[Doundounba]

As mentioned by others, focus breathing will affect working distance, so it can make a significant difference when shooting critters that can run/fly away. Focus breathing also affects the effectiveness of using diopters on top of a lens in order to increase magnification. The shorter the effective focal length, the less effect the diopter will have. So, for instance, I would expect the Irix 150mm Macro to offer barely any advantage in maximum magnification over the D-FA 100mm when both are coupled with a Raynox DCR-250, because the Irix has significantly more focus breathing when it reaches MFD, so that its effective focal length at MFD isn't that much greater than that of the D-FA 100mm. Or at least, it would offer much less advantage than the 150mm vrs 100mm advertised focal lengths would lead you to believe. Sometimes when using diopters, it's actually worth checking the magnification at both ends of the focus throw (infinity and MFD). Especially with strong diopters, sometimes infinity vrs MFD makes surprisingly little difference in magnification.

To come back to the thread topic, the new 70-210 looks like a very fine option for whole-body close-ups of large insects. But I didn't realize that the 55-300mm PLM also reaches 0.3:1 magnification. That's actually respectable.

[SSGGeezer]

To come back to the thread topic, the new 70-210 looks like a very fine option for whole-body close-ups of large insects. But I didn't realize that the 55-300mm PLM also reaches 0.3:1 magnification. That's actually respectable.

I was quite amazed at how the PLM looked as a near Macro lens. It is a great all rounder!. My Old Vivitar Series 1 28-105 is Macro/close focus @28mm so it seems a bit different from what @Wheatfield was describing earlier in the thread, but I suspect that that difference was a design choice, way back when. I don't need this new 70-210, but it really looks nice so far.

[pres589]

The important take-away is, if you're a snake needing a good headshot, have your portrait taken with a 180mm Macro lens and a Pentax K-1.

[sbh]

Maximum magnification with a prime will be at minimum focus distance. With a zoom, it generally will be at its maximum focal length and minimum focus distance. I’m sure there are exceptions, but in a half century of playing with cameras I have yet to see any variance from this. The exception would require the zoom lens to have a much longer minimum focus at the long end than the short one, something that might be the case in a very cheap zoom point and shoot, but not a decent quality SLR zoom, which is what we are discussing here.
Focus breathing gradually shortens the focal length of the lens as the focus is brought towards the close end of the range. It’s not something that happens all of a sudden when the lens is taken off infinity. This is why I shrug when the subject comes up. When I want maximum focal length, it is invariably when the lens is at or near infinity focus. By the time focus breathing is something other than negligible, I can move a couple of inches closer to whatever I am taking a picture of to make up for it.

Edit: Back in the day, most “macro” zooms would only close focus at their longest zoom setting.

You're missing some valid usecases if you assume that the max zoom is only used at near infinity. Let's say you have camouflaged yourself in the woods and finally the bird comes to the anticipated spot directly in front of you just 2-3 meters away. The bird is small and you can't fill the frame. Now you wish the lens had true 250mm.
Well, we could still move forward a few inches but then the subject won't be any closer

Long focal ranges are useful at any distances. A walk-around example would be a visit at the zoo and you want to get some close-ups of lizards, spiders snakes, butterflies etc. They are usually not far away but zooming in makes sense because you can't move closer.

---

Last edited by sbh; 02-18-2020 at 10:51 AM.

[Wheatfield]

You're missing some valid usecases if you assume that the max zoom is only used at near infinity. Let's say you have camouflaged yourself in the woods and finally the bird comes to the anticipated spot directly in front of you just 2-3 meters away. The bird is small and you can't fill the frame. Now you wish the lens had true 250mm.
.

I would say that you have chosen your spot unwisely.

[bxf]

I would say that you have chosen your spot unwisely.

Yes, his instructions to the bird were not sufficiently precise

[BigMackCam]

I would say that you have chosen your spot unwisely.

Whilst that did make me laugh (thanks ), I have to agree that it's not always possible to move closer to a subject - lest one falls into a river, off the edge of a cliff, onto a race track or into the firm grip of event security goons, for example

I guess we all have our different use cases. I rarely use my longer lenses at distances even close to infinity... generally, I'm looking for reach / narrow field of view at fairly short distances - a few metres to a few tens of metres. That's where focus breathing - especially with the DA**60-250 - has been especially troublesome to me. Thankfully, it looks like the 70-210 is particularly good in this respect...

[Wheatfield]

Whilst that did make me laugh (thanks ), I have to agree that it's not always possible to move closer to a subject - lest one falls into a river, off the edge of a cliff, onto a race track or into the firm grip of event security goons, for example

I guess we all have our different use cases. I rarely use my longer lenses at distances even close to infinity... generally, I'm looking for reach / narrow field of view at fairly short distances - a few metres to a few tens of metres. That's where focus breathing - especially with the DA**60-250 - has been especially troublesome to me. Thankfully, it looks like the 70-210 is particularly good in this respect...

I suspect that a lifetime of eschewing zoom lenses has made me rather blasé on the subject. You never know, I might be back here in a few months crabbing about the 70-210 because it bit my behind by shortening its focal length when I was focusing on something.
Out of curiosity, is there a page of charts showing the effects of focus breathing at various distances? I get the feeling that a lot of people will figure that as soon as the focus is moved off infinity that the focal length instantly shortens a lot.
I rather imagine that it is much more gradual off infinity, and increasing as focus approaches minimum. I envision a graph with a long shallow toe that starts to rise quickly in the last third of the focus range would be more real.

