Its Canon, its a lens, it projects an image. Get over the fact its a niche product not intended for stills.
Computer review sites run news about super computers and car review sites run news about million dollar super cars.
I wouldn't use anything thats natively wide gamut unless you can drive it with 10bit but that tech still hasn't really broken into the market yet.
shaocaholica: Why won't 1080i just die. Interlaced displays died a looooong time ago.
Broadcast standards don't really have anything to do with consumer electronics. The BBC isn't going to be using any 1080i consumer cameras to shoot their content nor will they go straight from their camera files to broadcast so I don't see the logic there.
Why won't 1080i just die. Interlaced displays died a looooong time ago.
Can someone explain why when first party camera makers started making wireless flashes years ago they didn't just go straight to radio controlled? Was there some tech barrier?
Resetting a photosite mid exposure is still 2 exposures.
I dunno. I'd rather just use a cotton carrier AND a backpack.
Bravo DPR on going straight to the article from the main page rather than having a useless buffer page!
Where does all the first party fanboyism come from? Is it a natural social trend or are there people out there pushing that reasoning? I know its existed before the internet.
How come the 7D gets a built in flash but the 6D doesn't?
Ruy Penalva: More important than examine the IQ of this lens is to analyze its weak internal construction. Avoid it.
In that case, can I sell you a solid titanium rod with a pinhole opening and a mount machined onto one end? It would be the most robust lens in the world.
shaocaholica: Is front/back focus really an issue with the lens? Generally speaking of course. I don't see how a camera with perfect sensor registration, perfect AF sensor registration and perfect viewfinder screen registration would front/back focus with any lens. The AF module keeps turning focus until it sees light in phase at the given focus point. Can someone explain how the phase detect AF module would think its in focus while the image projected on the sensor would not be in focus and all this the fault of the lens?
So really, there's nothing wrong per say with the lens. Microadjustments are really there to compensate for the AF system.
If you listen to some cheaper AF lenses, you can hear the focus gearing/motor spin in a large step, then smaller, then smaller again and so on a so forth indicating the process is iterative and akin to a binary search.
I don't think all AF lenses can 'go to a position' when the camera tells it to. I always thought it was a passive process where the camera senses, adjusts, senses, adjusts, etc. until the phase is within some threshold. I know older AF lenses don't even have the electronics/mechanics to determine what focus its at. The focussing mech typically has nothing hooked up to it to tell the lens or camera what focus position its in. I've only seen electronics for determining focal length in zooms and that only has a very large steps like 6-8 positions it can detect. If that were used for focus and lets say finer grained at 16 steps, thats still not enough steps for accurate 'go to' focus and I'm pretty sure thats not how phase detect AF works.
Is front/back focus really an issue with the lens? Generally speaking of course. I don't see how a camera with perfect sensor registration, perfect AF sensor registration and perfect viewfinder screen registration would front/back focus with any lens. The AF module keeps turning focus until it sees light in phase at the given focus point. Can someone explain how the phase detect AF module would think its in focus while the image projected on the sensor would not be in focus and all this the fault of the lens?
VivaLasVegas: It's $1000 less than Canon's v2 with IS(vc), minor optical flaws can fix in batch process. This Tamron has better IQ than Canon's v1. AF is not as fast as v2, but, is good enough. For general walk around zoom, this lens is hard to beat. How many more images can you get in low light situations with VC, 5%, 10%, 15%,....... whatever percentage it is, is it worth $1k LESS than v2?
Canon doesn't make a 24-70/2.8 IS
whawha: But why oh why don't they also make them in black??? :(
They are racist.
stopkidding: People often compare cost of m43 lenses with lenses for bigger format and assume smaller should be cheaper. In fact the converse is true. Because of the smaller sensor and denser pixel layout, m43 lenses have to be twice as sharp as full frame equivalents to resolve the same lp/mm at a given magnification.
It's harder to design a m4/3 lens than it is to design a medium format lens.
You're assuming that FF lenses are barely resolving for their sensors. Same for MF. Truth is, FF and MF lenses can resolve more than the sensors they were designed for which means a given m43 lens isn't necessarily 'twice' as sharp.
Also, the whole 'm43 costs more!' is a horrible argument in favor of the format.
VivaLasVegas: D600 is 1000% PLASTICKY.......just stating facts.
I honestly don't care at all about IQ aspects that can be fixed/matched with a single slider in post.
Whats your point? Plastics are great.