Most Objective and Less Objective REVIEWER?

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Lens Rentals and Photozone seem to produce some of the most trustable data overall when it comes to lens reviews. TDP has had a lot of weird results IMO (and has the guy EVER tested a single Tamron that wasn't a lemon? does he just go all sloppy with his procedure and not care when he tests them or what? maybe he shoots the chart very close in? I suspect he doesn't refocus for edges which may make results better for some but worse for others). Photozone sometimes says crazy things in the final text review of a lens though IMO even the data plots look good. DxO has had all sorts of utterly absurd lens data on their website (although their sensor data mostly appears to be very reliable and easily the best of any review site in that case).

Dpreview seems to do pretty well with lenses but they have often been behind the times when it comes to looking at sensor performance with poorly thought out DR tests and having resisted normalization for SNR and so on for ages.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

DXO is the best in terms of scientific approach.

not for lenses though they've had to many messed up results like: 16-35L being sharpest at the corners near wide open, like 70-300 non-L being sharper at 300mm wide open than the 70-300L, like the 70-200 2.8 IS being the sharpest at 200mm f/2.8 and then the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and then the 70-200 28 IS II the worst!?! And so on. I don't think they set up their charts with enough care or something.

for sensors they do the best job though

[RS2021]

I am ok with TDP (the-digital-picture.com) as it provides fair amount of systematic data, albeit with one or two copies.

But to be fair, he is also totally in the bag for Canon; also B&H cuz they let him play with the 1200mm and heavily sponsor his site

[AlanF]

The-Digital-Picture.com is by far the most comprehensive site for Canon lenses and is good for other makes. The shear amount of accurate, well-presented and documented information is awesome. I don't think it is biased, and to be able to review systematically just about every one of Canon's own lenses requires the tester to have access to Canon, B&H etc. I truly admire it for being the product of a consummate professional who works exceedingly hard, carefully measuring and analysing. The actual quality of DPT.com as an accessible website is astounding, and the write-ups are flawless. For me, it is by far and away number 1.

My next favourite is not on the list: slrgear.com. Its graphical illustrations of sharpness via the "blur units" are unbiased and really informative. It does not have the comprehensive coverage of DPT.com, but is still outstanding.

Photozone.de is also absolutely excellent in what it does review, but it has fallen back and no longer has a sufficiently wide range of coverage.

Lensrentals has some wonderful stuff with deep insight, but again is not comprehensive, but what is written are real gems.

Lenstip has a few useful reviews, and is run by nice guys who are rather too nice.

DXO, I can't understand.

[traveller]

I agree with most of what's been written here, but...

I would definitely prefer if reviewers would show more real life crops rather than numbers graphs and crops of test charts.  If you don't agree, which one of these gives the best idea of f/8 borderer sharpness between the 16-35L II and the 17-40L?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=412&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx
(scroll down to the comparison crops)

Even Roger Cicala has started to think about this - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/02/seeing-the-numbers

It's amazing how many websites have comparison images which can show only actuance and not resolution and then make vague claims about lens "sharpness" (see http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2009/06/have-you-seen-my-acutance if you don't already know the difference).  As a case in point:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ef_24_70mm_f4_l_is_usm_review/sharpness_1/

EDIT: wow - what a total mess I made of those hyperlinks! I've now fixed them so that they should work...

[Rienzphotoz]

Glad to see The-Digital-Picture and Lens Rentals leading the poll ... always liked reading their reviews.

[emag]

From Roger Cicala at LensRentals:

"The 800mm f/5.6 is also the photography equivalent of a D cup- not a necessity, but wherever you go with it, you’ll make lots of new friends."

Hands down, best summary description I've ever read.  Still have dried coffee in my keyboard from reading that.

[robbymack]

Ken RockDull is the best reviewer ever...he makes me laugh hysterically and you cant pay for stuff like that.

Oh but you can, by donating to his ever growing family 

The only opinion in the photography world that holds much weight in my opinion is Lens Rentals.

[funkboy]

I think that Michael Reichmann at the Luminous Landscape does great reviews.  Of course he doesn't review a whole lot of gear & he doesn't do technical reviews, which is what I appreciate.  He's really unique in taking a camera & kicking the tires, getting a really good feeling for the handling and practicality of the thing, and talking about it in a way that one can relate to.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Yeah but did you ever compare TDP crops to real world crops? I don't always see much agreement....
While the LR and PZ #s seem to match more closely to my real world shots....
And without question if you are talking a tamron lens.

