jm67: I'm still using 24-70 ver.1 and have been awaiting comparisons of ver.1,2 and this lens. I'm getting to the point I would like VC even in this range at the end of a long day and had high hopes for the Tamron. The niggling thing for me is the AF speed. Everyone agrees it's slower than Canon but how slow is slow? I guess I'm just going to have to get a loaner or rent to find out for myself just how slow "slow" is. My only other question is...how come everyone seems to be reviewing this lens with the 5D2? Shouldn't it be stuck on to the 5D3 and/ or 6D?
Cordellwillis...no offense to anyone shooting anything other than the latest and greatest. It's just that the newest cameras have different AF systems and how this lens works with them is of concern to me. I've read mostly good things but I'll have to see for myself how slow is slow. Hobbit Mob...I appreciate the input.Tonywong...I saw that quite a while ago. Their shootout also appears to show the AF not too shabby. The only thing I've seen so far is the-digital-picture wasn't too happy about the AF consistency. Others have been happy. Again, I'll just have to pop one on for myself and see if the VC warrants losing a hair of AF speed and corner sharpness.
I'm still using 24-70 ver.1 and have been awaiting comparisons of ver.1,2 and this lens. I'm getting to the point I would like VC even in this range at the end of a long day and had high hopes for the Tamron. The niggling thing for me is the AF speed. Everyone agrees it's slower than Canon but how slow is slow? I guess I'm just going to have to get a loaner or rent to find out for myself just how slow "slow" is. My only other question is...how come everyone seems to be reviewing this lens with the 5D2? Shouldn't it be stuck on to the 5D3 and/ or 6D?
intensity studios: The ONLY reason Lightroom is not going subscription-only is because there are VERY good alternatives currently available like Capture One and Aperture.
If Lightroom had a monopoly like Photoshop does, BELIEVE IT, they would force you into a software rental.
Adobe don't care about its users wants or needs.
I would hope that most if not all users of one or the other have caught on to this but it is worthwhile to emphasize the fact. Lightroom has equals (some may say betters) while Photoshop has pale imitators.
On another note, I just got an email from OnOne assuring me that THEY will never (yes, they have the guts to use the word "never") rent their software. So far Adobe is telling them that CS6 will be supported in the next Mac/Win versions. Here's hoping Win9 is better than 8 and that this little tidbit of info is true. An alternate converter paired with CS6 for the moment seems a possibility.
awb1000: I only use Photoshop on occasion, so I see no value for me in this. I had been thinking about moving from Aperture to Lightroom, but that's off the table now.
"it makes little difference as it is a business expense."
That's a standard response I've seen in a lot of forums that I take offense at. A lot of people, Adobe included, seem to think that because you run a business (I for e.g. wedding (mainly) photographer), do not need to gripe about prices of software, cameras, computers etc. because I can simply "write it off". So very wrong. The trick to running a successful business is to spend as little as possible while getting the highest return. Lease a Honda, not a Ferrari. Just cause you can write it off, doesn't make spending loads of cash justifiable. Have to admit though, I'd love to drive from gig to gig in a Ferrari.
jm67: People are still posting here? Even I have realized that by now, Adobe just does not care. Everyone will interpret the poll differently but I see it as at best, 1 out of 5 thinks Adobe's move is good. Maybe it's more and they aren't happy about the price but will CC-it anyway but still, Adobe just does not care.
What we really need from DPReview is some constructive help. Polls are fun but we need help with alternatives and not everyone has the time and resources to download and test trials. I remember not too long ago they compared raw converters and I'm going to revisit that article. But more helpful would be a fair review of possible alternatives to photoshop. Please leave out lightroom. I need (not yet but maybe in the future, sooner or later and hopefully later) a replacement for "photoshoping", not just raw conversions. Are you up for it DPReview?
Gary....I was being generous and including 4.3+4+10.7 and rounding it up to 20. I give Adobe the benefit of the doubt. Everyone will interpret the results differently but to me I'll call it at around 20%, which does not bode well for them.
In any case, anyone looking for a raw converter should (as I did) revisit the article from January this year by DPReview.I see Greg actually posted the direct link. There are good alternatives to ACR. Still, it would be nice if DPR could stay on top of the issue by giving us a good comparison of various photo editing programs. If not now, hopefully when the competition rises to the challenge in the future so that we can have an unbiased source of information as to where we go from here.
