Messages

151

Reviews / Re: Most Objective and Less Objective REVIEWER?

« on: April 08, 2013, 08:11:22 PM »

No more fuel to the fire, but just out of interest:

From the Digital Picture:

"Tamron 24-70mm VC Lens Image Quality - Take 4
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens
If you have been following this blog/new page, you know that I have been making a big effort to get good image quality results from the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens. This is currently the only full frame-compatible lens available in the 24-70mm focal length range with both an f/2.8 max aperture and Vibration Control - a combination that many of us find very attractive.
 
Evaluating this lens, as I hinted, has been very problematic. The first lens I bought had a serious image quality issue - Tamron wanted it back for analysis.
 
The second lens I bought performed well, but was noticeably softer on the right side - the side that shows in the site's ISO 12233 image quality tool. I suspected decentering and sent the lens to Tamron for repair/adjustment.
 
The lens came back from repair performing worse than before I sent it in. Tamron sent me a shipping label to take a second try at the repair.
 
The results from the second repair, the fourth test, are now found on the Tamron 24-70mm VC Lens Image Quality page. And, <drumroll>, they look very good!
 
We spent over a full week testing this lens model for the ISO 12233 chart test alone, but persistence has paid off ... I think we have an as-good-as-it-gets copy in our hands now. This process has not said good things about the quality control for this lens model, but again, the image quality looks very nice to me.
 
What is not looking good is this lens' AI Servo AF performance. This lens has not been able to accurately focus on subjects moving toward or away from the camera. One Shot AF has been working fine, so this lens has plenty of great uses available for it. More to come."

P.S.  I took a look through some of the ISO 12233 charts and compared them with the chief competition (Canon 24-70l II).  Wide open, I would give the edge at most focal lengths to the Canon (24mm is debatable and might go Tamron - 35mm strongly favors the Canon) although they are quite close.  Interestingly, stopped down to f/4, it would appear that this sample of the Tamron is sharper at all tested focal lengths.

Yes, I saw it too; interesting.  TDP also mentioned that the Tamron's had more issues with Servo AF.  Have you found that to be the case?  Nice pics with your Tamoron, BTW.

 I haven't, but, to be fair, I rarely shoot in a situation where I need critical speed like that.  I do shoot events (business, church, weddings, etc...) and haven't had any issue with it in those settings.  But that isn't the same as trying to track fast movement like sports.  I love the lens, myself.

152

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2

« on: April 08, 2013, 08:09:26 PM »

I agree it's a great little lens for the money. It's even quite handy for night photography..


Portencross Pier at night #2 [IMG_0637-0639_Manual-2]http:// by GammyKnee, on Flickr


Portencross Pier at night #3 [IMG_0634_Manual] by GammyKnee, on Flickr

Great images!

153

Reviews / Re: Most Objective and Less Objective REVIEWER?

« on: April 08, 2013, 05:34:09 PM »

No more fuel to the fire, but just out of interest:

From the Digital Picture:

"Tamron 24-70mm VC Lens Image Quality - Take 4
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens
If you have been following this blog/new page, you know that I have been making a big effort to get good image quality results from the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens. This is currently the only full frame-compatible lens available in the 24-70mm focal length range with both an f/2.8 max aperture and Vibration Control - a combination that many of us find very attractive.
 
Evaluating this lens, as I hinted, has been very problematic. The first lens I bought had a serious image quality issue - Tamron wanted it back for analysis.
 
The second lens I bought performed well, but was noticeably softer on the right side - the side that shows in the site's ISO 12233 image quality tool. I suspected decentering and sent the lens to Tamron for repair/adjustment.
 
The lens came back from repair performing worse than before I sent it in. Tamron sent me a shipping label to take a second try at the repair.
 
The results from the second repair, the fourth test, are now found on the Tamron 24-70mm VC Lens Image Quality page. And, <drumroll>, they look very good!
 
We spent over a full week testing this lens model for the ISO 12233 chart test alone, but persistence has paid off ... I think we have an as-good-as-it-gets copy in our hands now. This process has not said good things about the quality control for this lens model, but again, the image quality looks very nice to me.
 
What is not looking good is this lens' AI Servo AF performance. This lens has not been able to accurately focus on subjects moving toward or away from the camera. One Shot AF has been working fine, so this lens has plenty of great uses available for it. More to come."

P.S.  I took a look through some of the ISO 12233 charts and compared them with the chief competition (Canon 24-70l II).  Wide open, I would give the edge at most focal lengths to the Canon (24mm is debatable and might go Tamron - 35mm strongly favors the Canon) although they are quite close.  Interestingly, stopped down to f/4, it would appear that this sample of the Tamron is sharper at all tested focal lengths.

154

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2

« on: April 08, 2013, 02:45:59 PM »

To Dustin Abbott "I've had a real soft spot for this lens" .What is the speed of the autofocus 35 \ 2 over 40 \ 2.8. With ergonomics and IQ no questions. Interested in working on the aperture of the lenses (do not throw stones at me, the depth of field and commercial) 5.6-8.0. Die-English Google. I hope semantic clarity.

In my experience, the 40mm and the 35mm f/2 focus at about the same speed - the 40mm is quieter, however.  Other than being buzzy, the 35mm focuses fine and reasonably fast.  At 5.6-8 I found the lens to be very, very sharp.  The shot I am attaching here was shot at f/8.  I have attached a pretty good size image (2000px) so that you can look at it closely.  Even the corners look very good at that aperture.

155

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2

« on: April 08, 2013, 11:06:30 AM »

This is my most recent shot with the Sigma. There are others posted in that that thread, though not anything I would rave about.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11210.msg253982#msg253982

Great sharpness (that is clearly NOT the problem with the lens), but still, there is nothing particularly compelling about the ooF area.  It seems to lack the softness (and soft transition) that produces nice delineation between subject and background.  I don't know that the new 35mm f/2 IS is any better; there are so few images from it floating around yet.

156

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2

« on: April 08, 2013, 10:28:19 AM »

The Sigma will be as big as my Tamron 24-70VC, a lens that is far more versatile.

Great photos! The Sigma is not as big as the Tamron. I own both.

Canon says their lens is 3.1" in diameter and 2.5" long with a weight of 335g. (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_35mm_f_2_is_usm#Specifications)

Sigma says their lens is 3" in diameter and 3.7" long with a weight of 665g. (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/35mm-f14-dg-hsm-a)

Tamron says their 24-70 VC is 3.5" in diameter and 4.6" with a weight of 825g. long (http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/lineup/a007/specifications/index.html)

So, in terms of size the Sigma is a little over an inch longer than the lens you have though it weighs nearly double. The Tamron is a much bigger and feels that way when mounted on the camera.

Thanks for that info.  It is actually helpful to me.  I really want to see pictures of the Sigma used right.  I've been following the Flickr group, and, to be honest, I've been underwhelmed.  I suspect that in the right hands, though, the results might be more compelling.  I would love to see some work done by a pro.  What is your thoughts on the bokeh?  It seems to lack that creamy quality of the 35L in a lot of pictures I have seen.  One exception is this shot by a friend of mine:


ROY_4703 by Roy Lee B., on Flickr

157

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/2

« on: April 08, 2013, 10:25:17 AM »

I've had a real soft spot for this lens.  I initially had it when I only had a crop body, and didn't think much of it then because of the terrible CA (which has become easier to fix in LR4 compared to earlier versions).




Maple Bokeh Delight by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

This image makes me smile because it is the sort of shot that could be from the promotion of a very expensive, or 'exotic' lens such as the Sigma f1.4. Just goes to show...........................

It's true.  As much as we jabber on about equipment on this site, the truth of the matter is that someone who knows what they are doing can make just about any piece of equipment look good (not trying to boast here).  Except my phone (old Nokia E63); it has the lousiest camera.  It is beyond my ability to make that thing look good.  I do have to say, however, that stopped down, the 35mm f/2 is as good for landscapes as anything I have used.  It resolves very, very well!

158

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

« on: April 08, 2013, 10:14:55 AM »

Not a birder, but I have found the 70-300L to be a very nice "birding" lens.  While it isn't particularly long on a full frame, the great resolving power makes serious cropping possible while upholding great detail.  And, as I said earlier, I am really surprised by how well it handles transition zone bokeh.  Nice and soft without a lot of distracting hard edges.  This is pretty fantastic considering how sharp the lens is.


Snowbirds by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Here is a roughly 100% crop of the primary goose that makes me seriously happy:

159

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: April 08, 2013, 10:10:21 AM »

Snowbirds by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

160

6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D

« on: April 07, 2013, 12:51:50 PM »

I did a series...
Wow, good shot!

Thanks, Jim

161

6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D

« on: April 07, 2013, 12:50:03 PM »

Thanks for the nice feedback.  Here's one that shows the excellent shadow recovery from 6D files.  I shot into the sun and tried to leave some room in the highlights to work with the sky.  The whole facade of the monument was really underexposed as a result.  I was able to bring it back in a remarkable way.  There is some chroma noise in the shadows that I could work to reduce, but no banding.  The chroma noise is really only visible at 100%, anyway.  Single RAW file


Monumental by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

162

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: April 07, 2013, 09:07:22 AM »

FWIW the 6D is available for $ 1,629 ... I'd say, good value for the price

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14040.0

Just picked up a second 6D because of this sale.  I am going to sell off my 5D2 and use two 6Ds for now.

163

6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D

« on: April 07, 2013, 09:01:49 AM »

These shots are from the Palm Sunday Snowstorm in Riverside Park near Springfield, IL.


EF 16-28 f2.8L II - 29mm 1/160 f8 iso100 +1/3 EV


EF 16-28 f2.8L II - 35mm 1/200 f8 iso100 +1/3 EV

What do you think? It was after this shoot that I determined there was an issue with this lens at the wide end. I get it back from Canon next week.

Really like the contrast on the first image.  Has a great, high key type of feel.  I shoot in the snow a lot, so I know that nailing that look can be a bit of a challenge.  Nicely done!

164

6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D

« on: April 06, 2013, 01:58:42 PM »

Hi,

This thread is a very nice idea. A couple weeks ago I replaced my ageing 450D (EF-S 18-200 + EF-S 17-55/2.8IS) by a 6D + EF 25-105L and ... wow, what a difference! Color, dynamic range, high-ISO performances and image quality are so much better that I feel again that I am clearly the main limiting factor to achieving better shots. Below are a few samples from my first field trials last week in Blois, near Orleans (France).

1/1250s, ƒ/5, ISO 100, 105 mm


1/13s, ƒ/4, ISO 12800, 24 mm


1/8s, ƒ/4, ISO 12800, 24 mm


1/8s, ƒ/4, ISO 12800, 24 mm


All the night shots were taken handheld, a habit (some would call it a bad one, but not everyone like carrying 10 kg of equipment around) I caught while using the EF-S 17-55/2.8IS. The 24-105 L clearly shows its limitations as I had to use a high ISO setting in order to limit blur, but the image quality suffered quite a bit in the process. Don't get me wrong, I think the 6D has some really outstanding low-light performances, but for the sake of e.g. dynamic range, noise, sharpness etc it is still better to reduce ISO whenever possible. For instance, I found that the built-in noise reduction processing considerably reduces the finesse of image features.

To solve this particular issue I acquired an EF 35mm ƒ/2.0 IS USM yesterday for low light works. This glass should provide me with a 2.5-3 stop advantage over the 24-105L due to the combined extra stops gained from the better IS and the larger aperture. I’ll see in the next few weeks how the pair handles, and from my first tests I definitely have great expectations. 

I am really anxious to hear about (and see) your results from that lens.  I am debating between it and the new Sigma.  I haven't really been impressed with the quality (softness) of the bokeh from the Sigma, but there are so few images out there with the 35mm f/2 IS to compare with.

165

Reviews / Re: Review - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD with Pictures

« on: April 06, 2013, 11:18:24 AM »

A Slice of Virginia by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

AWESOME colors ... great image

Thank you.  It's great when you have chance to be out shooting when lighting ISN'T a challenge!!