13 hours ago
 |
Leok
Lives in
Melbourne, Australia
Works as a
Portrait & wedding photographer
Has a website at
www.leoklein.com.au
Joined on
Jan 22, 2003
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
jonikon: I own the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF non-VC lens in a Nikon mount and bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC version to replace it. However, after comparing the sharpness of these two lenses, I decided the non-VC lens was noticeably sharper at f2.8-f4.0. I could not justify the loss in sharpness for the occasional usefulness of VC in a lens of such short focal length, so I returned the VC version and kept the sharper non-VC version. There is little doubt in my mind that this new 24-70 VC Tamron would have been sharper without the VC. I'll bet the reviews of this lens will find the center sharp and the edges soft at f2.8-f4.0. The only good reason to have VC on a lens of this type is for shooting video where it matters, and softness does not.
The non VC version of Tamrons 17-50 has been widely reported to have better optical performance than the new VC version. As with any lens purchase, its wise NOT to assume the new version will be better in all respects. The focus breathing of Nikons 70-200 2.8 VRii is another classic example... its a great lens in every other way but for users who want close focus @200mm the VRi may be a better choice.
I hope the 24-70 VC does not have any major issues... and will wait for reviews before purchase.
canderanet: Where's PENTAX mount? I believe many PENTAXIAN would buy this lens
As Pentax DSLRs have built in stabilization the advantages of this new lens over the 28-75 2.8 are minimal. I used to shoot Pentax, and really miss having antishake in my short lenses now that I went FF Nikon.
This lens makes much more sense for Nikon & Canon shooters who want VR / IS.
Wow where can I get one?
Since switching to Nikon (from Pentax) to get FF I've really missed having VR in my short lenses. I'll use it a lot, it allows low light shooting without a tripod - even the mighty D700 does have noise at high ISOs
Michael J Davis: It seems to me that there are two principles involved:-
1. The infringement occurs because the photographer *set out* to produce a similar image, i.e. effectively to copy the first. In that the judgement is fair.
2. The judge referred to the similarities quoting Schindler's List as a prior example of spot colour. Now copyright is NOT Patent Law, but in the latter, it is possible to quote 'prior art' as an example to object to a patent. Well, many of us were doing 'spot colour' before Schindler's List; and I would have thought that was a contra-argument against the infringement in this case.
I have to say that I'm in agreement with Jane Lambert in her analysis. And we need to be. Ideas are great and I'm happy to credit those who inspire me for their prior art; but I'm still wanting to follow them until I can produce my own original stuff!
Will there be an appeal, I wonder?
I hope the judgment is reversed on appeal.
The red bus and building have been shot millions of times by tourists in the same shot.
Selective desaturating is an overused cliche. Neither image shows any outstanding artistry. Both are guilty of unoriginality, nothing else. I don't see anything worthy of copyright.
In addition the images are shot from substantially different viewpoints.
The case should have been laughed out of court.... otherwise any tourist with a camera is potentially liable for breach of copyright!
I hope these are fixed f2.8 bright lenses and are released very soon. This is precisely what the micro 4/3 system is missing.
We dont need more kit style variable zooms, there are plenty of those. There is also a huge choice in bright primes in the short to medium tele range.
There is not a single high quality zoom. I just hope these are as good as competing systems 24-70 and 70-200 equivalent lenses!
XQD is NOT about better specs - SD does everything XQD promises. Its about making consumers buy more memory cards.
I hope the camera manufacturers stick to SD... but I'm not counting on it.