70mm or 70mm ?

[JerryPH]

Well, at the distances shot with these lenses in this thread, the exact focal length would not be a huge contributing factor, but I'd not mind visiting that site you mention.

BTW, even coming from a Nikon guy... that Canon 50 1.2 is one uber sweet lens.

 

[table1349]

Haven't been able to find it yet, but I will keep looking. Some of the differences in the listed focal length and the true focal length was pretty dramatic. Around a 10mm difference or so in some case between the true focal length and the actual focal length.

 

[choudhrysaab]

one even looks further than the other so the first one looks like its taken at a further distance than the 2nd shot. if 70mm is exactly 70mm without changing your spot then shouldn't both pix have the same "view" ... looking at the background of the shot. also like JerryPH mentioned about saturation etc. is different.

 

[table1349]

For the life of me I can't find that link. I found it the first time by accident with some google search I was doing and wasn't smart enough to bookmark it. Ill keep looking though, it was interesting how the manufactures crimped their number. The biggest crimp was of course in the P&S listings. Big surprise hun?

 

[Dwig]

70mm or 70mm ?

Neither. Its an almost certainty that both pictures were taken at focal lengths other than 70mm.

The marked focal lengths on lenses are not very precise. The standard precision for prime lenses is -+5%, and for zooms -+10%. Many manufacturers try to hold zooms closer to the -+5% accuracy.

Generally the wide limit of a zoom is longer than marked and the long limit is shorter. The 24-70 could very likely be only 63-66mm at its maximum and the 70-200 is likey something in the range of 74-77mm at its widest.

 

[spudgunr]

The color differences are interesting for sure... (though easily explained by rolling fog as mentioned above)

However, that shipped moved a lot, that, or you did. It may have looked the same, but look at the end of the ship..In the top one it is about the 3rd tall building from the left, in the bottom it is in the middle of the buildings. Same for the distance from the land, in the top there is a big gap between the end of the ship and the land shown, in the 2nd there is NO gap. The ship moved, end of story.

 

[KmH]

I've done the same experiment wit my 24-70 and 70-200 and because I had the camera on a tripod, the results were for all intents impossible to tell apart without looking at the EXIF.

Have any filters on the lenses? Did the lighting conditions change? Any fog in the area? If no in both cases, I think you just discovered which lens works better for you at this focal length. I am surprised at the amount of difference in contrast and saturation, though.

Well the fog was on the move, a bank rolling through. We did swing some on the anchor chain.

And there's the answer for the difference between the 2 shots. 2 camera locations.

 

[Mike_E]

Your 70-200mm doesn't go all the way down to 70mm or your 24-70 doesn't go all the way up.

 

[DeadEye]

Took a look at the radar.

City is 2.8 nautical miles away.

Subject ship is .76 nm away.

Anchor + 200 feet chain + 400 feet ship



The yellow anchor swing circle has a 600 foot radius.

You can see how a minor swing of 100 feet will change the city line.