SteveCooper: does anybody have a clue as to the projected price on this lens? Isn't that going to be one of most important factors as to whether or not this lens sells well?
My "SWAG" is $2400. ["G" = "guess"]
Pat Cullinan Jr: <quote>should provide the depth-of-field control and low-light image quality on an APS-C DSLR that you'd get using an F2.8 zoom on 35mm full-frame.</quote>
The aperture of a lens is quite independent of the format of the film or sensor. In other words, f/1.8 is f/1.8 whether the lens is placed before an APS-C sensor or a full-frame sensor. The intensity of the light striking the target is the same whether you have a small or a large target. The aperture is a function solely of the focal length and the entrance "pupil" (meaning the diameter of the circle of light you see when you look through the lens from the rear).
I hope everybody understands this, because otherwise you'll be making disadvantageous decisions or doing things wrong.
[continued from above] As regards DOF, you're correct in saying that f/1.8 on APS-C correlates with f/2.8 on FF (1.8 x 1.5 = 2.7). Wikipedia on "Depth of field" says, "Many small-format digital SLR camera systems allow using many of the same lenses on both full-frame and 'cropped format' cameras. If, for the same focal length setting, the subject distance is adjusted to provide the same field of view at the subject, at the same f-number [1.8, e.g.] and final-image size, the smaller format has greater DOF." Meaning the FF will have less DOF, unless stopped down [to 2.8, e.g.] to achieve equal DOF. A full treatment is given in the article cited, under the heading "Relationship of DOF to format size."
<quote>should provide the depth-of-field control and low-light image quality on an APS-C DSLR that you'd get using an F2.8 zoom on 35mm full-frame.</quote>
Gesture: Does anyone else have APS-C sensor plus fixed zoom lens?
Correct -- 18.70 x 14.00 mm vs. 17.30 x 13 mm.
Canon's APS-C is 22.20 x 14.80 mm.
knize10: It will be made by Panasonic.
I heard a rumor it will be made by Acme Camera, Bayonne, N.J.
Pat Cullinan Jr: Not turning cartwheels here. Edge rez is not impressive. By me.
After seeing Mr. Horshak's photos (see his post above), I'm mitigating my opinion about this lens. His input has provided the additional data needed to form a more considered opinion. It's the IS that scores the win.
Horshack: If anyone is interested I have a gallery of hand-held shots with the Tamron on my D800, most shot indoors @ f/2.8 with a shutter speed of 1/13. I've made the full-size 36MP images available for viewing.
Thanks very much for making your studies available to us. I can see that edge resolution is too low for my palate, notably in landscape shots, but for some reason it seems less of an issue in other compositions -- in particular, your interior shots, and the canal shots. This may be a function of object distance. Although I would not use it for landscapes, I will now seriously consider it for interiors, specifically, poorly illuminated interiors -- I'll be photographing the American Museum of Natural History this season, God willing, and I think the IS feature clinches the deal -- the museum is dark! The Nikon contenders lack IS. That kills the deal for them.
Gordon Laing has a 3-way comparison of the Tamron, the spendy Nikon 24-70 2.8, and the "cheap" ($600) Nikon 24-85 3.5-4.5 at
Not turning cartwheels here. Edge rez is not impressive. By me.
Pat Cullinan Jr: Want a name? It's Shantanu Narayen.
Make a note.
<quote>I don't recall seeing all the US users up in arms over Adobe fleecing Australian and European customers</quote>
This is the first time I'm hearing about it.
Send a written hardcopy letter to Narayen and unload, in professional language of course.
There's nothing that has the impact of a physical letter, on Crane Crest paper or equivalent.
Organize, Identify, Initiate.
I throw mine in the sock drawer with the heap of digicams and eggshells.
We must let our senators and congressmen/women know about this.
In his YouTube video, Charles Reilly points out that the Australian government once forced Adobe to lower prices to reach parity with those charged in the US. So there's an example of government action of some kind.
It may repay the effort to apply to the Federal Trade Commission for attention to this matter -- http://ftc.gov
The Reilly video is here -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s-hYc_SEDqw#!
[With thanks to Gary JP.]
Want a name? It's Shantanu Narayen.
SteveJL: WOW! and WTHF? This link
posted by Henry M. Hertz REALLY deserves a look as it truly portrays the level of Evil this move represents. NOT COOL AT ALL ADOBE. Takes everything to a hole new level.
THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS PROVOCATION, AN ABSURD IMPOSITION!
That does it! Till now, I was straddling the fence, BUT NOW I WASH MY HANDS OF ADOBE FOR KEEPS!
40daystogo: Eh Winston, see these two Adobe stock charts.
Don't we all love it how Adobe's stock has plummeted ever since the greed-fest was announced on 6th May.
That is one pukka website.
fmian: Perhaps dpreview should create a 'low brow' news section, and allow readers to filter out this stuff, and the article about the guy who adapted a large lens to take photos with his mft camera.
The premise of this article is a total non issue. Should we reconsider modifying images when sending them to pre-press, should a colour image never be displayed in black and white?
You have to pass high-school geometry.
CameraLabTester: Well it's a good thing they didn't remove the overhead wires in the first photo...
The energy sponsors of the program will complain...
The wire is for a Spiderman stunt. Then it's off to the shop for wire removal.
Pat Cullinan Jr: <quote>there's not a lot of photography-specific value in our subscription products.</quote>
I've been wondering for years why Adobe doesn't spall off the photography-centric functionality of PS and beef up the scion with some seriously useful photographic features.
Failing that, how about ADDING "a lot of photography-specific value"?
Under communism, the workers pretended to work and the regime pretended to pay them.
Haw haw! One respondent in 20 thinks it will work for them!
TheEye: If Adobe gets away with their scheme, every other software company will eventually follow suit.
At this point I won't buy any Adobe product just out of principle.
THAT'S HORRIBLY TRUE!!!
<quote>there's not a lot of photography-specific value in our subscription products.</quote>