April 23, 2014, 07:05:53 PM

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
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS on the Way? [CR1]
« on: September 08, 2013, 05:06:07 PM »
I'm a little puzzled at this one.  It's not that I doubt that Sigma can improve on the optical quality of the 24-105L, but that lens is praised for being competent and, as has already been pointed out, it represents a strong value at this stage in its development.  It could be sharper, it could have less distortion, it could have less vignetting, but it's not terrible in any of those areas either.  It also has a very robust build quality and weather sealing (both of which I have had occasion to test in the two copies I've owned in the past).  Sigma could probably improve in all of those areas (save build quality, perhaps), but I struggle to see where they could turn any of those things into a killer reason for the myriad 24-105L owners to change lenses.

Sigma has been filling a lot of unfilled niches recently, but this is anything but that.  Curious.

677
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: September 08, 2013, 04:58:47 PM »
Not to start another flame war 8), but here's another painterly approach.


Very nice. I see you took the diplomatic approach (her shirt is both green and blue) ;D

LOL!  You are absolutely right, although it wasn't intentional  :o

678
Reviews / Re: Review - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD with Pictures
« on: September 08, 2013, 04:57:54 PM »
Jim, as a reviewer, let me tell you this:  reviews are great for helping us make informed decisions, but the downside of reviews is that they can create either discontent or paranoia in us that wouldn't otherwise be there.  Just because some other person had a bad experience (which they may or may not have exaggerated) doesn't mean that you will.  I experienced the problem with this lens that it was causing battery drain on my 6D bodies even when the camera was off.  Instead of griping about this excellent lens, I called Tamron, sent the lens in, and got it back a week later with the problem solved.

I obviously can't guarantee that you that your problem will be fixed as easily, but I have a fair degree of confidence that it is more likely to work than talking about it on an internet forum  ;)


I agree that actions are better than words. ;)

Please do not take this the wrong way as you do seem to be a person of great integrity, but you have a contractual arrangement with Tamron of Canada according to http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16108.msg307475#msg307475, the terms of which are not made known (nor do I necessarily think they should be). I am certainly not suggesting that you are biased in your equipment review, especially in light of the fact that you bought this lens seemingly prior to this contract being signed, but you can't be considered completely impartial either. I think this is a fair assessment and again, I hope you are not offended.

I did more tests using the central point as a control and the outer rows of cross-type AF points for testing. Same wall, tripod, settings. All at f/2.8. Farther distance. Different time of day so different lighting.

The middle AF points in each outer column of cross-type AF points were tested. Multiple shots of each were taken. The attached are "typical.

Interestingly, the left side is close to the center in sharpness, while the right was consistently off. Neither was as bad as the outermost points.

I will give Tamron service a shot. I'll call tomorrow and arrange it.

More to follow...


Your point is well taken.  I can safely say in this, however, that I am using a retail copy of the lens that I did purchase myself.  This is not a perfect lens, and Tamron is not a perfect company, but I also use this lens more than any other in my fairly extensive kit.  I'm glad you are going to try the service option, particularly if you like the lens overall.  I'd be interested in hearing how your service experience went.

I guess my point above was that both reviews and, in particular, internet forums, love to have something to complain about.  It rarely accomplishes anything, though, and I would say that from your signature you probably agree.

679
Reviews / Re: Review - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD with Pictures
« on: September 08, 2013, 02:29:04 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.

+1 for the service


All well and good but this seems to be an inherent problem with this lens and this body (at least) that has been seen frequently enough and not addressed by Tamron with a firmware upgrade. I saw one review where the person sent it in three times, and finally the peripheral points were "close" but the center point was now off. I saw multiple other reports of multiple trips to so-called "excellent" Tamron service. Read through the entire thread that I linked. I know this lens has a six year warranty but...

Anyway, before I send it back for a refund I am going to test a bit with just the cross-type sensors enabled. Perhaps I can live with those results. I am impressed with the lens... when it focuses properly.


Jim, as a reviewer, let me tell you this:  reviews are great for helping us make informed decisions, but the downside of reviews is that they can create either discontent or paranoia in us that wouldn't otherwise be there.  Just because some other person had a bad experience (which they may or may not have exaggerated) doesn't mean that you will.  I experienced the problem with this lens that it was causing battery drain on my 6D bodies even when the camera was off.  Instead of griping about this excellent lens, I called Tamron, sent the lens in, and got it back a week later with the problem solved.

I obviously can't guarantee that you that your problem will be fixed as easily, but I have a fair degree of confidence that it is more likely to work than talking about it on an internet forum  ;)

680
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.

681
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

682
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

683
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.

684
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.

685
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: September 06, 2013, 09:33:57 AM »

687
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.

688
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.

689
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.

690
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)

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