[MaximusJ]

I saw some horror stories with Tamron. Three lenses of the same model all from the same batches that produced three different qualities for a same picture. I think it was on the Pictureline website that I saw that article.

I saw waaaay too much of those stories on Sigma/Tamron/Tokina lenses compared to very few people vouching for them. The 120-300/2.8 and for the 150mm macro Sigma are pretty much the only ones I saw people actually saying they're better bang for the dollar; compared to Nikkor. I dont know much about Samyang; other then they're made in Korea.

As for Zeiss, well, its Zeiss. Its kinda-aside.

I always picked Nikkor lenses because if you shop right, you recover pretty much 85-90% of your money when you decide to sell. And if you shop right in the used market, you can even end up making money on them.

[panicos81]

Originally Posted by MaximusJ

I saw some horror stories with Tamron. Three lenses of the same model all from the same batches that produced three different qualities for a same picture. I think it was on the Pictureline website that I saw that article.

I saw waaaay too much of those stories on Sigma/Tamron/Tokina lenses compared to very few people vouching for them. The 120-300/2.8 and for the 150mm macro Sigma are pretty much the only ones I saw people actually saying they're better bang for the dollar; compared to Nikkor. I dont know much about Samyang; other then they're made in Korea.

As for Zeiss, well, its Zeiss. Its kinda-aside.

I always picked Nikkor lenses because if you shop right, you recover pretty much 85-90% of your money when you decide to sell. And if you shop right in the used market, you can even end up making money on them.

my tokina 11-16mm was excellent.. i wish i had kept it and use it on the Fuji with an adapter. a friend has the Tamron 18-55 (or something) f2.8 and he is quite happy with it..

[MaximusJ]

Yes they produce some good lenses the point of this article was just that there is no quality control at a point that the quality of those lenses vary.

You get uber sharp ones (Saw some good review on their 11-16mm ultrawide), but its a hit and miss basically.

I should try to find that article again, they were doing some pretty extensive tests.

But again, its internet. Nothing beats the good old self-test.

[M_Six]

I won't buy Sigma for just that reason. Way too many people say you need to keep swapping out until you get a sharp copy. Screw that. I've read the same about most Tammies, but the 24-70 seems to have a pretty solid backing.

I can personally vouch for the Rokinons. I own 3 (8mm f2.8 FE, 35 f1.4, and 85 f1.4) and they're all sharp as a tack. The 85 f1.4 is the weakest of the bunch, but only as far as metering. It's still quite sharp if you get the focus right.

[gary88]

Sharpness test with the 300. First is an export sharpened RAW at f/2.8. Next two are unsharpened screenshots from lightroom, first at f/2.8 and second at f/8. Both shot on a tripod @ ISO100 and 10 sec timer. Focus on the bottom of the inside corona ring.

[UdubBadger]

Looks good

[bosstones]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I won't buy Sigma for just that reason. Way too many people say you need to keep swapping out until you get a sharp copy. Screw that. I've read the same about most Tammies, but the 24-70 seems to have a pretty solid backing.

One of the first lenses I bought when I got my first dSLR was a Sigma 28-70. Ended up selling it because I decided to step into something different but the guy I sold it to bought it because I still had the warranty card. The copy I had had some softness to it. He planned to send it back to Sigma to try to resolve it.

Originally Posted by gary88

Sharpness test with the 300. First is an export sharpened RAW at f/2.8. Next two are unsharpened screenshots from lightroom, first at f/2.8 and second at f/8. Both shot on a tripod @ ISO100 and 10 sec timer. Focus on the bottom of the inside corona ring.

Why must you tempt us with this?!

[Weebl]

Well that handled the CA splendidly Gary. On the first one did you mess with anything other than sharpening? Specifically color/contrast?

[gary88]

Yeah the first has a slight WB/contrast adjustment, the other two are untouched.

[Chewy734]

The stories behind the most stunning Olympics photos - Rough Cuts

[gary88]

Stats after shooting ALMS yesterday:

Shots taken: 755
Shots deleted: 267
Shots exported: 94

Uploading now.

[rodi]

gary, the f/2.8 shot looks much better than the f/8 shot. try shooting at f/4 or f/5.6 instead of f/8?

[gary88]

Yeah I noticed that too, maybe f/2.8 just blurred out everything that's coming slightly back into focus at f/8.

Pics from Saturday here:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=733829

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

The stories behind the most stunning Olympics photos - Rough Cuts

Thanks for the link.

Carrying two bodies around with a 500mm is tough enough. They've got several more pounds on top of that and even more bulk. Looks like hard work.

15-photogs for one agency, for one event!!!

Dave

[Chewy734]

The Canon 1DX Makes One Hell of a 5K Movie Camera

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

The Canon 1DX Makes One Hell of a 5K Movie Camera

Interesting. The pan really sucked, but most of the others were reasonable. Still, without a super high resolution viewer, it doesn't make much sense.

Dave

[Chewy734]

yeah, I agree with you. Plus that shutter count would really get up there quickly.

[dcstep]

http://www.photographybay.com/2012/0...JJBgD3JQFv62xu

[Chewy734]

Canon rumors has it listed as a the lowest rumor rating, so I won't believe it until I see it. Can you imagine how much something like that would cost if the 5D3 is $3500? My guess is ~$5k.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Canon rumors has it listed as a the lowest rumor rating, so I won't believe it until I see it. Can you imagine how much something like that would cost if the 5D3 is $3500? My guess is ~$5k.

It might not cost any more than the 5D3. The 7D already has higher pixel density than the D800. Just improve on that one generation and cut the sensors out as full-frame instead of crop-sensor and you're in business.

Dave

[UdubBadger]

Might as well be a medium format at that price and MPx rating. I'd be bold enough to say it would be $8500

[dcstep]

BTW, if you make a camera that performs really well at ISOs 50 to 200 (aiming at studio pros, like Hasselblad and Mamiya Leaf do), then 46MP is probably not that hard to do. We'll all complain that it sucks at ISO 1600, but the studio pro might snap it up and only shoot it in ideal light.

Then you'll be selling a $3,500 complete camera into a market where body backs cost mulitples of that.

Dave