[normhead]

Whilst that did make me laugh (thanks ), I have to agree that it's not always possible to move closer to a subject - lest one falls into a river, off the edge of a cliff, onto a race track or into the firm grip of event security goons, for example

I guess we all have our different use cases. I rarely use my longer lenses at distances even close to infinity... generally, I'm looking for reach / narrow field of view at fairly short distances - a few metres to a few tens of metres. That's where focus breathing - especially with the DA**60-250 - has been especially troublesome to me. Thankfully, it looks like the 70-210 is particularly good in this respect...

It definitely puts us DA*60-250 users in a quandary.

If it had been available when I broke my DA*60-250, I would have bought it as companion to that lens. I bought the DA*200 and now have the DA 55-300. It's a crowded field for the new comer to stand out in. We already have great IQ (60-250), great AF and light weight and also just as good magnification (DA 55-300 PLM) and great primes at 100 macro and DA*200 2.8. It's really left with only a tight spot to try and elbow into.

[BigMackCam]

I suspect that a lifetime of eschewing zoom lenses has made me rather blasé on the subject. You never know, I might be back here in a few months crabbing about the 70-210 because it bit my behind by shortening its focal length when I was focusing on something.

The 70-210 allegedly has a focal length of ~175mm at the long end when focused at MFD, which is "best in class" so far as I'm aware. Compare to the 60-250 which only manages 125mm, and that's focused from 15cm further away. On that basis, I don't expect you'll notice the slight shortening of focal length with your lovely new lens...

Out of curiosity, is there a page of charts showing the effects of focus breathing at various distances? I get the feeling that a lot of people will figure that as soon as the focus is moved off infinity that the focal length instantly shortens a lot.
I rather imagine that it is much more gradual off infinity, and increasing as focus approaches minimum. I envision a graph with a long shallow toe that starts to rise quickly in the last third of the focus range would be more real.

Sadly, I'm aware of no such chart

[normhead]

The 70-210 allegedly has a focal length of ~175mm at the long end when focused at MFD, which is "best in class" so far as I'm aware. Compare to the 60-250 which only manages 125mm, and that's focused from 15cm further away. On that basis, I don't expect you'll notice the slight shortening of focal length with your lovely new lens...



Sadly, I'm aware of no such chart

The magnification is a great rule of thumb. .15 for the DA*60-250, .32 for the FDA 70-200. To me, magnification is the issue, not focal length. IF i have closer to 1:1 magnification at minimum focussing distance, I don't really care what the focal length is. Magnification is always listed in the lens reviews. At infinity the opposite is true. Then I want to know the focal length and field of view.

[BigMackCam]

The magnification is a great rule of thumb. .15 for the DA*60-250, .32 for the FDA 70-200. To me, magnification is the issue, not focal length. IF i have closer to 1:1 magnification at minimum focussing distance, I don't really care what the focal length is. Magnification is always listed in the lens reviews. At infinity the opposite is true. Then I want to know the focal length and field of view.

That summarises it perfectly, Norm. Thank you.

That said, Bill's idea of a chart that shows effective focal length at distances between MFD and infinity would be a cool idea. I wish that were part of the published lens specs...

[BigMackCam]

It definitely puts us DA*60-250 users in a quandary.

If it had been available when I broke my DA*60-250, I would have bought it as companion to that lens. I bought the DA*200 and now have the DA 55-30; 0. It's a crowded field for the new comer to stand out in. We already have great IQ (60-250), great AF and light weight and also just as good magnification (DA 55-300 PLM) and great primes at 100 macro and DA*200 2.8. It's really left with only a tight spot to try and elbow into.

As I see it:

- DA 55-300 f/4-5.8; cheap, compact / light, decent IQ, slow-ish variable aperture, noisy / (sometimes) slow AF, negligible focus breathing, HD version is WR, APS-C
- DA 55-300 f/4.5-6.3 PLM; cheap, compact / light, decent+ IQ, slower variable aperture, silent / fast / accurate AF, minor focus breathing, WR, APS-C
- DA*60-250 f/4; upper-mid price when discounted (high otherwise), chunky / heavy, excellent IQ, constant aperture, silent / slow / accurate AF, fierce focus breathing at shorter range, proper AW sealing, star-lens build quality, APS-C (full frame with modification only)
- D FA70-210 f/4; high price (for now), chunky / heavy (though not in class), excellent IQ, constant aperture, silent / fast / accurate AF, minor focus breathing, WR, proper full frame design

The value propositions for each are as diverse as the features.

Both the screw-drive and PLM 55-300 models win on cost, size & weight, and maximum "reach" - but the compromise is image quality and slow variable aperture.

The 60-250 is a star lens in build quality and optical performance, and the only truly AW lens of the group. It's let down by focus breathing, SDM focusing speed / reliability concerns, and the need for modification if used on full frame - but otherwise it remains the best choice for all weather shooting, IMHO.

The 70-210 has optical performance, focus speed and minimal focus breathing in its favour. It's WR rather than AW designated, but this will be good enough for many users... and best of all, it's a genuine full frame lens. Overall, I think it's the best choice for full frame users and possibly the most versatile for both formats. Right now, though, you pay for that versatility.

[SJA]

A quick search didn't reveal the answer, so sorry if I'm asking something that's been answered, but do we know when this will be available in the US?

[c.a.m]

do we know when this will be available in the US?

I'm not sure whether the lens is available widely in the US, but at least one retailer shows it "in stock, ready to ship":

https://www.adorama.com/ipx70210.html?

- Craig