# Most Objective and Less Objective REVIEWER?



## LifeAfter (Mar 22, 2013)

Hello everybody,

I think that everyone was at least once surprised with the difference of a product review (mainly lenses)
that was done by different reviewers.

So that pushed me to make this Poll, to see the users opinion and maybe the credibility of the reviewers.

Lets have some FUN


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 22, 2013)

Is any of them (reviewers) sponsored by certain brand? probably, maybe, not, i don't know?


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 22, 2013)

Sorry if i forgot any other reviewer, though i can not put them all here, besides the known ones.

but feel free to mention one that i could put on.


----------



## infared (Mar 22, 2013)

First of all...your poll does not work? You are asking for two extremes in one poll. You need two polls, one for most objective, then another poll for least objective.
The BEST reviewer bar none, is of course Roger at Lens Rental. The dude just gets it "right", for real photographers, every time. Period.
...and everyone knows that Kai is certainly the least objective..I mean...he rubs his junk on a camera during a review and then Digital Rev sells the camera to some unsuspecting buyer, as new, (and then feigns innocence when they get caught "red?-handed" ...yeah right)! Some outfit...although they do manage to sprinkle in reasonable good info thru the schict.


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 22, 2013)

infared said:


> First of all...your poll does not work? You are asking for two extremes in one poll. You need two polls, one for most objective, then another poll for least objective.
> The BEST reviewer bar none, is of course Roger at Lens Rental. The dude just gets it right, for real photographers, every time. Period.
> ...and everyone knows that Kai is certainly the least objective..I mean...he rubs his junk on a camera during a review and then Digital Rev sells the camera to some unsuspecting buyer, as new, (and then feigns innocence ...yeah right)! Some outfit...although they do manage to sprinkle in reasonable good info thru the schict.



Thank you for your opinion, i'll put Lens Rentals on the list.
there is a logic anyway to this poll, the one that has least votes is the less credible.

Thank you.


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 22, 2013)

infared said:


> First of all...your poll does not work? You are asking for two extremes in one poll. You need two polls, one for most objective, then another poll for least objective.
> The BEST reviewer bar none, is of course Roger at Lens Rental. The dude just gets it right, for real photographers, every time. Period.
> ...and everyone knows that Kai is certainly the least objective..I mean...he rubs his junk on a camera during a review and then Digital Rev sells the camera to some unsuspecting buyer, as new, (and then feigns innocence ...yeah right)! Some outfit...although they do manage to sprinkle in reasonable good info thru the schict.



This is what people need, opinions like yours and others, whether it might be critical or admiral. 
It's about that folks get information from the best and most credible reviewer.


----------



## infared (Mar 22, 2013)

LifeAfter said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for your opinion, i'll put Lens Rentals on the list.
> ...


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 22, 2013)

infared said:


> LifeAfter said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...


----------



## AlanF (Mar 22, 2013)

LifeAfter said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > First of all...your poll does not work? You are asking for two extremes in one poll. You need two polls, one for most objective, then another poll for least objective.
> ...



Please get the English and logic right. The one who has the most votes has been voted the most credible, all the others are _less_ credible, and the one with the least votes is voted the _least_ credible.


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 22, 2013)

AlanF said:


> LifeAfter said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



Thank you for your correction, English is not my native language 
and i don't live in an English speaking country neither, 
so i apologies for the eventual errors.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 22, 2013)

LifeAfter said:


> Hello everybody,
> 
> I think that everyone was at least once surprised with the difference of a product review (mainly lenses)
> that was done by different reviewers.
> ...



Roger at lens rental is invaluable because he has the possibility to test a bunch of lenses, thus getting more reliable data from a statistic point of view.

DXO is the best in terms of scientific approach. Photozone and lenstip are also quite good and systematic. However, one thing I don't like about lenstip is that sometimes I feel like they consider lenses more like mere pieces of glass than like instruments for taking pictures. DPReview has so insanely long and redundant reviews that make it a pain to read them through. For a subjective, non-scientific yet interesting evaluation I also like The Digital Picture.

The worst is certainly Ken Rockwell. He'll say anything people want to read.


----------



## AmbientLight (Mar 22, 2013)

This is quite a good poll, especially that we can only choose the most reliable sources of information, which is useful information. I don't think it is necessary to dwell on the negative, but rather to point people looking for reasonably reliable reviews in the correct direction.


----------



## zim (Mar 22, 2013)

I like both The-digital-picture and Lens Rentals I don't want to mark either of them down by voting for the other.
I also like DigRev but then I happen to like Kai’s humour.
Perhaps it should be tick boxes rather than radio buttons?


----------



## Pi (Mar 22, 2013)

The best reviewer to me is the digital picture guy. His crops are much more meaningful that any measurements. 

The next best, IMO, is PZ. 

None of them really tells me everything I need to know however. Bokeh analysis, for example, is weak in either case.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 22, 2013)

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


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 22, 2013)

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 (Mar 22, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> 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 (Mar 22, 2013)

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 (Mar 22, 2013)

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 (Mar 22, 2013)

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 (Mar 22, 2013)

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


----------



## emag (Mar 22, 2013)

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 (Mar 22, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> 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 ;D

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


----------



## funkboy (Mar 23, 2013)

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 (Mar 23, 2013)

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.



traveller said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


----------



## ksagomonyants (Mar 23, 2013)

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 (Mar 23, 2013)

funkboy said:


> 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 (Mar 23, 2013)

emag said:


> 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 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Mar 23, 2013)

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 (Mar 23, 2013)

*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.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 23, 2013)

LifeAfter said:


> *The-Digital-picture*
> 
> *Canon EF 85mm f1.2 vs Sigma 85mm f1.4*
> 
> ...



I don't know why you quoted the above - to show bias? 
I sometimes check quotes etc to see if they are taken out of context, and picked the 85mm at random. The whole review was very positive, apart from the focus issue (just read it). And, you missed out the next paragraph. Here are the paragraphs together.

"I have been using the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens a lot over the last few months with a frame count in the thousands. I find this to be a very useful lens - and one I really like to use. 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

*Roger at LensRentals.com is having the same problem - at review time, he has a warning posted on his Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens rental page for this lens*. "

So, Roger agrees, and the review would appear fair.


----------



## candyman (Mar 23, 2013)

LifeAfter said:


> *The-Digital-picture*
> 
> *EF 24-70 f2.8 II vs Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC*
> 
> ...




I did not vote for TDP though I always read the reviews there. And I appreciate them very much. It is an important source. But I take the reviews not as the main/most important source since my perception is that TDP is subjective towards canon - as I think that is your point by quoting TDP.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Mar 23, 2013)

Digital Picture and Photozone are very good. They provide a good balance, in-depth without getting too bogged down. It's also good to know that they're not actively selling products, although they do have the advert links and such, they're still independent. 
Camera labs is worth a mention too, I like the flow, length and detail of the reviews on there.
I rarely read a full Dpreview review but they can be good if your after a specific piece of information as they cover pretty much everything.
I like the Digital rev reviews for a very general, quick look at a camera.


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 23, 2013)

AlanF said:


> LifeAfter said:
> 
> 
> > *The-Digital-picture*
> ...




Yes, you're wright about quoting some parts of the reviews, but analyzing the non Canon lenses reviews done at The-Digital-picture we see more disadvantages and critics, in the other hand all Canon lenses seem not to get mentioned the downsides that much. Sometimes even NON Canon L Lenses seem to be preferred and better than a Sigma, Tamron (or other) PRO Grade lens. 

All i want to say (while i am Canon user, and prefer Canon L lenses), is that there is a significant preference to Canon lenses even if some of them have inferior quality and overall performance.

Please don't get me wrong but when i first discovered The-Digital-Picture, i really thought ''this guy is defiantly sponsored by Canon'' , ''weird, he's always the first to get a new lens sample to test it, while others like Photozone wait long time to have and test it''...

While i think that these reviews are not as Objective as they should be, i do think that the *Lens Comparison Tools* is the best you can find out there.


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 23, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


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




We do like reading good reviews for our lenses, it makes you feel that you have the best lens, but i think we really need OBJECTIVE reviews to know what to expect from a lens before buying.


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 23, 2013)

candyman said:


> LifeAfter said:
> 
> 
> > *The-Digital-picture*
> ...



+1

That's right, while i don't think Photozone is perfect neither,i do think is more objective concerning the reviews.
they do have their ''bar put too high'', they are a little bit too critical... not easy to get their Highly Recommended grade.


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 23, 2013)

And Dpreview was my default website, always open in my desktop, it was mostly for Bodies not for lenses. Anyway i think it is a good reference for technical information of a product, but not anymore Objective since it was bought by Amazon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 23, 2013)

LifeAfter said:


> ...we really need OBJECTIVE reviews to know what to expect from a lens before buying.



Do we? I suspect most such decisions are based on features and price. Plus, everyone has bias. The best you can probably do is read several reviews and synthesize a conclusion.


----------



## elflord (Mar 23, 2013)

LifeAfter said:


> So that pushed me to make this Poll, to see the users opinion and maybe the credibility of the reviewers.



Seems to me that many don't understand what "objective" means. "Objective" is not the same thing as "credible" or "useful". The luminous landscape reviews for example are largely subjective -- they generally do not contain any measurements or test chart shots, they are largely descriptions of the author's experience with and impressions of the lens. 

Lens Rentals is a very useful site, and contains a large amount of both objective tests as well as purely subjective "Roger's take" comments. 

TDP have the test charts, but I don't see how that website has any business leading this poll. Objective doesn't mean "subjective and agrees with me". Ironically, the two highest scoring sites in the poll are two of the more subjective reviewers (e.g. lenstip and photozone are more objective than LR or TDP)


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 23, 2013)

As we all see, we really need to read all the reviews of important websites like these to have a more objective and definitive information about a product - mostly lenses, before buying it.

And of course taking the most objective and reliable part of all of them:

Dpreview: to get technical information of a product (mostly bodies).
The-Digital-Picture: the comparison tool.
Digitalrev: to laugh a bit.
Lensrentals: Their primarily purpose is commercial, they do more a kind of presentation than a real review.
anyway they are more objective then the above three.
Photozone: They really have they ''bar put too high'', i do think they are the most objective out there.


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LifeAfter said:
> 
> 
> > ...we really need OBJECTIVE reviews to know what to expect from a lens before buying.
> ...



+1


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 23, 2013)

elflord said:


> LifeAfter said:
> 
> 
> > So that pushed me to make this Poll, to see the users opinion and maybe the credibility of the reviewers.
> ...



100% agree with all the above


----------



## Pi (Mar 23, 2013)

The problem with many sites is - they test lens sharpness only, and nothing else. Many years and many lenses later, I learned to ignore sharpness tests - once you get a modern high quality lens (on FF), sharpness is good enough and the other qualities of the lens like bokeh, AF accuracy, local contrast (higher MTF values) flare, etc., are far more important. 

PZ, for example would criticize fast wide primes at f/1.4 for corner performance, comparing them, implicitly, to slower or longer primes. Really, Klauss? Their bokeh test is as joke. DXO is fixated on "acutance" only and they do not even document what that means. They recently reviewed the 135L and roughly speaking, concluded that it was good enough for an old lens, once you get a good deal on it but the Sigma 85 is better. This is a bad joke by people who do not shoot outside their labs. The TDP guy is much more down to earth. Dpreview, IMO, publishes infomercials only, nothing trustworthy there. 

Sometimes I think that KR's "reviews" are more useful than PZ, etc. 



LifeAfter said:


> As we all see, we really need to read all the reviews of important websites like these to have a more objective and definitive information about a product - mostly lenses, before buying it.
> 
> And of course taking the most objective and reliable part of all of them:
> 
> ...


----------



## elflord (Mar 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> PZ, for example would criticize fast wide primes at f/1.4 for corner performance, comparing them, implicitly, to slower or longer primes. Really, Klauss?


I don't think that's an accurate criticism. When he reviews test results (like soft corners or conspicuous barrel distortion or absence of distortions), he makes a point of mentioning whether those results are expected (or better or worse than expected) for that type of lens.


----------



## comsense (Apr 3, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LifeAfter said:
> 
> 
> > ...we really need OBJECTIVE reviews to know what to expect from a lens before buying.
> ...



Well said. Bias is inherent to human brain function. Only way without bias is letting machine do it. That's why good technical data from well designed setup is valuable (TDP, Photozone, DxO, LensRentals; more the better). You can look at it and make up your mind with your own bias. If you want no technical data and self contradictory but peppy talk, well you have 6 Rockwell fans here.....


----------



## AmbientLight (Apr 4, 2013)

@comsense:

Incredible, you actually believe that a machine might provide less biased information compared to a human being. How can this be? 

Do you believe that machines are created by some sort of greater and completely flawless beings or have you already realized that machines tend to be man-made and as such bring in their own flaws and bias based on how a machine has been designed? ???


----------



## comsense (Apr 4, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> @comsense:
> 
> Incredible, you actually believe that a machine might provide less biased information compared to a human being. How can this be?
> 
> Do you believe that machines are created by some sort of greater and completely flawless beings or have you already realized that machines tend to be man-made and as such bring in their own flaws and bias based on how a machine has been designed? ???


I am not trying to get into creation of universe. Its simply that human brain works with lot of associations and information filling and past experience shapes the future perception/action. They are huge advantages (critical to learning and adaptability) which unfortunately comes at a cost (like anything else). So no matter how objective you claim to be, your experience and association shapes your views and analysis. 
Machine on the other hand would measure what you make it to measure without feelings or likings. Machine does not change measurements depending on whether Nikon or Canon made it. Of course all machines have errors and range/constraints where measurements are reliable (and they do break down). Ironically most of the blames instruments get are because of poor experimental design and non-optimal use, both of which are human errors.
Before someone throws a pebble into water, attempts are being made to model computing machines that work like human brain, i.e., adaptable neural network with associative powers.
If you are still scratching your head:
For a input = output situation
With machines -
a given 'Input' will give you same 'Output' every time till the machine fails (in workable constrains of machine)
with brain -
'Output' can change hardware such that same 'Input' next time could have different 'Output'....


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 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.



Bryan is my favorite overall reviewer (The Digital Picture). I look forward to his reviews the most, but I must confess that this point is a sticking one for me. There are always pretty severe caveats applied to third party lenses. His general purpose zoom recommendations for this year includes the EF 28-135 but does not mention the Tamron 24-70 VC, which is absurd. The only general purpose zoom that could claim to top the Tamron would be the new 24-70L MKII.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 5, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Bryan is my favorite overall reviewer (The Digital Picture). I look forward to his reviews the most, but I must confess that this point is a sticking one for me. There are always pretty severe caveats applied to third party lenses. His general purpose zoom recommendations for this year includes the EF 28-135 but does not mention the Tamron 24-70 VC, which is absurd. The only general purpose zoom that could claim to top the Tamron would be the new 24-70L MKII.



Well, he has yet to complete the Tamron 24-70 VC review. Would it be fair for him to rank something he hasn't tested?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 5, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Bryan is my favorite overall reviewer (The Digital Picture). I look forward to his reviews the most, but I must confess that this point is a sticking one for me. There are always pretty severe caveats applied to third party lenses. His general purpose zoom recommendations for this year includes the EF 28-135 but does not mention the Tamron 24-70 VC, which is absurd. The only general purpose zoom that could claim to top the Tamron would be the new 24-70L MKII.
> ...