People are still posting here? Even I have realized that by now, Adobe just does not care. Everyone will interpret the poll differently but I see it as at best, 1 out of 5 thinks Adobe's move is good. Maybe it's more and they aren't happy about the price but will CC-it anyway but still, Adobe just does not care.
riveredger: Thinking aloud ... I think the way a lot of these posters feel is the way most people feel when they get the bill from their wedding photographer
Yes, it is. Once you own it, you own it. I currently "own" (license) CS6. You can use it over and over. Once you rent it, you never own it. One day the owner will call you and ask for it back, unless you pay and pay. We're talking about two different things here and I'm sorry but your analogy to wedding photography doesn't make sense. I've yet to call up a couple from years ago and ask for a print back. Stop paying adobe and they will in effect, ask for their program back. They may have to pay me for another print, but once they have it, it's theirs to own, not rent. Once I start with CC, I rent it and "own" nothing. Or to probably put it better, I lose the use of it once I stop paying. The couple is still enjoying their photo over their mantle. Done.
Umm, yes I know. It's how I (we) make money. However, once you have a print, you have it. You can frame it, you can put in into an album, you can make a mouse pad out of it or whatever your heart desires. But you do not hang it on your wall and next month pay me another $20 or I come to your house and take it back. Big difference.
I WISH I could charge my customers like this. "If you want to keep looking at your photos, pay me $20 a month for life". Stop paying and you can't see them. Sweet. The reality is of course, I can't think of anyone who would stand for that. Odd isn't it?
Steven Brenner: Just wait, rental of cameras is next. Your camera will work for 6 months and then you will have to reauthorize its use for a fee. Either we rebel or we get %X*&#.
"Some perspective?$10/month for the first year = $120$20/month for the second year = $240$20/month for the third year = $240Total cost for 3 years = $600CS6 $600And there is no upgrade cost to the next version"How about this math...I have CS6. I've paid for it. There is no "cost" next year or any other year. I opt out of the cloud for now. Instead of an upgrade price to the next version in a few years, I now spend $720 for the next three years. I then spend $720 for the next three. And so on. Far in excess of upgrade pricing. What happens to those who in the past skipped versions? Sorry, we're forcing you to keep up now (and pay). They'll be hit even harder than those of us who faithfully upgrade constantly. I prefer to look at costs ten years in advance. $2.4k is a ton to spend on just photoshop. Oh, and currency conversions? Better hope your currency is strong vs. U.S. $. Not everyone is in the U.S.
Danamr: Seriously.Adobe is not a non-profit.Adobe is not a charity.Adobe does not owe you anything.They are in business to make money. Software piracy costs them millions of dollars a year. This goes a long way to eliminating that.Their pricing model is more than fair for what you get.This is the future. Get used to it.
"Seriously.Adobe is not a non-profit.Adobe is not a charity.Adobe does not owe you anything.They are in business to make money. Software piracy costs them millions of dollars a year. This goes a long way to eliminating that.Their pricing model is more than fair for what you get.This is the future. Get used to it."They owe us to be treated with respect. Fair pricing? What price is fair? To have prices double overnight is fair? To have a virtual monopoly gives them the right to charge this? Making money is fine, but please don't insult the intelligence of the loyal customers and tell them to simply get used to it. There is no alternative for now but wait if, just if, one appears. And piracy. I'm so sick of hearing about unsubstantiated millions lost to it. And I'm sick of hearing some people tell me I need to pay more for some theoretical losses to some swiped software. So Adobe by your logic will make up the loss by doubling my price. Why should I be ticked?
Guidenet: I'd love to be locked into CS6 and the current version of Adobe Camera RAW. Do it to me, except one big thing. Let me be able to buy camera modules for new cameras over the years.
You see, this is what Adobe has held over us in the past and still with this new rental agreement. When you get a new camera and unless you have the latest version of ACR and Photoshop, ACR will fail to recognize your RAW files. If you try to upgrade ACR to a version that will, it will often not work with your current version of Photoshop.. most often. So, you must upgrade Photoshop in order to be even able to upgrade your ACR to be able to convert the RAW files on your new camera.
So the idea that we can lock into some version really doesn't mean much. If you buy a new camera, you'll be forced to get on the wagon, same as now. There is just no choice under this rental scheme. It's a complete scam. ;-(
I completely agree with you on this, Guidenet.One possible option is to find an alternative converter, e.g. DXO that renders to your taste and send the resulting tiff to photoshop for further editing. Right now we're all just scrambling to figure out what to do. That's one of my big problems which is security in knowing where I'll be in two to three years. I have couples booking weddings a year and more in the future and I have to know where my business will be so I can mold production and costs around it. Right now all this "might", "could", "maybe" stuff is irritating. I have to know what system, program and so on I'm using. Or...jump into the CC and double my Adobe budget and pass it onto the poor bride. I'm just going to sit tight and see how the rest of the year goes. Right now there's so much speculation. But yes, so right on with the raw converter.
