Originally posted by Rondec Is that true? I looked at the Z 70-200 f2.8 and it says it has a maximum magnification of 0.2x at 0.5 meters while the Pentax DFA *70-200 f2.8 has a maximum magnification of 0.13x and 1.2 meters. I'm no math wizard, but that doesn't feel very different. Maybe the focal lengths at 10 feet are dramatically different, but I think Nikon made a lot of noise about something that doesn't turn out to be that much different from past lenses.
There are some terms missing from the conversation. One is the field of view expressed in degrees. Until you have the numbers based on Field View, you don't know what you're talking about. Magnification is a good indicator, Field of View is the real deal.
The simple lens will alway present a consistent field of view across it's entire focus range. Any corrected or internal focus lens will alter the field of view as the point you focus on changes. What people are asking for in avoiding focus breathing is a corrected lens that emulates the performance of a simple lens.
All would be obvious, if manufacturers included the field of view at 10 feet, as well as infinity.
That being said, it was quite the shock after paying $1400 for my DA*60-250 to get so much less magnification shooting form approximately 10 feet, than I got with my Sigma 70-300. But as mentioned, the 1.4 TC got me back in the game. However, the DA*s images are so much higher res, it didn't take me long to get over it. To me it was an absolutely grievous source of outrage. These days it's not something I even think about. It comes down to "do you like the lens or don't you?," and I like the lens. So I happily put up with the focus breathing. You learn to work with the things you don't like to get what you want. If lenses that focus breath give me better IQ, I'll go with a lens that does focus breathing.
(Anticipate a response from someone who doesn't own a DA*60-250 telling me how good their copy of the Sigma 70-300 is. Every lens has it's champions.)