But he has. He just hasn't written a review on it. He's got the ISO 12233 resolution tests done. But once again, like others have mentioned regarding other 3rd party lenses, he's had so many "centering" issues that he can't do a real test. Ironic, considering that the sample variation of the MK1 24-70L was notoriously poor, and yet he found a good enough sample to test and recommend for many years. Many pros (including myself, for that matter) are using the Tamron and loving it. I just have a hard time believing that he could not get a decent sample of the lens and actually write the review on it.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 5, 2013)

P.S. This was Photozone's concluding statement at the end of their review of the new 24-70L II:

"The question of the day is, of course, whether this is "enough" compared to the impressive Tamron AF SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di USD VC ? Well, we have some doubts here. We'd say that among the primary criteria the Canon lens has an edge in terms of contrast (at max. aperture), build quality and it has a slightly better bokeh. However, the Tamron lens is as sharp in the lower zoom range and provides a much better border quality at 70mm. Additionally it has a unique selling point - an image stabilizer. So unless you're heading into a war zone or are into tough press business (thus requiring max. equipment quality) a premium of one grand (EUR) over the Tamron lens seems a little excessive. "

One might think that in all fairness to the consumer that the Tamron at least get a mention in the lens recommendations on Bryan's site.

P.S. As I have said before, Bryan is my favorite reviewer out there. He just seems to have a blind spot in this particular area.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I just have a hard time believing that he could not get a decent sample of the lens and actually write the review on it.



I don't see that he's mentioned any problems with the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. He just hasn't completed the review yet. He's previously stated that he prioritizes reviews of Canon lenses/bodies over 3rd party products...Canon has released quite a few lenses lately. 

Did you also notice that he want and re-shot all the ISO 12233 crops for the EF-S lenses with the 60D (many of them only had 50D images)? He also posted that, "There are now 25,344 crops from 8,448 ISO 12233 test images available for review on the site." Speaking as someone who has the same test charts (the largest size costs more than some L-series lenses), and has gone through the process of setting up such tests, ~8,500 test images represents a *huge* amount of work (and that's just the ISO 12233 crops; he also tests vignetting, flare, and distortion).


----------



## sdsr (Apr 5, 2013)

I read most of those listed, along with a few others (including comments here, of course), and most of them usually seem to say something useful; reviews that provide real-world examples with comparisons of the same subject taken with different lenses are those I find the most useful (though if I'm interested in a fairly expensive lens, I'll rent a copy and try it for myself). One reason why I like lenstip is that their reviews always include a section on coma, complete with examples, which is an aspect of lens performance that's usually ignored (Rockwell, whatever else on may think of him, usually mentions/shows it too) but can matter to those of us who like taking photos in very low light. 

Lensrentals has a huge advantage over the rest in that they get to test large quantities of lenses. Some reviewers will mention efforts made to replace an obviously faulty copy, but often a sub-par lens won't be obviously defective; it may simply seem not very good. Dismay has been expressed over the relative ranking at DxO of the 70-200 2.8 II, but the results may simply accurately reflect the copy/ies they had. This, rather than bias/subjectivity, is probably the main drawback to reviews.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I just have a hard time believing that he could not get a decent sample of the lens and actually write the review on it.
> ...



With all due respect, this seems like a bit of a stretch. Bryan did mention sample issues on several occasions. The Tamron has been a pretty big 3rd party release that is a game changer in that particular arena because of adding a stabilizer and has a had a LOT of adopters - including professionals. I would consider it and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 to be the most significant 3rd party releases in years.

Do I doubt that Bryan has a ton of work on his plate? Absolutely not. Do I think that he simply could not find the time to review the lens? I'm sorry, I don't. He has reviewed quite a few lenses that were released months later, and almost every other big review site has already reviewed the lens. 

