Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pforsell" data-source="post: 510460" data-attributes="member: 7240">Of the two lenses in question the II version is better in all aspects but one. The newer lens suffers from excessive focus breathing, meaning the focal length shortens a lot when focusing closer. When the subject is at about 10 feet distance, the lens is 140 mm at maximum zoom, not 200 mm.The older lens is better in this aspect, but inferior in all others. I contemplated with this and decided to keep the old lens for portraits and bought a 200mm f/2 VR instead of a new zoom. The old oft-repeated &quot;rule&quot; of using shutter speed equal to 1/focal length should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Ansel Adams himself did tests 50 years ago and determined that for critically sharp hand held images with a 35mm film camera he needs 5x that speed. And that with the old blurry lenses and grainy blurry films of that era. That means 1/1000s with a 200mm lens on a full frame body. With super high resolution digital, maybe even faster!The &quot;rule&quot; is just a myth with no apparent original source (I can't find any, can you?) and should be forgotten ASAP instead of being parroted over and over again. It is too easy to remember and that's the reason it keeps on living. It may very well be good enough for a few soccer moms with a 18-500 coke bottle superzoom, but not nearly high enough for quality work.Source:Ansel AdamsThe CameraLittle, Brown &amp; Co., New Yorkpp. 115-116</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pforsell, post: 510460, member: 7240"] Of the two lenses in question the II version is better in all aspects but one. The newer lens suffers from excessive focus breathing, meaning the focal length shortens a lot when focusing closer. When the subject is at about 10 feet distance, the lens is 140 mm at maximum zoom, not 200 mm. The older lens is better in this aspect, but inferior in all others. I contemplated with this and decided to keep the old lens for portraits and bought a 200mm f/2 VR instead of a new zoom. The old oft-repeated "rule" of using shutter speed equal to 1/focal length should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Ansel Adams himself did tests 50 years ago and determined that for critically sharp hand held images with a 35mm film camera he needs [B]5x[/B] that speed. And that with the old blurry lenses and grainy blurry films of that era. That means 1/1000s with a 200mm lens on a full frame body. With super high resolution digital, maybe even faster! The "rule" is just a myth with no apparent original source (I can't find any, can you?) and should be forgotten ASAP instead of being parroted over and over again. It is too easy to remember and that's the reason it keeps on living. It may very well be good enough for a few soccer moms with a 18-500 coke bottle superzoom, but not nearly high enough for quality work. Source: Ansel Adams The Camera Little, Brown & Co., New York [B]pp. 115-116[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification