April 20, 2014, 06:25:31 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - TWI by Dustin Abbott

Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 99
676
Reviews / Re: Review - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD with Pictures
« on: September 08, 2013, 12:46:04 PM »
I am curious if anyone has noticed problems with peripheral AF points on the 5D3 and this lens like those mentioned at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42545234?

Sorry if this has been asked previously.


Seeing no one jumping up and down I decided to test the lens. Sadly, my results are consistent with the above link.

I tested the lens on a brick wall and on some more challenging subjects as well, using aperture priority and three focal lengths: 24mm, 50mm, and 70mm. All shots were made on a tripod using a two second delay. I only tested at f/2.8. Since I was comparing only f/2.8 shots I believe it is a fair comparison. If I want to use an f/4 lens I have the 24-105. I took multiple images (at least three) of each test shot, except the center point shots where I generally only took two.

The results were consistent at the three focal lengths I tested. Using the center AF point of the 5D3 the shots are nice and sharp. They are sharp over the peripheral AF spots as well. Using a peripheral AF point the image is soft throughout. These are sample screenshots of the RAW image at 70mm in DPP at 100% showing the selected AF point.


I would send it into Tamron.  Their customer service is excellent and they will fix this for you.

677
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: September 08, 2013, 08:48:02 AM »
Not to start another flame war 8), but here's another painterly approach.


Innocence by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

678
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF135mm f/2L USM
« on: September 07, 2013, 03:06:16 PM »


Always enjoy your PP TWI by Dustin Abbott ;)

Thanks, Dylan

679
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF135mm f/2L USM
« on: September 07, 2013, 07:49:12 AM »
I posted this on the 5DIII thread - but the lens made the shot IMO... The sun was already down - just dusk lighting to the rear and left side... On second thought, shooting at 1250 ISO made it possible - thanks 5DIII!  * 1/200 * f/2.8 * +1/3 EV * 1250 ISO * -2/3 on the little 90EX for fill *

Fantastic sharpness, and that little bit of fill flash is nicely subtle.

680
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: September 06, 2013, 09:40:06 AM »
Here's a change of pace shot:


Rustic by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


Did you photograph that or paint it  ;)

Lovely effect.


As you probably know, it was shot (Canon 135L 2 f/2), but I did the painterly effect in Alien Skin Snap Art 3.  I am doing some work for the company and they wanted to see me experiment some with the program, so I seeing what I can create for them right now.


Just a question sir, I'm currently trying out Alien Skin Exposure 5.  Do I have to install additional software to use that effect you used or Exposure 5 is enough?

Thanks.


The painterly effect is done with a separate program from Alien Skin called "Snap Art 3".  There is also a free trial on it.  If you decide that it would be helpful, I would recommend just getting the software bundle as it is much cheaper that way.


Dustin, it looks nice, except for the color of the barn, but to each their own.  Would be interesting to see a "before and after", although as an artist I can see where presenting both might not be desirable, as well.


Ironic, as the color of the barn is one of my favorite parts.  I've just agreed to a contract to have pieces like this used for the building blocks of the website for this particular program.  Not all of my followers like this stylistic approach, but it is a nice way for me to stretch myself artistically while also having some commercial success.  The before and after on this shot may end up in a tutorial blog on the website.  If that happens, I will send you a link.

681
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: September 06, 2013, 09:33:57 AM »

683
Lenses / Re: Is the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L MKII worth the Extra Money?
« on: September 04, 2013, 09:29:08 PM »
Surprised that somebody who has so many posts would waste our time with speculation. 

Reviewing or criticizing a lens you haven't used extensively or tested yourself is as helpful as reviewing a movie based on an analysis of professional film critics' reviews.

You regurgitate reviews written by others.  One reason journalism in the USA is in such a pitiful state is exactly because of this approach.  Sit in front of a monitor, surf the web, then claim to be an expert with an opinion that counts for manure.

Hope this thread dies real quick.

With all due respect, I am a professional lens reviewer, and that's the reason why people ask me questions.  I never claimed to have reviewed the Canon lens; I was simply offering an opinion as to why I did not feel the additional cost was justified.  This thread is in the "Gear Talk" section; not reviews.

I have extensively reviewed the Tamron lens.  My review of that lens has been viewed by tens of thousands of people on my website alone.  I have been hired by a photo magazine associated with this website as a paid reviewer/blogger, and they aren't the only one.  My work has been featured in half a dozen magazines and is currently in multiple ad campaigns (including Canon).

You make some very strong, blanket statements about my work.  What are your credentials to make such an assessment, I might ask?  As for wasting your time:  you just read a free article on the internet; welcome to the real world.  It cost you nothing; you contributed nothing.

I have no problem with you offering a difference of opinion.  You have not done that; you have simply disputed my right to have an opinion based on your own standard.

The problem though, is that no one is questioning your validity as a (cough... self proclaimed) professional lens reviewer. Both myself and YuengLinger (although rather harshly) found it odd that you base your opinion on a product that you have no experience with.

With much effort, I brought myself to reread your article and yes, you are not doing a head to head comparison. You do though compare the af, sharpness wide open, bokeh at minimum focus distance, and lastly you reference build quality. My point is, is that you have no proof that these comparisons hold up to the claims you are making. Amazing reviewers like Brian at TDP and Justin VanLeeuwen on Canonrumors.com have going for them is the have accumulated a lot of credibility making statements that have factual backing at supporting evidence.

The fact that you released an article regarding a lens you have never touched looses all credibility and for that reason, I will avoid all future "professional... reviews" you may seem so inclined to post.

And that is entirely your right to do.  I won't waste any more time explaining what I was trying to accomplish here.  Both of the reviewers you mention do a great job, and I enjoy reading their reviews as well.

684
Lenses / Re: Is the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L MKII worth the Extra Money?
« on: September 04, 2013, 07:55:44 PM »
I can't comment on the Tamron, so I guess this is somewhat pitiful, but I accept that.  However, I feel strongly on this one.

I own the 24-70 2.8 II and a number of other L lenses.  Honestly, some of the L lenses I like a lot, some I love.  This lens is far and away the best one I own and it was worth the money.  I wouldn't consider a third party substitute.  So my disclaimer- I am biased, but this is a great lens.  Is it worth the money, yes.

sek

For those interested in my thoughts if the Canon is worth the price premium over the Tamron, take a look here:

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/09/qa-post-1-is-the-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8-ii-worth-the-extra-money/

If you don't care, please disregard...  If you disagree, state your objections below.



That is an opinion I can respect, even if I don't share it.

685
Lenses / Re: Is the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L MKII worth the Extra Money?
« on: September 04, 2013, 07:53:35 PM »
Surprised that somebody who has so many posts would waste our time with speculation. 

Reviewing or criticizing a lens you haven't used extensively or tested yourself is as helpful as reviewing a movie based on an analysis of professional film critics' reviews.

You regurgitate reviews written by others.  One reason journalism in the USA is in such a pitiful state is exactly because of this approach.  Sit in front of a monitor, surf the web, then claim to be an expert with an opinion that counts for manure.

Hope this thread dies real quick.

With all due respect, I am a professional lens reviewer, and that's the reason why people ask me questions.  I never claimed to have reviewed the Canon lens; I was simply offering an opinion as to why I did not feel the additional cost was justified.  This thread is in the "Gear Talk" section; not reviews.

I have extensively reviewed the Tamron lens.  My review of that lens has been viewed by tens of thousands of people on my website alone.  I have been hired by a photo magazine associated with this website as a paid reviewer/blogger, and they aren't the only one.  My work has been featured in half a dozen magazines and is currently in multiple ad campaigns (including Canon).

You make some very strong, blanket statements about my work.  What are your credentials to make such an assessment, I might ask?  As for wasting your time:  you just read a free article on the internet; welcome to the real world.  It cost you nothing; you contributed nothing.

I have no problem with you offering a difference of opinion.  You have not done that; you have simply disputed my right to have an opinion based on your own standard.

686
Lenses / Re: Is the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L MKII worth the Extra Money?
« on: September 04, 2013, 07:08:04 PM »
I couldn't find anywhere where you stated that you have used a 24-70mm ii. If I missed it, do let me know. Until then, a reviewer who only tries one of the two products is not worth the time or effort to even glance at.

Maybe go and rent one before you post a comparison between the two lenses???

That's a valid criticism, particularly if I were doing a head to head comparison or review of both lenses.  In this case, however, the question was as to whether I felt the Canon was worth the extra money.  I did extensive research at the time I purchased the Tamron and determined for myself that I didn't feel it was the extra money.  That remains my opinion...and I am paid to have opinions 8)

687
Lenses / Re: Is the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L MKII worth the Extra Money?
« on: September 04, 2013, 04:57:32 PM »
I have the Canon 24-70 f2.8L II and I have not used the Tamron myself. But my wife needed a new walk around lens this summer, so we evaluated the Tamron and the new Canon 24-70 f4L IS.

As always I tend to trust Bryan at The-digital-picture.com. His reviews has consistently been in line with my own conclusions, when I have tried the products over time myself.

For the Tamron review, se below:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Lens-Review.aspx

I decided to go for the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II, primarily because of its very fast and very accurate AF. I have had the lens since it was released and I have no bad images I believe I can blame the lens for. From what I have seen of examples, it also has the edge on bokeh.

I decided not to go for the Tamron for the reported inconsistencies in AF. This is pointed out by Bryan in the review above and it was confirmed to me by a friend who´s been using it for some time. He returned 2 lenses before he got a good one (he is very happy with Tamron customer service by the way), but he still gets the occasional (and very irritating) out of focus image, where he feels that it should have been good. Tamron´s EF compatibility is, as far as I know, based on reverse engineering and not licensing. That is a concern for me.

Based on what I have seen, the IQ of the Tamron is very good and I don´t believe I would be able to separate the two, unless the images was deliberately done at the known quality difference extremes. And I am not sure who would win. From that perspective I agree with the arguments used in the link you attached.

The VR is a very good argument for going for the Tamron. But for my use (there is always something moving), I am perfectly happy to skip IS on this lens. For my wife we ended up with the Canon 24-70 f4L IS. She lose one stop, IQ is great, it has a very impressive MFD and it is a very compact walk-around lens. The price is close to the Tamron.

The last reason I had for going for the Canon(s) is that I have owned (and still own) a lot of L-series lenses. I have not had any problem with any of them. I am willing to pay for consistent quality over time and Canon customer service (at least here in Norway) is excellent.


That is a pretty fair and reasoned approach.  I don't know if I had just been fortunate, but I have used two copies of the Tamron (including the one that I own) and have not had AF issues at all.  Mine is highly accurate, moreso than a lens like, say, my 85mm f/1.8 at similar aperture and after both have been AFMA'd.

688
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 VC USD
« on: September 04, 2013, 02:59:38 PM »
I was making the decision between the tamron and canon 70-200s and decided to go with the canon because of performance with teleconverters. I'm used to a 70-300, and especially once I go full frame, I know I'll miss my long end from time to time, and the canon with mark 3 TC's seems to perform much better than the tamron with 3rd party TC's.

Very true.  I find the Tamron works fine with the Kenko, but one definite advantages of using a Canon lens/Canon tele combo is that the new Canon bodies allow you to set a separate AFMA for the combination.

689
Lenses / Is the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L MKII worth the Extra Money?
« on: September 04, 2013, 02:53:40 PM »
For those interested in my thoughts if the Canon is worth the price premium over the Tamron, take a look here:

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/09/qa-post-1-is-the-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8-ii-worth-the-extra-money/

If you don't care, please disregard...  If you disagree, state your objections below.

690
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deals: Canon Lens Price Drops
« on: September 04, 2013, 02:36:14 PM »
I'm glad to see the 35mm f/2 IS at that price.  That is getting down to a more reasonable level for it and might help it sell more copies as it creates some separation in price from the Sigma 1.4

I agree, except I just pulled the trigger on the Sigma. Oh well, it's a spectacular lens so I just won't think about the extra $190 ;)

Probably a fair differential considering Canon doesn't include a hood ($50?!?) and there's a 1-stop difference in max aperture and better corners on the Sigma.

True enough.  The two things that might move me towards the Canon now are 1) Size (I already have the wonderful Tamron 24-70 for most of the things that I do at that focal length) and 2) IS.  This would be a fab video lens on either my 6Ds or the M, and IS is a must for that.

Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 99