Of course, like you, this is all just my opinion, so take it for what it is worth. But I'll tell you this, when you are in the field without a tripod, being able to get a shot like this at 1/15th second without a second thought is pretty fantastic!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 5, 2013)

sdsr said:


> ...
> Lensrentals has a huge advantage over the rest in that they get to test large quantities of lenses. Some reviewers will mention efforts made to replace an obviously faulty copy, but often a sub-par lens won't be obviously defective; it may simply seem not very good. Dismay has been expressed over the relative ranking at DxO of the 70-200 2.8 II, but the results may simply accurately reflect the copy/ies they had. This, rather than bias/subjectivity, is probably the main drawback to reviews.



This is a very good point, and one that I have found invaluable. I really appreciate Roger's assessments like this because of the unique perspective he has due to the quantity of the lenses he gets to test.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 5, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> With all due respect, this seems like a bit of a stretch. Bryan did mention sample issues on several occasions. The Tamron has been a pretty big 3rd party release that is a game changer in that particular arena because of adding a stabilizer and has a had a LOT of adopters - including professionals. I would consider it and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 to be the most significant 3rd party releases in years.
> 
> *Do I doubt that Bryan has a ton of work on his plate? Absolutely not. Do I think that he simply could not find the time to review the lens? I'm sorry, I don't. He has reviewed quite a few lenses that were released months later, and almost every other big review site has already reviewed the lens. * Of course, like you, this is all just my opinion, so take it for what it is worth. But I'll tell you this, when you are in the field without a tripod, being able to get a shot like this at 1/15th second without a second thought is pretty fantastic!



And that is the biggest problem I have with this line of thought. TDP is not beholden to anyone for which reviews it does, in what order it does it or how it schedules its reviews. It is a free resource, and it's a good one. Use other resources that have the reviews you want if you'd like. It is the bolded paragraph that smacks of the increasing "entitlement" disease that seems to pervade the net these days....


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 5, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > With all due respect, this seems like a bit of a stretch. Bryan did mention sample issues on several occasions. The Tamron has been a pretty big 3rd party release that is a game changer in that particular arena because of adding a stabilizer and has a had a LOT of adopters - including professionals. I would consider it and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 to be the most significant 3rd party releases in years.
> ...



I understand what you are saying, and agree to some degree. I am not attacking Bryan; as I have said repeatedly, he is my favorite reviewer. I also do lens reviews that many people have used to guide buying choices, so I am not a parasite.

I have offered this as further evidence to a point that others have raised; there is, perhaps, a bias FOR OEM Canon equipment and AGAINST any 3rd party equipment. This is (IMO) the chink in the armor at the Digital Picture. Since this is an opinion forum, I am entitled to mine. I have tried to defend my point, and will now step away.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 8, 2013)

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.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 9, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> No more fuel to the fire, but just out of interest:
> 
> From the Digital Picture:
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 9, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > No more fuel to the fire, but just out of interest:
> ...



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.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 9, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...



I'd have to agree overall really good but he is a bit brutal on 3rd partys


----------



## smithy (Apr 9, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> I'd have to agree overall really good but he is a bit brutal on 3rd partys


It was The Digital Picture's review of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 lens that convinced me to go ahead and buy one (and as you know it's awesome). Perhaps the reason he is a bit harsher on third party lenses is because of what he says at the bottom of that particular review, meaning these lenses need to justify their value proposition beyond mere image quality:


> My standard disclaimer: There are some potential issues with third party lenses. Since Sigma reverse engineers (vs. licenses) manufacturer AF routines, there is always the possibility that a DSLR body might not support a (likely older) third party lens. Sometimes a lens can be made compatible by the manufacturer, sometimes not. There is also the risk of a problem that results in the lens and body manufacturers directing blame at each other.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 9, 2013)

true it was also his review of the sigma 85 that made me buy it (that and shooting it side by side with the canon 85L) then you can really see the difference in AF speed

his review of the new 35 is pretty good though
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------

