Example of Dpreview and the "UN disease."

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 25, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    The UN disease is seen where people use overly diplomatic language
    which is designed to water-down problems to describe clearly serious
    situations. The situation being that the new $2600 Nikon 70-200mm
    lens when set at 200mm and used on short distance shots is actually
    something like a 115mm in-terms of its true magnification.
    Here is how Dpreview words it:

    "Naturally, though, all is not perfect, and there are a couple of
    catches. The most obvious is the marked increase in angle of view on
    focusing closer (otherwise known as focus breathing), which means that
    despite the closer minimum focus of the new lens, its maximum
    magnification is rather lower. This has implications for users who
    frequently find themselves shooting at 200mm and relatively close
    distances, who may need to consider carefully whether this behavior
    might be a deal-breaker (you won't be able to replicate the tight
    close-ups possible with the older lens). However we can't help but
    feel that for most shooters it simply won't be a problem; indeed in
    many cases it will be more than offset by the dramatically improved
    close-range image quality."

    This is typical because although they acknowledge the problem, they
    word it softly and immediately try to deflect the seriousness of it
    with a benefit that has nothing to do with the problem. To really
    relate it though, what good is a superbly sharp 115mm lens if your
    goal is a close-up where your options of getting closer are limited?
    RichA, Feb 25, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:30:23 -0800, RichA wrote:

    > The UN disease is seen where people use overly diplomatic language which
    > is designed to water-down problems to describe clearly serious
    > situations. The situation being that the new $2600 Nikon 70-200mm lens
    > when set at 200mm and used on short distance shots is actually something
    > like a 115mm in-terms of its true magnification.


    'True magnification' is not measured in focal length. Nikon's 60mm, 105mm
    and 200mm Micro lenses all offer 1:1 magnification.

    And where did you get the 115mm-figure?

    "By our reckoning, at closest focus the image field is about 1.2x larger
    in each direction, making the effective focal length roughly 160mm at
    1.4m."
    http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vrii_n15/page5.asp

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
    Robert Spanjaard, Feb 25, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:02:43 -0600, Rich wrote:

    >> And where did you get the 115mm-figure?
    >>
    >> "By our reckoning, at closest focus the image field is about 1.2x
    >> larger in each direction, making the effective focal length roughly
    >> 160mm at 1.4m."
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vrii_n15/page5.asp
    >>
    >>

    > I read the 115mm on another test site, but I don't understand Dpreview's
    > "roughly" 160mm at 1.4m. Is it that hard to measure?


    Is it important enough to measure?



    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
    Robert Spanjaard, Feb 26, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 26, 11:28 am, Robert Spanjaard <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:02:43 -0600, Rich wrote:
    > >> And where did you get the 115mm-figure?

    >
    > >> "By our reckoning, at closest focus the image field is about 1.2x
    > >> larger in each direction, making the effective focal length roughly
    > >> 160mm at 1.4m."
    > >>http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vrii_n15/page5.asp

    >
    > > I read the 115mm on another test site, but I don't understand Dpreview's
    > > "roughly" 160mm at 1.4m.  Is it that hard to measure?

    >
    > Is it important enough to measure?
    >
    > --
    > Regards, Robert                                      http://www.arumes.com


    Obviously, yes.
    RichA, Feb 26, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    Anon wrote:
    > All long lens have a shorter focal length at their nearest
    > distance. The 70~200 is only 200mm at infinity.


    Not all but it's a common approach for complex modern retrofocus
    designs. The result of moving elements & groups rather than the whole
    assembly so there is less weight on the AF mechanism.
    Paul Furman, Feb 27, 2010
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Roman Bystrianyk

    Long Computer Use May Be Linked to Eye Disease

    Roman Bystrianyk, Nov 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    657
    The One
    Nov 17, 2004
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    561
    Winfield
    Oct 23, 2007
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    776
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Antivirus Cure Worse Than Disease?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 13, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    328
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Aug 13, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page