Colin Franks

Colin Franks

Lives in Canada Victoria, BC, Canada
Works as a Sign designer & maker / Logo Design
Joined on May 18, 2011

Comments

Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

To anyone considering this lens, just know that it does not accept filters. A deal-breaker for me.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2015 at 15:47 UTC as 4th comment

June?! I thought it was going to be available a lot sooner than that.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 04:41 UTC as 61st comment
In reply to:

Alphoid: I don't quite get the concept of buying off-brands for >$1000. Most Tamron lenses I've owned only lasted a few years (three out of three have developed issues of some sort), while only one of my other lenses has ever had an issue (one Sony-Zeiss had an AF motor issue). Tamron is well-known to have no useful support. I view Tamrons as basically a consumable/disposable product, and that really suggests maybe $500 as an upper bound; perhaps $750 for an f/2.8 zoom.

If I've got $1200 to spend, I'd rather get an f/4, or a little less zoom, or whatever, but get something that I don't have to worry about breaking. Canon. Nikon. New Sigma. Tokina. Sony. Pentax. Leica, Zeiss, Panasonic. Etc. Not Tamron, Opteka, Vivitar, etc.

As they say in science: "Plural of anecdote is not evidence."

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2015 at 01:28 UTC
In reply to:

Alphoid: I don't quite get the concept of buying off-brands for >$1000. Most Tamron lenses I've owned only lasted a few years (three out of three have developed issues of some sort), while only one of my other lenses has ever had an issue (one Sony-Zeiss had an AF motor issue). Tamron is well-known to have no useful support. I view Tamrons as basically a consumable/disposable product, and that really suggests maybe $500 as an upper bound; perhaps $750 for an f/2.8 zoom.

If I've got $1200 to spend, I'd rather get an f/4, or a little less zoom, or whatever, but get something that I don't have to worry about breaking. Canon. Nikon. New Sigma. Tokina. Sony. Pentax. Leica, Zeiss, Panasonic. Etc. Not Tamron, Opteka, Vivitar, etc.

Quote:
"As far as I know, they're still cheap, disposable lenses that break after a few years of use."

Is it possible that you don't take good care of your gear? Just throwing it out there as a possibility, as I've never heard of such reports as yours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmzbkcgWrIs

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2015 at 03:07 UTC
In reply to:

Alphoid: I don't quite get the concept of buying off-brands for >$1000. Most Tamron lenses I've owned only lasted a few years (three out of three have developed issues of some sort), while only one of my other lenses has ever had an issue (one Sony-Zeiss had an AF motor issue). Tamron is well-known to have no useful support. I view Tamrons as basically a consumable/disposable product, and that really suggests maybe $500 as an upper bound; perhaps $750 for an f/2.8 zoom.

If I've got $1200 to spend, I'd rather get an f/4, or a little less zoom, or whatever, but get something that I don't have to worry about breaking. Canon. Nikon. New Sigma. Tokina. Sony. Pentax. Leica, Zeiss, Panasonic. Etc. Not Tamron, Opteka, Vivitar, etc.

That may have been somewhat true years ago, but not any more. Tamron has really stepped up their game.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2015 at 07:21 UTC

I was recently considering a new wide angle, and my interest was piqued whenI heard of this new offering from Tamron, but the moment I learned that it doesn't accept filters, I went out and bought the Canon 16-35 f/4.
It seems strange to make a lens like this that will not accept filters. They're losing a lot of potential buyers.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 04:46 UTC as 25th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Perhaps using the word horrible was a bit off side; I guess I'm just weary of these sorts of images winning contests.

Onwards & upwards....

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2014 at 05:41 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Again, based on the awesomeness I see on the internet (like 500px), I just don't feel that most of the images from this contest are anything special. The owl is killer though.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2014 at 03:40 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Then I feel that you still really don't understand. After I said that I'm regularly humbled by the work of others, you still accuse me of "arrogance". This manufactured, hair-trigger reaction is understandable in our world of political correctness gone mad, so let me put it to you this way:

If you had come across these images whilst surfing the 'net (let's say on various Flickr pages or wherever), I respectfully suggest that you would certainly have not given them more than a nano-second of interest. In fact, I suggest that you would have deemed them as the epitome of "meh".

But, place them as winners or honourable mentions in a "National Geographic" contest, and suddenly you're hypnotized by them as somehow being great! And why? Well, after all, there have been some "serious" "expert" photography people who - complete with a wrinkled brow and chin in their hand while viewing said images - somehow see something that the masses cannot, and they simply must be correct.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2014 at 03:38 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Then we agree to disagree. Take the third photo in the "people" category for example. To suggest that this image (with a crooked horizon) has some deep, photographic greatness that is apparent only to "qualified" judges, smacks of the logical fallacy known as "the appeal to authority".

Historically, this is the same tactic used by religious "authorities". Don't dare question; don't dare doubt; just accept & believe like good little sheep.

If you feel that this image in particular is worthy of one of the final selections in a world-wide photo contest, that's fine, some people like the taste of liver too. Perhaps you feel that it must contain some worthiness simply because it was selected by some "judges". I do not.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2014 at 20:23 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Apparently Jeff didn't bother to read my last post.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2014 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Being snide is easy when you can hide in anonymity. My opinion is valid whether I have never taken a picture before, or am the best in the world. What I'm saying is: compared to the number of jaw-dropping, top-shelf images I see every day on the internet which make me feel like I'm a hack, these "winners" and most of the honourable mentions are just not that great.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2014 at 15:44 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

I've seen the "winners" of local contests that were truly atrocious.
I feel the following of this NatGeo contest:

People:

1: Not bad, but the winner?
2: Horrible
3: Horrible
4: Not bad
5: Pfft
6: Pfft
7: Horrific
8: Meh

Places:

Winner: Horrible
2: Meh
3: Horrible
4: Meh

Nature:

Winner: Not bad; nice tone in the B&W; might be better if the subject wasn't centered.
2: Great capture.
3: Nice, but in center
4: Awesome!
5: Meh
6: Meh
7: Meh

This contest would have had a lot of entries, and I suspect others would have been better choices.
NatGeo is always looking for that "story-telling" thing, so they have their own perspective. I must say that I am shocked at 90% of the images that NatGeo "Your Shot" places on their Facebook page - they are truly awful, complete with crooked horizons. They are so poor, that it seems they are posted without any human making the decision, or the person making the decision knows nothing about photography.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 21, 2014 at 16:51 UTC

I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 21, 2014 at 06:12 UTC as 19th comment | 16 replies
On Delkin introduces new 'Black' range of rugged SD cards article (54 comments in total)

I'm another who has had a regular SD card go through the wash without any problems, so if they price these too high, they won't have a buyer with me.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 14:39 UTC as 6th comment

How do you suspect that it will compare to the older Tamron 17-35 f/2.8?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 20:24 UTC as 25th comment
On The Month - August challenge (3 comments in total)

Well that was discouraging.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2014 at 02:08 UTC as 1st comment
On Hands in the The Silent Language of Hands challenge (10 comments in total)

Thanks very much everyone!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2013 at 04:10 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Josh152: Wow so basically flickr went and copied the look and feel of 500PX.

It would appear that there was a committee involved, and as the old saying goes: "A camel is a horse designed by a committee."

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2013 at 01:33 UTC
On Sunflowers in the Yellow Flowers challenge (9 comments in total)

Nice!

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2013 at 01:58 UTC as 5th comment
Total: 45, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »