



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='Big Grin' />.



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='Big Grin' />. 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='Big Grin' />.



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!
#24
[quote name='Brightcolours' date='18 July 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1279463757' post='1099']

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!

[/quote]

The field of view is supposed to narrow when focusing closer, not because the total image circle doesn't cover the total lens AoV anymore, but because you are essentially cropping a smaller and smaller part of the image circle. At 1:1 the image circle actually is supposed to fit 4 total image sizes, while you only see the centre part of it (hence the two stop light loss at 1:1).



However, when a zoom lens suffers from breathing, the image circle doesn't get bigger as it is supposed to, when focusing closer, and hence the FL is not kept the same, resulting in the magnification also to be less than expected.



BTW, this is something that generally happens with IF prime lenses too, although with those generally careful attention is paid to magnification factor, f..e., with the Canon 100 macros, and the EF-S 60 macro. I did the calculations once, and the EF-S 60 macro becomes a 50 mm macro at 1:1, the 100 mm non-IS macro a 73 mm or 75 mm macro or thereabouts (can't remember the exact number for this one).



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 ....
#25
It seems they are a bit behind their own schedule. Anybody seen any news about the release?



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#26
For now it seems like a phantom lens, nobody has it and it's very pricey for a Sigma lens.



I found [url="http://www.dnet24.de/product_info.php?ref=95&products_id=0000000664103"]here[/url] a Canon version.
#27
Good news, it finally seems to arrive in stores. dnet must have received a delivery today or yesterday.



So, let's hope the Nikon version follows soon ... I sold the 70-200 VR II on Saturday and need something to replace it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#28
You sold VRII? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> I'm surprised.



I don't expect this Sigma for Nikon very soon, we will see Tokina 16-28 on shelves than it. This Sigma and 85 F1,4 are indeed phantom lenses.
#29
The Sigma 70-200 OS is now available from Fotemia in canon mount. Klaus, if you test it, can you please report how it fares ergonmically? When I see the zoom ring being position so far in the front I fear, that this lens may not be very comfortable to use.
#30
Does anybody has anything on this lens? Especially on Nikon mount. I am dying to know how this behaves in your test.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)