Can we please pick more than one? The first two are my main irritants though the third, oddly, comes in third for me.
Regardless, whatever we the users say, write, feel, Adobe knows they have a monopoly in this field. With everyone shouting (myself included) that they'll go to the competition, deep down inside we all know there is none. Not yet at least. I don't know if anyone out there has the will and money to come up with anything resembling photoshop in order to compete. Personally, I have more problems as I use Dreamweaver and design and maintain my own website. I fear I can't just tell Adobe good bye. For now I'm viable with CS6 but one day, I'll have to cave in. So Adobe's dip in revenue will be recouped in the future. I dread saying "I'll be back".
Jimmy2thou: If you add a 6th option. 'I would rather pay a one off fee to own the software I pay for' I would tick that.
Another thing. If Adobe really want to charge people for new features, why not add the option to allow us to pay for future ACR updates? I'm perfectly happy with everything in Photoshop CS6, so for me ACR is the only thing I would want to pay for. I don't want or need any anti blur features, or radial filters. I would rather know whatever camera I own in the future is supported.
The stupid thing is that for the price of Adobe Photoshop CC for 1 year I could actually buy an F1.4 lens, which would negate the need for the radial blur features anyway.
I could go on, but for me PS CS6 is all anyone really needs. Maybe a developer will bring out a plugin which works like ACR and therefore CS6 becomes the final version of Photoshop for everyone.
I really hope you listen to your users and change your mind on this.
This is another customer who will be opting out.
"If Adobe really want to charge people for new features, why not add the option to allow us to pay for future ACR updates? I'm perfectly happy with everything in Photoshop CS6, so for me ACR is the only thing I would want to pay for. I don't want or need any anti blur features, or radial filters. I would rather know whatever camera I own in the future is supported."
YES!!! I upgraded from CS3 to 4 simply so that I could open my 7D raws. I went to CS5 cause the raw processing got better. All the other bells and whistles are only that, mostly bells and whistles I don't care about. I can't figure out why Adobe can't give us Photoshop "light". We just need to open our raws and use layers and work in 16 bit. When was the last time anyone used any of the "filters" still on my filter menu? Anyone out there converting their 5D3 photos into "paintings"?
Owashi: "We don't have plans to make Lightroom a subscription-only option but we do envision added functionality for the CC version of Lightroom."
I don't like the sound of that. So we have to pay for CC or get a dumbed down version of Lightroom?
CarlosC....Check the Adobe website and you ought to be able to find the pages that actually list abilities of Elements. For one, you're stuck in 8-bit (for the most part) so for many that's a deal breaker. Raw converter is also seriously crippled. It's not a bad program but it's a far cry from the "real thing". Here's some more, straight from Adobe...
PhotoByRichard: the message is quite clear, we don't care about you
You've got it wrong. They care about you, or more specifically your wallet and how it's far too stuffed with cash. They'd like to help you lighten it.
Josh152: So it seems to me the basic message is "sorry but PHOTOshop is not really meant for photographers anymore so just buy Lightroom and shut up."
Yep, that has got to be one of the oddest things I've heard in a long time. The software synonymous with photo processing just isn't what we're supposed to be using for photos. Someone call Merriam-Webster and have them take "photoshop" out of the dictionary. Replace it with "lightroom".
dcdigitalphoto: Classic Adobe combination of ignoring the questions and not listening to people who actually have bought their software. Everyone loses from this. Hackers will find a way to circumvent their process and people who legitimately buy their software will choose not to.
Shoot foot.Reload.Shoot foot.Reload etc
"people who legitimately buy their software will choose not to"
They will but in the meantime will hope and pray someone somewhere comes up with a viable alternative.
Mssimo: Classic Question Dodge:
How do you justify the price increase to photographers?
Last year we actually cut the price of Lightroom in half in order to open it up to a broader market of photographers.
He has a career in politics. Classic example of answering a question by stating a fact that has nothing to do with the question.
jerrith: Well, actually there's only one group of users to blame and that's all those that copy the software and don't pay license fees at all. Those are the one's that make companies like Adobe look for ways how to make sure there are only legal versions available and thus turn to something like the cloud where you can't use your illegal copy of the software anymore.It's a sad fact, but it's us legal users who willingly pay for a great piece of software engineering that take the fall for all the thieves out there. For every legal version in use there are multiple illegal versions downloaded. If nobody used illegal software, companies would be able to drop their price easily as they could sell more copies. But hey, downloading software isn't stealing, right? YES IT IS!!
Oh, so now Adobe has cut off the pirates have they? Good. So that means higher revenue right? So why have they at the same time effectively doubled the price along with it? Because they can. It has nothing to do with a few illegal copies out there and everything with obscene greed.