Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 77 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 52 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 767 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 182 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
I agree fully, and this is the same logic to using an "L" plate with ARCA Swiss mount....to maintain balance.
@Msmoto: I agree on possibility of misinterpretation, but then... A lot of our posts could also be misinterpreted, couldn't it? Anyway, the Manfrotto idea I posted some posts ago, could be a solution, if one doesn't like to align to tripods or simply has no space to do so. And so far I haven't read of broken bayonets but with enough bad luck anything can happen. I lost a bit of interest for the D600, on Friday the price went up 20% here in Switzerland. Maybe Nikon's sponsoring battle prices against Canon has been over at the end of January?
And now I gonna take this fabulous lens and take some shots with it, without tripod but with lots of fun
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=12226
Suggests the mount is less sturdy than a pro body.
Al this discussion is really how we like to have our cameras feel in our hand. And for some, hand holding is almost always the rule unless the lens is a super tele or PC lens.
@ JJ_SO
Go grab some nice photos and post on PAD...I think the new 70-200mm f/4 is going to prove to be one of Nikon's best.
So, if you want to vent some steam, grab your sneakers and go for a run. You're implying that I'm stupid, but the fact that you don't see the link between breathing and a supposed 70-135mm proves you're no reference when it comes to brains.
Anyway: your testimony suggest indeed that it would be fine under most (normal) uses. Done arguing with stupidity.
PS. My name isn't "Dude"
Breathing, in the context of a lens, being the change in focal lens as the focus distance changes. I hope you will now understand. Or is a sentence with more than 5 words a bit difficult?
And you're right, we don't have to believe everything we see on the internet. But the fact is, I don't believe you. See, making progress.
Anyway, Ghostrider out.
(Original quote "...the fact that you don't see the link between breathing and a supposed 70-135mm...")
I fully understand the physical movement of the air inside a lens as the moving parts change position, but the person who brought this up suggests a link between this and the fact that certain lenses have different focal lengths focused at infinity, or at a closer distance.
What do you think - is there indeed a link?
Now, you may, if you want, interpret what I didn't say and invent that I said it, but all you're doing is being ridiculous.
You need a link, big boy? Try googling "70-200 focus breathing"...
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got post-processing to do, since the weather out here is uninteresting...
PS: what's next? when we will say that the 400mm f/2.8 allows more light than the 500mm f/4 you'll say than neither are light and that we are stupid?
The 70-200 f/2.8 has got an angle of view at closer distance that is more like a 135 mm lens than a 200 mm lens. To me that would mean that if I already own a 135 mm lens (e.g. the f/2) and I wanted to buy the 70-200 for being more flexible at portrait photography I would gain flexibility towards wider shots. But as the 200 mm at closer distance (e.g. head shots) is more like a 135 mm lens I would not gain anything here.
There is a nice video from "that nikon guy" about focus breathing. I don't have the link at hand but it should be easy to google it.
It's interesting, to me, to see that in less than 40 words a definition can be explained without the need to resort to name calling ('Dude', 'Big boy' come to mind) - worth remembering...
Since when is "dude" an insult? Your unwarranted sarcasm earned you the big boy
Btw I don't have a word for the movement of air in a lens (except for "movement of air" or "sucking air"). Possibly because, as you noted, it doesn't matter optically (at least until it sucks some dirt into your lens... I guess than can happen).
Anyway, many lenses "breathe". The 18-200mm is also a breather. The 105mm f/2.8G is supposedly a breather, but I must admit I never really noticed it.
I'd love to see what you've got. Moliere was off the charts.
Seems like the lighting was more hospitable than the Moliere...
Calculations indicate at a focal plane to subject distance of 2.032 m. the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II has an effective focal length of approximately 170mm.
The basis for this was a test using the AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D and a AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II, on a D4. The images are as follows:
If you like, you may do this yourself, or believe that after an hour of struggling, these figures are fairly accurate. In doing this project I also discovered at the 135mm setting the 70-200mm was also wider than the 135mm f/2.
@ Msmoto: could make sense that it is wider at 135mm. I guess the whole zoom range "compresses" towards 70mm while you focus closer. Still, I'll try both at the store, to see how it shows, even if it's suboptimal to try it in the store rather than using it for a day or two.
I dot have a question: how did you come to the effective 170mm? What are the calculations involved (if you want to explain, I might suggest you open up a thread for that...)
Is that a problem in photography? In most cases it is not and we should not worry about it. It does make things slightly more complicated in macro photography. You might need to recompose when you changed focus. Also when you do focus stacking. I never did this but I have read that most focus stacking software takes care of this.
Another field where the focus breathing is not wanted is video (e.g. when you change focus back and forth from a person in the foreground to someone in the background).
From what I understood so far photo lenses are generally not designed not to show focus breathing - it would make them much more expensive. There are lenses for cinematography that are designed not to show focus breathing.
Anyways, I would not spend too much time on this. It is something most lenses show more or less and most people would not even know. Especially with zoom lenses you usually zoom until your frame is correct and not for a special focal length...
However, the 70-200 when set to 135mm, is clearly wider than the 135mm f/2. An interesting point, when one looks at lens patents, often, a 200mm lens may actually be 196mm or some ether actual focal length. The "name" is only an approximation.
The point of this is to demonstrate at a subject to film plane distance of roughly 2 meters, the 70-200 at 200 is only a 170mm focal length. If this 15% is enough to turn someone off...well, I suppose they need to get a 200mm f/2 then. Enough money will solve all the problems....
Thus, with a 200mmm focal length, as one gets closer, the maximum aperture cannot be changed, thus the only way to compensate is to effectively shorten the focal length, and that is why the 200mm position when focused at 2 meters away, is only a 170mm lens.
Hey, these Nikon folks may know something...I would hope we have an optical engineer who will comment on this.