I agree with most of what's been written here, but...

I would definitely prefer if reviewers would show more real life crops rather than numbers graphs and crops of test charts.  If you don't agree, which one of these gives the best idea of f/8 borderer sharpness between the 16-35L II and the 17-40L?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=412&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx
(scroll down to the comparison crops)

Even Roger Cicala has started to think about this - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/02/seeing-the-numbers

It's amazing how many websites have comparison images which can show only actuance and not resolution and then make vague claims about lens "sharpness" (see http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2009/06/have-you-seen-my-acutance if you don't already know the difference).  As a case in point:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ef_24_70mm_f4_l_is_usm_review/sharpness_1/

EDIT: wow - what a total mess I made of those hyperlinks! I've now fixed them so that they should work...

[ksagomonyants]

I really like photozone Can any of you guys comment on how objective the reviews of Lloyd Chambers (http://www.diglloyd.com) are? Thanks!

[BrettS]

I think that Michael Reichmann at the Luminous Landscape does great reviews.  Of course he doesn't review a whole lot of gear & he doesn't do technical reviews, which is what I appreciate.  He's really unique in taking a camera & kicking the tires, getting a really good feeling for the handling and practicality of the thing, and talking about it in a way that one can relate to.

+1

[Rienzphotoz]

From Roger Cicala at LensRentals:

"The 800mm f/5.6 is also the photography equivalent of a D cup- not a necessity, but wherever you go with it, you’ll make lots of new friends."

Hands down, best summary description I've ever read.  Still have dried coffee in my keyboard from reading that.

LMAO ... Good one, thanks for sharing 

[Hobby Shooter]

I  went with good old KR. In my eyes he is objective ... and colourful! I read some o the others too, but have stopped reading photozone.de since I found them biased.

[LifeAfter]

The-Digital-picture

EF 24-70 f2.8 II vs Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC

The first is that the Canon has considerably better image quality than my second Tamron 24-70 VC - even at f/8 on the right side of the image (Tamron contacted me to replace the first copy of this lens as it had big image quality issues).


Canon 50mm f1.4 vs Sigma 50mm f1.4

the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens has proven very inconsistent for me in the focus accuracy department.
I have thrown out as many as 70% or more images from a single shoot of over 100 non-action, wide aperture shots because they were very OOF (Out of Focus).
Thus, unless you are primarily using manual focus or shooting at narrow apertures (f/4), I suggest buying the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens instead.


Canon EF 85mm f1.2 vs Sigma 85mm f1.4

When I get an accurately-focused image, I really like the image quality from the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens - it is really nice. But accurate focusing is this lens' definite weakness - getting accurate focus has been an issue.
As of Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens review time, I have purchased (retail) three and returned two of these lenses. The first lens was consistently front focusing. The second lens was focusing so inconsistently that I wished for the first one back. The third lens is focusing very inconsistently, but does seem to average to the correct focus distance. I cut my losses and kept this copy of the lens.
The big problem, as I already indicated, is that the lens does not focus accurately, consistently. Accurate focusing is especially important when shooting with the shallow DOF this lens is capable of. My experience with AI Servo focusing was even worse with a very low keeper rate for even moderately fast moving subjects.
The Canon has a slight advantage in the extreme corner comparison. The Sigma has a slight advantage in the center of the frame at f/1.4, but the Canon has modestly better contrast overall. The Canon again has the modest advantage in the mid-lower right example.


Canon EF 35mm f1.4 vs Sigma 35mm f1.4

You are probably buying an ultra-wide aperture lens to use it's ultra-widest aperture setting. But, stop the Canon and Zeiss down to f/2.8 and most of the differences disappear. The Canon and Zeiss are similarly sharp at f/2.8 and both are even modestly sharper than the Sigma in the full frame peripheral area of the image circle (image corners).
Autofocusing is quick, though my perception is that the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L Lens focuses slightly faster when using both side-by-side.
A somewhat consistent and quite noticeable front focus problem on both of my 5D Mark III bodies required AFMA to correct.