trenchmonkey wrote:
Dude, couldn't care less about "breathing" I'm 30-50 yds out 99% of the time.
Jeeze, your short distance is my long distance 90% of the time...
But I don't really care about the focus breathing much either. I only noticed it when measuring the MFD @ 600mm... and yes, I intend/hope to use it close to that.
FWIW, the near lamppost in the video is at ~ 100ft/35yds. And the lens exhibits focus breathing throughout the entire focal range, not just at short distances. I'm not trying to make a big deal of it, all of the long zooms currently available exhibit similar performance.
sk66 wrote:
I'm not trying to make a big deal of it, all of the long zooms currently available exhibit similar performance.
Well not all and focus breathing like the 70-200II showed or the current 120-300 shows was/is a big deal.
For a long zoom with a kind pricetag I take it for just being one of the props of it.
It's so to speak a package deal and looking at the results Will is showing here (too me) currently the best in this class
Thern wrote:
Well not all and focus breathing like the 70-200II showed or the current 120-300 shows was/is a big deal.
All of the 150-600 options show similar focus breathing being around 500mm @MFD, and the 200-500 is around 400mm @MFD (from what I have found online). My 120-300 is around 240mm @ MFD (C version)... my 70-200II is probably the worst of the bunch that I own personally, but it also has a shorter MFD.
I think focus breathing is a more significant factor with shorter lenses because any losses are a greater percentage off of the maximum/reported FL. But just as relevant is how the lens will be used... if it won't be used for shorter distances then it really doesn't matter much at all.
sk66 wrote:
All of the 150-600 options show similar focus breathing being around 500mm @MFD, and the 200-500 is around 400mm @MFD (from what I have found online). My 120-300 is around 240mm @ MFD (C version)... my 70-200II is probably the worst of the bunch that I own personally, but it also has a shorter MFD.
I think focus breathing is a more significant factor with shorter lenses because any losses are a greater percentage off of the maximum/reported FL. But just as relevant is how the lens will be used... if it won't be used for shorter distances then it really doesn't matter much at all....Show more →
Well at first you said ALL long zooms which isn't true, now you say all 150-600s which is true
Nonetheless one of the nice props of this very lens is the reproduction ratio of 1:3.3 vs 1:4.5 for the 200-500 and 1:5 of the 150-600S so I'd expect it to suffer less of focus breathing.
These are excellent. I may have to start saving for this. Can you find something interest in the "macro" realm and show us a good maximum magnification shot? The 50-500 OS was around 1:3 at 200-225mm, this is supposed to be similar an I'd love to see that! Great shots.
woos wrote:
These are excellent. I may have to start saving for this. Can you find something interest in the "macro" realm and show us a good maximum magnification shot? The 50-500 OS was around 1:3 at 200-225mm, this is supposed to be similar an I'd love to see that! Great shots.
Be glad to, probably tomorrow as my "dance card" is pretty full for today.
IIRC it's @210mm at the 200mm lock position. Thx!
Looks damn sharp at MFD to me. Thanks man! The snowman has lots of detail. Perfect all around lens. I gotta start saving (damn cat took up over a thousand dollars in vet bills last month, aghh!)
Sure one may not compare eventual quality with a true macrolens but looking at the pics and exposure parameters my assessment would be 'useable for sure' but I have to ask Will.
No offence but why those high ISOs?
It makes a true and honest assessment of the lensperformance in this respect very hard.
Well today is D-day for my daughter sure she will accompany me this evening on my evening surveillance with her own Monkeylens
woos wrote:
Looks damn sharp at MFD to me. Thanks man! The snowman has lots of detail. Perfect all around lens. I gotta start saving (damn cat took up over a thousand dollars in vet bills last month, aghh!)
Sorry to hear about your cat...hope it's on the mend!
Thern wrote:
Sure one may not compare eventual quality with a true macrolens but looking at the pics and exposure parameters my assessment would be 'useable for sure' but I have to ask Will.
No offence but why those high ISOs?
It makes a true and honest assessment of the lensperformance in this respect very hard.
Well today is D-day for my daughter sure she will accompany me this evening on my evening surveillance with her own Monkeylens
Ahhh, the high ISO's come from shooting a "slow" lens at the kitchen table.
I'll fire off a few outdoors for a more reasonable assessment. I was cooking dinner...
Hope your Daughter enjoys her present.
We hit it off right out of the box! 
